# Arguments and assumptions against multi classing



## Warpiglet (Aug 29, 2018)

I have seen a number of arguments against multiclassing.  I would like to address a few of them and clarify what seems to be the main points of contention.

1.  Multiclassing breaks the game or creates a more powerful character

2.  The sacred cows must not be butchered...we do NOT like peanut butter in our chocolate

3.  People that attempt to have a multi classed character are bad people as demonstrated by their desire to multi class (you know, just 'cause)


OK now for bait and switch.  

#1  Was fairly exhaustively discussed recently.  For the most part, people were split in their opinion about power but many concluded that single classed characters are NOT underpowered.  I will drop that issue.

#3  Yeah.  Not worth a discussion.  My default assumption is you are partially OK if you play D&D until proven otherwise.


So really I want to look at #2 for a bit.  In order to do this, I want to make use of a particular class: cleric.  Going back DECADES, the cleric was my favorite class.  In 1e AD&D I played a LG cleric of Tyr who liked to fight with a mace and flail (he got one attack!).  Later, we experimented with villains and I had a ton of fun with a LE Cleric of (I cannot recall the deity but suspect it was Bane ).

I played and really enjoyed the traditional cleric.  They have devotion to a God and it is clear in their behavior, attire and actions.  I had a friend who wanted to do something different.  He made a wood elf cleric who was in a cult that hated centaurs.  I am unsure if there was one deity that they preferred but I know he had a symbol branded on his chest for his cult and they were most assuredly evil.  But it was novel!  We had appropriate villains to run with him of course and they had hideouts, conquered things, plundered and robbed.  But the point is this: his CLASS fluff was not by the book.  Even then, we felt empowered to make this kind of thing up.

Later on official game material came out discussing clerics of ideals.  Perhaps they did not worship a deity at all!  A one time traditionalist, I sort of made a yuck face.  Not for me, but whatever.  I took a cleric of Pelor instead.

Advance from 3rd to 5th and we have Paladins clearly following ideals and only maybe a deity.  Maybe they worship no one.  Maybe they are not LG or even G either!  The fluff is changing with the rules.  

-----------------------
Enter the multi class debate...based on fluff and archetype.  

In the days long past, I admit that I cringed at quadruple-dipping  prestige classes.  "Hi!  My character, Lord Waldo is a Divine Champion-Baker Artisan-Mime-Shadowboxer-Debate Champion-Dog Wrestler!  

I am smiling as I type that absurdity and realize some (many) people used prestige classes to world build or simply make a compelling character!  I was interested in the CG Avenger a the time myself.  And it is understood that some people placed some limits that helped their particular world and game and I find no fault with such restriction.  There may have been some who did not allow prestige classes at all! (And if you are into bonus stacking and system mastery, I find NO FAULT AT ALL with you.  That is merely not my preference).

I recently read an older thread that had me thinking about this again.  The particular argument arose about the cleric warlock.  But I am getting ahead of myself.  On to my questions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT IF clerics are practitioners of "white magic."  And what if they are gain this power through the same means as a magic user or even sorcerer?  What are the implications?  Further, what if traditional cleric reside alongside these Gandalf wannabes?  What happens?  Does it break the game?

(Mechanically it should not break the game if nothing from RAW is changed save the fantasy context).  Does it break YOUR world?  (you pretend one).  I am guessing that depends on the assumptions of your world.  Mine right now is pretty much monotheistic vs. heretics.  But that is just my pretend world, right?

Now back to multiclassing.  Let us use the example here of a cleric warlock.

If my world does NOT presuppose all clerics follow jealous gods or even gods necessarily, is there any problem with the cleric warlock?  If we think that a combination of abilities will  break the game, that is a game issue that can be addressed.  But what if it is a fluff issue only?  

Why the selectivity with certain classes?  It is OK for a Paladin to follow an ideal and depending on edition, it is OK for a cleric to follow a philosophy, but NOT to multiclass a 5th edition cleric with anything that would make a god jealous?  

This leads to a follow up question: can we not imagine clerical powers from anything other than a jealous god?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, what is OK to reflavor?  If classes are fair game, why object to multi classing in 5th?  Mechanically you are not better with all but maybe a few well known instances.  Some of the threads got pretty heated and it often revolved around sacred cows of fluff.

And with this in mind, why couldn't the PC be an exception?  Where all paladins in your world MUST follow a deity, the PC is a weird exception that is fueled by X?  Do exceptions to the typical tear everything down?


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 29, 2018)

Hmmm... or you know, you could play the game the way you like multiclassing (or not) or chosen divinities (or not) and not worry about convincing others - just having gun.

Almost like say... I dont know... if it were... say... optional?


----------



## ccs (Aug 29, 2018)

In my games:
Why must clerics follow a god (or a pantheon of gods)?
Why can't cleric be MC with warlock?
Why aren't there non-LG paladins?
Why can't you play a drow or some other monster?
Etc etc etc?

All these questions and more can be summed up by the following statement:  "Because I'm the DM & that's how I'm running things."

*Works calling, so I'll return to this later....

Because


----------



## Ganymede81 (Aug 29, 2018)

I was on the fence before, but now I'm sold: Multiclassers are just bad people.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 29, 2018)

ccs said:


> In my games:
> Why must clerics follow a god (or a pantheon of gods)?
> Why can't cleric be MC with warlock?
> Why aren't there non-LG paladins?
> ...




In *our games* (as in games i play in) there is a step after the step you describe where players choose whether or not they want to play in that game.

So amazingly we end up with only getting to have actual games where there is enough agreement between both Gm and play that its the game they want to play.

So, guess its more like both sides have their own big swingings and only when they all put theirs away and reach a mutual agreement do we see play - do we actually have an "our game".

guess we are odd that way.

But gotta say - a Gm whose best answer about "why do things work this way in this world" is "because" would not inspire a lot of confidence for my players in terms of there being a world that "makes sense" **enough for my players** who usually like more in-game elements flow from in-game elements kind of feel to them. They are more inclined to like "lore" than "divine whimsy" for instance.

But thats them. it matches my style as well so... it all works out.

But many games have worked with "because" as core foundations too, i am sure.


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 29, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 29, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Dude. Relax. Gamers that prefer multiclass are not necessarily bad people, but there is a strong correlation with long posts justifying preferences.
> 
> 5e can be very flexible. Some people prefer all sorts of variety and multiclassing and view classes as an outdated concept and are looking more for a gestalt. Some people are trying to get more of an OSR feel from it with strict class boundaries.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with either approach, or the many approaches in between. Run what you like.




I'm surprised. I thought you'd be firmly against multiclassing given how many times its used specifically to take a few Paladin levels.


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 29, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 29, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> You can't multiclass with Paladin if there are no Paladins.
> 
> Gotta take out the roots of the problem, not the branches and leaves.



I think this is worth spotlighting.

Way too often it seems GM try and nibble around a core issue, replacing "solution" with "inconvenience" to discourage the issue indirectly.

Often the simplest and most successful  answer is "remove the problem".

Not endorsing the removal of paladins per se. Applauding the directness.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 29, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Dude. Relax. Gamers that prefer multiclass are not necessarily bad people, but there is a strong correlation with long posts justifying preferences.
> 
> 5e can be very flexible. Some people prefer all sorts of variety and multiclassing and view classes as an outdated concept and are looking more for a gestalt. Some people are trying to get more of an OSR feel from it with strict class boundaries.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with either approach, or the many approaches in between. Run what you like.




I was excoriated when 5e came out for fantasizing about a game with no feats and no multi classing!  (that was another forum, but I digress).  I was tired of nonsensical combinations that made me feel sort of icky.

However, back in our 1e heyday, it never occurred to us to be rigid regarding background.  It was always a discussion whether magic-user, cleric or whatever.  Maybe we were super liberal in that regard, I cannot know how our group compares to the outside world.

I know we fiercely debated what a LG paladin would/could do like many other groups.  We did not challenge their LG status.  But in my estimation both ranger and paladin had alignment and code restrictions to balance their considerable power (of course specialization attempted to change things as did 'cavalier' paladins...not sure what to say about all of that).

What I do know however is I am not adamant that my monotheistic nation is the right way (hell, I have a PC from a distant land who worships a heathen Norse deity) nor any other restriction.

Reading some of the threads I reference you will see they have a different tenor.  It is very adamant, very prescriptive and seemingly not uncommon for a good number of vocal posters.


----------



## lowkey13 (Aug 29, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## MNblockhead (Aug 29, 2018)

I like both. One reason I like shorter campaigns with milestone leveling is that I get to run a variety of different styles. 

I've run non-multiclassing and had fun. Usually, multi-classing is allowed and that's fun too.

No magic-user campaigns are fun and all magic-user campaigns are also fun. 

Of course, nothing beats an all LG Paladin game. Murder hobos have nothing on Crusaders. Paladins definitely don't make for a low-key game though.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 29, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Ignore what other people prescribe*. Live a little. End your sentences with prepositions.
> 
> Play a game with no feats and no multiclassing. Play a kitchen sink game. Ignore the haters and have some fun.
> 
> ...




There was some bad design I suppose in the sense that the first cars suck compared to any car today.  I am amazed at how cool it was to play warts and all!

As to ignoring people...yeah...but it is fun to exchange ideas and rationales sometimes.  

In the campaign I run currently, there is multi classing.  I just started as a PC in a friend's campaign...I am level two with two classes.  I don't regret either decision.  As a DM, I don't always 'like' PC decisions but I ignore them unless they are too gonzo or distracting.  Living on the edge...making old neckbeards angry!  What could be more fulfilling?

Nevertheless, people amaze me in their choices and zealotry...


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 29, 2018)

In my opinion: 

1. Multi-classing was a response to the old way of gaming where you had a main player character who kept with him a large retinue of retainers.  If you played using retainer rules then multi-classing wasn't really necessary.

2. If you use multi-classing rules then retainers become either unnecessary or less important.

So if you don't like multi-classing; just roll yourself back to 1e retainer rules and be done with the discussion.  One way or another you need to allow the players to have access to skills they don't otherwise have if the group is small.

Be well
KB


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Aug 29, 2018)

I buy a game book because I want to know how their world works. If you include the multi-classing rules, then that world isn't inherently better or worse for it, but it is more complicated for no obvious gain.

If you say that Paladins are always Lawful Good, then that is a useful note which helps me understand the world better. If you say that some Paladins are also Warlocks, then that gives me _less_ of an idea about what it means to be a Paladin.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 29, 2018)

I tend to see a correlation between multiclassing preference and whether classes are viewed as simply character building tools, or as concepts that exist within the narrative of the game world.  

If you see "wizard" or "ranger" as something that is an identifiable concept in the game world that is attached to PCs or NPCs, than multiclassing can muddy those concepts.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 29, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I buy a game book because I want to know how their world works. If you include the multi-classing rules, then that world isn't inherently better or worse for it, but it is more complicated for no obvious gain.
> 
> If you say that Paladins are always Lawful Good, then that is a useful note which helps me understand the world better. If you say that some Paladins are also Warlocks, then that gives me _less_ of an idea about what it means to be a Paladin.



To me thid gets down to a core definition of what "class" means.

You are describing classes as if they are characters - from my pov. 

I see classes as more just packages of things tied together - with a lot, vast wide gulf - or reflections of that in the "character".

A cleric war domain could be the warrior pruliest of savage barbarian tribes - and so a mc to barbarian makes that seem right. 

A cleric war domain might also be master general templar setving a holy army - maybe mc batylemaster or maybe straight war cleric.

To me the classrs are not "what it means to be a paladin" as much as its an opportunity to use these to show "what it means to be this character."

So, if it fit my setting, there would defibitely be an order (or more) of LG only types serving this god or that - but the setting defining thing is the Order, not the class.

But thats me.

The class v character debate wont ever end, its preference.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 29, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I buy a game book because I want to know how their world works. If you include the multi-classing rules, then that world isn't inherently better or worse for it, but it is more complicated for no obvious gain.
> 
> If you say that Paladins are always Lawful Good, then that is a useful note which helps me understand the world better. If you say that some Paladins are also Warlocks, then that gives me _less_ of an idea about what it means to be a Paladin.




This is an important point of clarification for me.  This really says where the PC is facing.

I realize now in my middle age that I like a collaboration which start with the player (whether I am player or DM).  PC has an idea for something fun to play.  Player present to DM.  DM suggests edits or changes that fit world.

I prefer this to the world suggests: X.  If my world has no multiclassed casters or clerics or whatever, I am actually inclined to figure out why and how the PC is unique and breaks assumptions.  Totally a style and perspective theme and realize it does not work for everyone...

Currently I pushed for monotheism and a player had an idea for a rune loving forge tending Norse character.  I found a reason for this exception in my world.  He is seen as a heathen and won't hold high station anywhere, barring extraordinary circumstances.  The party is currently engaging in things which might bend the campaign world toward their desires.  They may help save the monotheistic hierarchy.  If they do, they may be some of the first heathens to be land and office holders.  We shall see. 
I


----------



## Grognerd (Aug 29, 2018)

My _preference_ is no multiclassing in 5e. So while I wouldn't outright ban it necessarily, I would dissuade it. My rationales, such as they are:

1. The class supposedly represents more than a job or a bit of training. Supposedly - according to fluff text, sure - it represents and investment of years of training both skillsets and, far more critically, _mindsets_ into a particular role. So there is that.

2. By and large, the sub-classes within 5e eliminate the most of the old school, basic multi-class needs. Eldritch Knight covers the Fighter-Magic User. Clerics with War domains cover Fighter-Clerics (Arcana domain for multi- with Magic Users, Trickery for multi- with Thieves). Arcane Trickster for Thief-Magic User. Etc. 

3. IF - and yes, this is a big if - the campaign did go into the upper levels, the best features in a class are the upper level ones. Why miss out on what is likely the primary appeal of class X for a dip in class Y, when *generally speaking* many of the functions of class Y are already covered by either sub-classes, backgrounds (skill selection options), or (I know you won't like this) Feats.

Now, as I mentioned, those are simply my druthers. They aren't carved in stone. But I'll encourage them. The nice thing - in my opinion - about 5e is that generally speaking you don't _need_ to have every class represented, as you often seemed to in 1e (or even in 2e). In one of my current games where I am a player, it is a two person team: a Paladin of Lathander (Devotion) and a Cleric of Lathander (Life). While we are decidedly *not* stealthy, we haven't had a major problem with many situations due to skill selections, careful spell-casting, complimentary tactics, and background abilities.

Of course, YMMV. That's just my thoughts.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 29, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> My _preference_ is no multiclassing in 5e. So while I wouldn't outright ban it necessarily, I would dissuade it. My rationales, such as they are:
> 
> 1. The class supposedly represents more than a job or a bit of training. Supposedly - according to fluff text, sure - it represents and investment of years of training both skillsets and, far more critically, _mindsets_ into a particular role. So there is that.
> 
> ...



I absolutely think that discouraging choices in a campaign vs. outright banning them is the best route.  

We played evil groups a few times and had a few underdark members a few of those.  It gets damn tedious having to hide in the woods or split the party when you want to rest in a civilized area.  The "reality" of the campaign meant fewer drow for example.

As to the point about mindsets and fluff: I don't choose to negate them, I combine them.  With my recent PC, a level or two of cleric does not seem so alien for a celestial pact warlock.  Many of his spells are on the list of the warlock (some are not) and his heavier armor is in no way inconsistent with his mercenary veteran background.  I look at the history and combination as an interrelated whole and not mutually exclusionary.

The net effect in my friend's campaign has been that I have done more utility detect spells than a warlock as of 2nd level.  However, I am able to be up front more which I enjoy.  Again, I would not take my dice and go home if he said no multiclassing.  I would have taken a cleric or more likely moderately armored feat with the warlock.

The story would not be hugely different.


----------



## Grognerd (Aug 29, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> As to the point about mindsets and fluff: I don't choose to negate them, I combine them.  *With my recent PC, a level or two of cleric does not seem so alien for a celestial pact warlock*.




Where I bolded your comment: THIS is what I would call the key determinant for supporting or objecting to a multiclass. In your case, I agree entirely. Worshiping as a cleric could naturally lead to a closer and more personal pact with a servant of said deity. Heck, you could even argue that since the clerlock has an active relationship with a being who speaks directly to his deity, he actually grows _more_ in his devotion to his deity as a result -- the polar opposite of having a jealous god who objects to the warlock pact. It's all in how you frame it. And in this case, I'd agree that is a reasonable path to take (even if I'd try to avoid it).

Without that natural/organic pattern, though, too often MC simply looks like an attempt to game the system. To me, at least.


----------



## Riley37 (Aug 30, 2018)

There are, in the real world, people with both legal and medical expertise, carpenters who then become actors (Harrison Ford), and so forth. Some special-operations soldiers might be Fighters with dips in Rogue and Monk. Paul Robeson had about as many skill sets as Buckaroo Banzai. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson)

IMO, when a player games the system, the price is coming up with a story, which both justifies the MC, and also *entertains the other players (and the DM)* with its narrative depth. If an NPC asks the PC why the PC has skill-sets from multiple career paths, the PC should have a good answer.


----------



## Seramus (Aug 30, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I buy a game book because I want to know how their world works. If you include the multi-classing rules, then that world isn't inherently better or worse for it, but it is more complicated for no obvious gain.
> 
> If you say that Paladins are always Lawful Good, then that is a useful note which helps me understand the world better. If you say that some Paladins are also Warlocks, then that gives me _less_ of an idea about what it means to be a Paladin.



Lack of Multiclassing seems like it would inform the world *more* than the presence of Multiclassing. Caste systems and Destiny would probably play a really major role, especially since you could only ever be 'great' at one thing when you are born. Or, if you are mutable until you choose a class, it would become a fateful decision about what caste you are going to enter into because you could never take back that decision. 

Imagine the pressure your parents might put on you to enter into a wizard college, but you really want to be with your hometown fighter romance. Or you were feeling rebellious as a teenager and picked up a level of Rogue, but now you can't be anything but a Rogue and it was your biggest regret in life now that you are middle aged.

You could build an entire plot around a power mad cleric who forces everyone to become a Level 1 Fighter, so that nobody can become a cleric and challenge his divine superiority.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 30, 2018)

Seramus said:


> Lack of Multiclassing seems like it would inform the world *more* than the presence of Multiclassing. Caste systems and Destiny would probably play a really major role, especially since you could only ever be 'great' at one thing when you are born. Or, if you are mutable until you choose a class, it would become a fateful decision about what caste you are going to enter into because you could never take back that decision.
> 
> Imagine the pressure your parents might put on you to enter into a wizard college, but you really want to be with your hometown fighter romance. Or you were feeling rebellious as a teenager and picked up a level of Rogue, but now you can't be anything but a Rogue and it was your biggest regret in life now that you are middle aged.
> 
> You could build an entire plot around a power mad cleric who forces everyone to become a Level 1 Fighter, so that nobody can become a cleric and challenge his divine superiority.




IMO what you are describing is a society, not "classes of character building."

Even in rigid caste systems there were outliers, outlaws, folks who developed in secret cross-caste efforts/experiences/professions etc. 

Additionally, there were in some caste systems quite a bit of leeway allowed depending on status. At some lower caste levels whether one was rogue or fighter or fighter-rogue or whether or not the witch was also a pickpocket etc... and at higher levels when one had enough money and privy and privacy one could still "indulge" other pursuits - as long as one was discrete.

In short, the society acceptance of castes and such has little to do with the actual allowance in the game of multi-classing. All removing multi-classing entirely does is prevent certain options - that doesn't **add more story** that otherwise could not happen. 

if it did, the most storied game would be "only fighters allowed" cuz then we have the most clearly defined world of all.

But basically, if the only option is single-classing, it isn't going to seem restrictive in the world... its just "normal". the restrictive nature of "caste systems of societies" stand out in the presence of other more flexible alternatives. Without contrast their is only monochrome.


----------



## Seramus (Aug 30, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> IMO what you are describing is a society, not "classes of character building."



No, I definitely think they are intrinsically linked. There will always be outliers, but society is otherwise defined by the mechanics of the world (even if many of those mechanics are abstracts). If there is a literal mechanic that prevents excelling in certain skill sets, or outright prevents group A from learning what group B knows, people within that world are going to notice and responding accordingly.

Now, the big disclaimer here is how many levels are assumed to be the average in your setting. In a world where almost nobody has levels, then this is a completely moot issue because anyone with a meaningful amount of levels is the outlier. But as the average level of your world increases (like Eberron for example) these things become increasingly noticeable, and inform the world.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 30, 2018)

Seramus said:


> Lack of Multiclassing seems like it would inform the world *more* than the presence of Multiclassing. Caste systems and Destiny would probably play a really major role, especially since you could only ever be 'great' at one thing when you are born. Or, if you are mutable until you choose a class, it would become a fateful decision about what caste you are going to enter into because you could never take back that decision.




PC rules are not world building rules.

People in the world should hopefully be doing other things than PCs. PC rules are for creating characters in a fantasy action story. That's it.

Multiclassing muddles the archetypes and is unnecessary. It's good for characters at the table to have clear and distinct abilities. With that as a foundation it is easier for them to stand out with characterization. If everyone is a mishmash of different classes then building identities in the game is harder.

The biggest knock against it is that it is clunky and uneven. Classes are built as a chassis. When you combine them together they don't behave properly. A Fighter/Wizard is different than a Wizard/Fighter for example.

D&D is a class based system. That has strengths and weaknesses. Undermining the classes with multiclassing results in the downsides of a class based game and the downsides of a classless game. The subclass system is an elegant solution to the mess of multiclassing that D&D has been plagued with.


----------



## Seramus (Aug 30, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> PC rules are not world building rules.
> 
> People in the world should hopefully be doing other things than PCs. PC rules are for creating characters in a fantasy action story. That's it.



You can certainly run it that way, and that does give the GM a lot of freedom to handwave whatever he wants, but then you get into awkward questions about why your characters seem to have learning disabilities.


----------



## Sadras (Aug 30, 2018)

The way I see it, multiclassing exists to _fix_ the fact that the inherent game does not possess a classless/skill-tree system.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 30, 2018)

Sadras said:


> The way I see it, multiclassing exists to _fix_ the fact that the inherent game does not possess a classless/skill-tree system.




It is a fundamental part of the system. If you don't like class based games you should play a different game.

Multiclassing just creates the worst aspects of both.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 30, 2018)

Enkhidu said:


> I'm surprised. I thought you'd be firmly against multiclassing given how many times its used specifically to take a few Paladin levels.




Are we talking white room theorycrafting or actual play experience.

Because, IME, paladin is almost never chosen as a second class.  Fighters are by far the most common second class IME.  I've yet to see a player start as one class and then MC into paladin.  Maybe my group is just strange.


----------



## Sadras (Aug 30, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> It is a fundamental part of the system. If you don't like class based games you should play a different game. Multiclassing just creates the worst aspects of both.




I'm not so phased about it, certainly not in 5e.
In our two play groups of 9 players, only one has a MC character - so I cannot offer any valuable insight.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2018)

Not really a poke against multi classing, but some things I find odd...

The best smites come from someone who multi classes and takes only a few levels of paladin then go primary spell caster.

If you are a magic user you can increase your potential by dipping into cleric.  Because clerics know there entire spell list, one level of cleric delays higher level spells a bit (but not slots) but grants you instant healing and buffs that you can cast. 


because you don't loose out on slots, just spells known you end up with wonky things with spell casting...


Personal Experience:
I thought I was being 'nice' to a new DM when I multi classed my 5th level character (concept was originally the healer/priest) because it was his first game of 5e he ran (had not run since 3.0). the only prime spell caster was a blaster warlock, and he told us he planed on running from 5th-17thish level... so I knew high level spells could mess up his idea, I figured I would dip a bit and loose out on high level spells... so at level 5 I was a Paladin 2 Druid 1 Cleric 2. This would mean even though I started with 2nd level slots (and I would go up cleric so next level I would have 3rd level slots) but only knowing 1st level spells...but I knew a TON of 1st level spells...  but opps I ended up still being OP in the group.


----------



## Arial Black (Aug 30, 2018)

I fundamentally disagree with your stance on multiclassing.



ad_hoc said:


> Multiclassing muddles the archetypes and is unnecessary.




Archetypes? I'll make my own damn archetypes, thank you very much! I'm not interested in playing a cardboard cut-out clone of everyone else's paladin (Where's your plate armour? You're not a _real_ paladin without plate armour!), warlock (No, all warlocks are evil in _my_ world!), barbarian (the only allowed background for barbarians is Outlander, otherwise you're not a _real_ barbarian!), etc.

Unnecessary? Sure. Just like rogues are not necessary. Just like sorcerers, bards, greatswords, _mage armour_, skills! _None_ of these are 'necessary'! If we banned everything that was unnecessary then we'd just have fighting men, wizards and clerics, all weapons would do 1d6 damage, and there is no need to level up at all! 



> It's good for characters at the table to have clear and distinct abilities.




Implying that, automatically, multiclass PCs do not have clear and distinct abilities. Strange, when I look at the character sheets of both single and multiclass PCs, each has a list of their class abilities. No difference at all in the clarity of these abilities.

Distinct? In what way? Making every fighter identical to every other fighter? Multiclassing makes for far more 'distinct' individuals than single class PCs in terms of abilities possessed.



> With that as a foundation it is easier for them to stand out with characterization. If everyone is a mishmash of different classes then building identities in the game is harder.




The opposite is true. Characterisation comes from _me_ not the book! If we all had to play the same 11 classes, our PC would not stand out at all!

What you are talking about is that each class would be played differently. Sure. But that is a circular argument: "It's easier to play each class differently because each class is played differently". But I'm not remotely interested in playing a 'class'; I'm playing a 'character!



> The biggest knock against it is that it is clunky and uneven. Classes are built as a chassis. When you combine them together they don't behave properly. A Fighter/Wizard is different than a Wizard/Fighter for example.




I'm totally happy with my PC. It plays the way I want it to because I chose (within the limits of the RAW and those set by the DM) each class level and the abilities that went with them. I did this knowing exactly what I was doing.

It makes it easy for brand new players to play single class PCs because the thought that goes into creating a PC _that works_ has been done for them. You really have to know what you're doing to make an _effective_ multiclass PC. But I've been playing for 40 years now; I've got the hang of it! 



> D&D is a class based system. That has strengths and weaknesses. Undermining the classes with multiclassing results in the downsides of a class based game and the downsides of a classless game. The subclass system is an elegant solution to the mess of multiclassing that D&D has been plagued with.




I have another take on this: D&D is a class based system. That has strengths and weaknesses. Multiclassing, done well, can eliminate (or greatly mitigate) those weaknesses, leaving the strengths of the class based system intact while gaining the strengths of classless systems too.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 30, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> I fundamentally disagree with your stance on multiclassing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have no problem with the absence of optional rules for a specific campaign.  I can have fun almost anywhere.  However, I find your arguments to be compelling and I am probably starting to lean this way: finding that by allowing multiclassing there is probably more benefit than problem.

I like that it is optional from campaign to campaign...but am starting to prefer its inclusion.  This is a long way from where I started in 5e.  At the very start I got very excited about creating AD&D 1e with clearer rules and resolutions and up do date rules and mechanics.  I think now I am good with 5e as its own thing.

As grown ups with decades of gaming behind us (hell with a decade break in the middle for me....damn school) I feel mature enough to consider the gameworld and other players while indulging my own desire for certain in game abilities.  Really, some are merely flavor if you think it through.  How different is a fighter 1 wizard X from a mountain dwarf wizard who had armor and axes built in?  Maybe I want to play that way but want to picture a human hero instead.  Not exactly world breaking for me but I respect that others might argue the dwarf lived longer and had more time to learn both or what have you.

So I have decided to accept 5e's bounty and let a little of my grog-ness recede.  I still think Gygax is the King of All Entertainment (tm), nevertheless.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 30, 2018)

Sadras said:


> The way I see it, multiclassing exists to _fix_ the fact that the inherent game does not possess a classless/skill-tree system.




the classed vs classless religious divide will never end.

IMO each serve different masters.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 30, 2018)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Not really a poke against multi classing, but some things I find odd...
> 
> *The best smites come from someone who multi classes and takes only a few levels of paladin then go primary spell caster.
> *
> ...




Bold - You describe a way to maximize smite at the expense of the other benefits from pally. trade-off to get what you want.

italics - trade off access/rate to higher level spells and ASi in exchange for low level cleric abilities - trade-off. not an increase in potential - an exchange of benefits.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Aug 30, 2018)

Seramus said:


> Lack of Multiclassing seems like it would inform the world *more* than the presence of Multiclassing.



That's pretty much what I said, yes. If there's no multiclassing, then we know more about how the world works. Without multiclassing, each class represents a rigidly codified archetype that is present in the world. With multiclassing, each class is generalized down to a set of related but learn-able abilities.



Seramus said:


> Now, the big disclaimer here is how many levels are assumed to be the average in your setting. In a world where almost nobody has levels, then this is a completely moot issue because anyone with a meaningful amount of levels is the outlier. But as the average level of your world increases (like Eberron for example) these things become increasingly noticeable, and inform the world.



For a very long time, the average character level in a setting was assumed to be less than one. Even in the Forgotten Realms. Most men-at-arms or town guards were not even level 1 fighters. Any individual even having the _option_ to pursue a path of power - being accepted as a wizard's apprentice, or stumbling across a druid's grove as a child - was a rare exception to the rule. Paladins were assumed to be so rare that the idea of one _also_ having been raised by druids, or chancing into some other incredibly rare class, would have been implausible.

If one in a million people are druids, and one in a million are paladins, then the likelihood of someone being both is too small to bother modeling.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 30, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> That's pretty much what I said, yes. If there's no multiclassing, then we know more about how the world works. Without multiclassing, each class represents a rigidly codified archetype that is present in the world. With multiclassing, each class is generalized down to a set of related but learn-able abilities.
> 
> For a very long time, the average character level in a setting was assumed to be less than one. Even in the Forgotten Realms. Most men-at-arms or town guards were not even level 1 fighters. Any individual even having the _option_ to pursue a path of power - being accepted as a wizard's apprentice, or stumbling across a druid's grove as a child - was a rare exception to the rule. Paladins were assumed to be so rare that the idea of one _also_ having been raised by druids, or chancing into some other incredibly rare class, would have been implausible.
> 
> If one in a million people are druids, and one in a million are paladins, then the likelihood of someone being both is too small to bother modeling.




This makes a lot of sense if the fluff is accepted as is.

However, if the character represents a holy guardian of the wood, selected by Obad-hai himself, then he is simply one in a million if the source of power and training has a common source.

This is sort of my point about sacred cows.  When we played 1e, we would have chuckled at the thougt; then again no one would have had the prerequisite ability scores to do it in the first place.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Aug 30, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> This makes a lot of sense if the fluff is accepted as is.



Okay, but why did you buy the book, if you don't care about how the world _actually_ works?

That was my one big problem with 4E, is that all of the fluff was so mutable, there was no way to tell what was really going on there.


Warpiglet said:


> However, if the character represents a holy guardian of the wood, selected by Obad-hai himself, then he is simply one in a million if the source of power and training has a common source.



One of the things I miss about AD&D was when they described weird corner-case scenarios, like this one. It was probably one of the priest books, or maybe just Deities & Demigods, but it would tell you outright that a god of nature was served by druids (rather than some sort of cleric that could cast nature spells); just as the clergy for a god of magic was made up of wizards (rather than divine spellcasters), and the high priest of the thief god was just a high-level thief.

They didn't feel compelled to invent entire new sets of class abilities to cover obscure situations that would probably never even come up in most worlds.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 30, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> *Okay, but why did you buy the book, if you don't care about how the world actually works?*
> 
> That was my one big problem with 4E, is that all of the fluff was so mutable, there was no way to tell what was really going on there.
> One of the things I miss about AD&D was when they described weird corner-case scenarios, like this one. It was probably one of the priest books, or maybe just Deities & Demigods, but it would tell you outright that a god of nature was served by druids (rather than some sort of cleric that could cast nature spells); just as the clergy for a god of magic was made up of wizards (rather than divine spellcasters), and the high priest of the thief god was just a high-level thief.
> ...




I bought the book PHB to use it to run games in *my* or *our* worlds, not to be a one true world. 5e is intended to represent a lot of different worlds, not just one. that seems very clearly ingrained in its design, its mechanics, its options and its so-called "fluff."

The book PHB serves me well right now in two very different worlds.

i expect it will serve me well in many more.

I dont even expect to buy a specific setting book with the idea of using it as written - but for what i can use it for in the games and worlds and settings i want.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Aug 30, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I bought the book PHB to use it to run games in *my* or *our* worlds, not to be a one true world. 5e is intended to represent a lot of different worlds, not just one. that seems very clearly ingrained in its design, its mechanics, its options and its so-called "fluff."



By default, the PHB does a pretty good job of representing the Forgotten Realms. It can be adapted to represent a number of other settings, but the expectation is that you actually get in there and change things where necessary.

That was actually one of my favorite parts of the 5E DMG, was the section on how to change the mechanics to represent different settings. It's not that the fluff is meaningless - the fluff reflects how the world is supposed to work - but it's relatively easy to change the mechanics if you want to reflect some different sort of reality.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 30, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Okay, but why did you buy the book, if you don't care about how the world _actually_ works?
> 
> That was my one big problem with 4E, is that all of the fluff was so mutable, there was no way to tell what was really going on there.
> One of the things I miss about AD&D was when they described weird corner-case scenarios, like this one. It was probably one of the priest books, or maybe just Deities & Demigods, but it would tell you outright that a god of nature was served by druids (rather than some sort of cleric that could cast nature spells); just as the clergy for a god of magic was made up of wizards (rather than divine spellcasters), and the high priest of the thief god was just a high-level thief.
> ...




It is interesting you say this.  I think I know where you are coming from...however I  just realized something.

In 1e, there was multiclassing and dual classing.  It always existed.  So did bards!  You take levels in fighter, thief and then bard!  But more to the point about fluff/ fiction...

A half orc in 1e could be a cleric assassin or a fighter assassin.  No one blinked an eye (that I gamed with) or even spoke with.  What is more, half orcs are short lived in the old game and not particularly talented in learning, adapting or any mental pursuit.  Yet in their short lives they could multiclass...

I don't recall much debate about identity or archetype or lines being blurred.

What I am starting to think and suggest is that some of the sacred cows might be "false memories."  And this only just occurred to me today.  Now all of this was ostensibly balanced by limited levels (sort of...a half orc in its short life could attain 10th level fighter and 15th assassin!) but the point stands.

The assertion that multiclassing is impure or a challenge to the traditional game's archetypes is off base unless we are talking about something pre AD&D 1e. 

 Upon reflection, I think multiclassing in 1e is not what needed to be explained--but rather the inability of a human to do so (particularly in light of half orcs, bards and dual classing!).

I have no issue if optional rules in 5e are dropped for taste.  I just really disagree that it is  fundamental to the identity of the game.  The fluff was spuriously immutable from the start.  I believe that the restrictions in multiclassing (no humans) and level attainment was a game balance issue first and foremost, however it was rationalized.  

I think the current multiclassing and latest edition of the game make this a non issue.  I don't think multiclassing is particularly overpowered.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Aug 30, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> The assertion that multiclassing is impure or a challenge to the traditional game's archetypes is off base unless we are talking about something pre AD&D 1e.



I can't speak for anyone else on the matter, but my argument against multi-classing is based on its own merits, rather than historical precedent. The degree to which I dislike the mechanic is not respective of how long it's been around, or in which editions. It has been around for quite a while, though, especially if you consider the Elf class to be a multi-class Fighter/Wizard.


Warpiglet said:


> Upon reflection, I think multiclassing in 1e is not what needed to be explained--but rather the inability of a human to do so (particularly in light of half orcs, bards and dual classing!).



That's much more straight-forward. Gygax wanted to promote humans as being the best and most important characters, so he created rules where only a human could keep adventuring forever to gain unlimited power. Multi-classing existed for non-humans as a means of off-setting their inherent level restrictions, so that you didn't have to retire your half-orc thief after they reached level 4.

I'm not saying that the rules were elegant, or made any sense within the world, but it's easy to understand why they existed as they did. Most weirdness from early editions can be attributed to the designers being pioneers within the field, and thus having no idea what they were doing.

*But also, the priests of a god of magic were actually just wizards, and the priest of a nature god was just a druid. The default pantheons (probably until later in 2E) were still very human-centric, and humans couldn't be multi-class wizard/priests. (And nobody but a human or half-elf could be a druid.)


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 30, 2018)

The multiclassing rules have always been allowed in our 5E campaign ever since we switched to the new edition.  But nobody has ever rolled up a multiclass character, not even a temporary one for a one-shot game.

I think the archetypes make a lot of multiclassing options obsolete for our group.  Your fighter doesn't need to take levels of wizard, or build toward a prestige class...now, just go with Eldritch Knight and keep your fighter's advancement on track.


----------



## ad_hoc (Aug 30, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Distinct? In what way? Making every fighter identical to every other fighter? Multiclassing makes for far more 'distinct' individuals than single class PCs in terms of abilities possessed.




Wait, doesn't characterization come from you? Why would the characters be identical just because they are the same in the book if the characterization comes from you?



> The opposite is true. Characterisation comes from _me_ not the book! If we all had to play the same 11 classes, our PC would not stand out at all!




If it comes from you then why would the same 11 classes result in characters not standing out? Why would that matter?

If the characterization comes from you why play D&D? Why not just make everything up freeform? Why be restrained by rules at all? If fewer constraints makes for better more memorable characters then the answer is to not have constraints. So have a classless system! Only that would still be constrained by what could be purchased with points and such, so just don't have any rules at all! Allow characters to be whatever the people at the table imagine. That will surely result in memorable and exciting games.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 31, 2018)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Not really a poke against multi classing, but some things I find odd...
> 
> The best smites come from someone who multi classes and takes only a few levels of paladin then go primary spell caster.
> 
> ...




If Paladin 2/Druid 1/Cleric 2 is the most powerful 5th level character in the group, something is seriously wrong.  Good grief, a Druid 5 is far, far more powerful than this character.  Better shape change and access to 3rd level spells?  A 5th level Land Druid can potentially cast fireball and there's nothing in your character that comes even close to the damage potential of that.  Sure, you've got tons of 1st level spell choices, but, losing out on 2nd AND 3rd level spells?  

Sorry, not seeing it.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 31, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> The subclass system is an elegant solution to the mess of multiclassing that D&D has been plagued with.



My opinion on the "elegance" of subclass multiclassing has not changed since the last time you sang its praises.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Wait, doesn't characterization come from you? Why would the characters be identical just because they are the same in the book if the characterization comes from you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look, its the "if a pinch of salt makes supper taste better, adding a pound of salt must make it great" argument.


----------



## GameOgre (Aug 31, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> In *our games* (as in games i play in) there is a step after the step you describe where players choose whether or not they want to play in that game.
> 
> So amazingly we end up with only getting to have actual games where there is enough agreement between both Gm and play that its the game they want to play.
> 
> ...




Shrug, Most Dm's have house rules and strange setting options or non-options and use or don't use optional rules as they see fit. In my experience players are many and DM's who can run a game are so few that if the game is good the DM gets a full table no matter what his personal add ons or no no's are. If it's no multiclassing or only playing Pathfinder or AD&D or OD&D or fate........players really want to play and will do just about anything for a decent game.


----------



## pogre (Aug 31, 2018)

If multiclassing makes the game more enjoyable for a player and they can "kind of" justify it from a roleplaying perspective - have at it I say.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 31, 2018)

Hussar said:


> If Paladin 2/Druid 1/Cleric 2 is the most powerful 5th level character in the group, something is seriously wrong.  Good grief, a Druid 5 is far, far more powerful than this character.  Better shape change and access to 3rd level spells?  A 5th level Land Druid can potentially cast fireball and there's nothing in your character that comes even close to the damage potential of that.  Sure, you've got tons of 1st level spell choices, but, losing out on 2nd AND 3rd level spells?
> 
> Sorry, not seeing it.




I had an AC through the roof, I was good in melee and a great healer, and I could smite for nasty damage. I was pretty much the DPR king and had 2nd best HP and tied for 2nd best AC. The only one that was close would be the warlock, who could eldritch blast for 2 1d10 blasts...


----------



## Arial Black (Aug 31, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Look, its the "if a pinch of salt makes supper taste better, adding a pound of salt must make it great" argument.




Sekyu, this was your reply to one of Ad Hoc's posts. My first post in this thread was a reply to an earlier Ad Hoc post. But now, I cannot find ANY of Ad Hoc's posts in this thread!

What's going on?


----------



## ccs (Aug 31, 2018)

_Quote Originally Posted by ccs View Post 

In my games:
 Why must clerics follow a god (or a pantheon of gods)?
 Why can't cleric be MC with warlock?
 Why aren't there non-LG paladins?
 Why can't you play a drow or some other monster?
 Etc etc etc?

 All these questions and more can be summed up by the following statement: "Because I'm the DM & that's how I'm running things."

 *Works calling, so I'll return to this later....

 Because_



5ekyu said:


> In *our games* (as in games i play in) there is a step after the step you describe where players choose whether or not they want to play in that game.
> 
> So amazingly we end up with only getting to have actual games where there is enough agreement between both Gm and play that its the game they want to play.
> 
> ...




Like I said, work was calling & I got cut off from finishing the post.  I just got back around to finishing it a bit later than I thought....

1) I didn't think I needed to specify buy-in as a step in the process.  If I'm DMing there's already buy-in.

2) The reason isn't simply "because".  It's because over the years I've identified things that I don't enjoy DMing for &/or aren't compatible with the world I'm running.  Same as any other DM.  The former is really the most important though.  Because if I'm not enjoying DMing then it's a waste of my time.  And since I'm not paid to do this, guess what?  That's right, I don't have to do something I'm not enjoying.  
So.  If you want to play, pick one of the many many other options that're still available & just save your MC Warlock-Paladin/Cleric build, your non-LG paladins, non-religious divine casters, monster PCs, Drow (and eventually psionics) for some one elses campaign.

The people I play with?  They already know & accept this.
New people?  They learn this before they're allowed to roll up a character.  If they're making a character, that means they're OK enough with it.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 31, 2018)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I had an AC through the roof, I was good in melee and a great healer, and I could smite for nasty damage. I was pretty much the DPR king and had 2nd best HP and tied for 2nd best AC. The only one that was close would be the warlock, who could eldritch blast for 2 1d10 blasts...




Again, how?

A Paladin 5 attacks 2/round, so, right off the bat, he's doubling the damage output of this character.  Never minding having 6 smites/day plus whatever subclass powers and additional lay on hands.  How is your AC any better than a normal Paladin?  Full plate and shield plus, maybe Shield of Faith (which the 5th level pally can cast anyway).  Nothing clerics or druids get at 1st and 2nd level really boosts AC.  

I'm sorry, but, again, I'm really, really not seeing it.  Your group must have been incredibly ineffective if the strongest DPR character in the group is this one.  Good grief, a 5th level Champion would put this character to shame and that's probably the weakest DPR character in the game.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

GameOgre said:


> Shrug, Most Dm's have house rules and strange setting options or non-options and use or don't use optional rules as they see fit. In my experience players are many and DM's who can run a game are so few that if the game is good the DM gets a full table no matter what his personal add ons or no no's are. If it's no multiclassing or only playing Pathfinder or AD&D or OD&D or fate........players really want to play and will do just about anything for a decent game.



That last sentence "for a decent game" is pretty much exactly what i was saying abd what we seem to agree on. 

Most of the time i have seen it "because i said so" does not equate in players' eyes to "a decent game."


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Sekyu, this was your reply to one of Ad Hoc's posts. My first post in this thread was a reply to an earlier Ad Hoc post. But now, I cannot find ANY of Ad Hoc's posts in this thread!
> 
> What's going on?



Did ah hoc block you?


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

ccs said:


> _Quote Originally Posted by ccs View Post
> 
> In my games:
> Why must clerics follow a god (or a pantheon of gods)?
> ...



I find for me there is a universe of enjoyable gameplay between "because i said so" and "DMing stuff i dont like" and also plenty of players who want to share a game in those places. 

So neither of those has to drive my games either way.

Then again...

As i said in the ezrlier post...

"in terms of there being a world that "makes sense" **enough for my players** who usually like more in-game elements flow from in-game elements kind of feel to them."

If the answers to why not you provide is more than "because" and includes within the  world why it makes sense that a divine being aka god is utterly incapable of sending an intermediary being to aid a chosen champion in a patron- warlock multiclass mode ("aren't compatible with the world I'm running") we may be seeing more than just because i said so and more players might buy in.

In my games its typically more frequent for divine being to use such intermediaries (really, kind of in a way - the clerics are just such themselves.) So having one intermediary collaborate (as patron) with another "junior" to "teach him the ropes" that the divine sees as a good idea... Not at all beyond the scope of divine being in my world - of any ilk.

Different ideas of what "gods" are capable of i suppose - and thats fine.


----------



## Seramus (Aug 31, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Sekyu, this was your reply to one of Ad Hoc's posts. My first post in this thread was a reply to an earlier Ad Hoc post. But now, I cannot find ANY of Ad Hoc's posts in this thread!
> 
> What's going on?



That sounds like a Block. It means you cannot see his posts, and he cannot see your posts. You also cannot see entire threads if he started them, even if you have replies in them from before the block.


----------



## GameOgre (Aug 31, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> That last sentence "for a decent game" is pretty much exactly what i was saying abd what we seem to agree on.
> 
> Most of the time i have seen it "because i said so" does not equate in players' eyes to "a decent game."




Decent game has nothing to do with rules. A good DM can run a game in the worst rpg and have the players cheering for more.


----------



## Sadras (Aug 31, 2018)

Seramus said:


> That sounds like a Block. It means you cannot see his posts, and he cannot see your posts. You also cannot see entire threads if he started them, even if you have replies in them from before the block.




It is a pity because the block feature also messes with the post count sadly and linking posts.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

GameOgre said:


> Decent game has nothing to do with rules. A good DM can run a game in the worst rpg and have the players cheering for more.



Obvioulsy, we were talking about the rules being **used** in actual play, in actual impacting player choices - not the printed rules of an rpg system.

In my experience decent game and rules the gm uses and how much of the world makes sense internally  vs "because i said so" have an awful lot to do with each other. They are intrinsically linked. 

When i have seen myself GMs run good games with bad "RPG systems" and get great success it has always involved choosing to remove or alter the bad rules that would otherwise get in the way of fun - either by actual stated house rules, on the fly handwaving or even just choosing to emphasize encounters, challenges and setting elements that push the bad rules to the side and spotlight the good rules more. The rules that serve up more fun are shown more, the rules that hurt fun more dont get as much screen time if any.

I suspect thats what you categorize as "good gm" and is likely a big part of his results.


----------



## smbakeresq (Aug 31, 2018)

The only thing I require to Multiclass is a good reason and explanation on how it fits into your PC background and development.  

For example, it makes sense to start as Barbarian and then take professional training (MC as a fighter.). It does not make sense to start as a fighter and then become barbaric unless somehow the PC lives with a tribe, or befriends a barbarian who teaches him to focus his rage, or something like that.

I am real big on PC background and life development and will greatly aid players that put the time and effort in.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The only thing I require to Multiclass is a good reason and explanation on how it fits into your PC background and development.
> 
> For example, it makes sense to start as Barbarian and then take professional training (MC as a fighter.). It does not make sense to start as a fighter and then become barbaric unless somehow the PC lives with a tribe, or befriends a barbarian who teaches him to focus his rage, or something like that.
> 
> I am real big on PC background and life development and will greatly aid players that put the time and effort in.



Exactly.

I dont pre-ban any MC that meets the rules. 

I may or may not allow specific character options that are megally permitted by the rules in general if they are concretely inappropriate for the current situation.

If you want a warlock swerve, establish in your background and play a connection and series of experiences that plants the seeds of a patron- hook-up that can bloom when both appropriate and desired.

A man raised in barbie tribe, relocated to civilized and trained fighter, who then rediscovers his heritage is a classic story of myth and fiction with many real world analogs to draw on. Insert a dramatic event to create the right timing and viola.

Or you could just say "no because i said so..." But there's a lot of very fertile fun lost in that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 31, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Again, how?
> 
> A Paladin 5 attacks 2/round, so, right off the bat, he's doubling the damage output of this character.  Never minding having 6 smites/day plus whatever subclass powers and additional lay on hands.  How is your AC any better than a normal Paladin?  Full plate and shield plus, maybe Shield of Faith (which the 5th level pally can cast anyway).  Nothing clerics or druids get at 1st and 2nd level really boosts AC.
> 
> I'm sorry, but, again, I'm really, really not seeing it.  Your group must have been incredibly ineffective if the strongest DPR character in the group is this one.  Good grief, a 5th level Champion would put this character to shame and that's probably the weakest DPR character in the game.





we didn't have a 5th level paladin  to compare it to, that game had 6 of us 5 players (all started at 5th and made it to 9th before imploding) and a DM

I was a Paladin Druid Cleric (I started 2/1/2, and ended 2/1/6) 
We had:
a halfling Great Old One Sword pact Warlock 7/fighter 2 (he only picked fighter levels in play)
a dwarf Beastmaster Ranger 9
a human (variant) Fighter/Rogue (I can't remember which was 3rd level to start) ended 4/5 eldritch knight mastermind
a human (reg phb) shadow monk 5 who ended as a shadow monk 6 shadow sorcerer 3

the warlock had almost no GOOD spells even in the end, he basically counted on eldritch blast, the fighter rogue at the end was close to me but that was it. The only person making multi attacks was the monk, and the ranger (but his stupid bird almost never hit)

I had wooden breastplate armor and a shield and an +2 dex +1 fighting style so I had a 19 same as the monk one worse then the fighter/rogue in mithril plate with a shield (But he didn't get that until near the end of the campaign)

I would use the druid cantrip Shillelagh to use my wisdom to hit and damage with melee weapon, since that made me the highest melee stat in the game that already gave me DPR, but I also had a +1 club that was droped as 1st treasure so I was also up by that.  +4 wis, +2 prof +1 magic gave me a +7 to pretty much start the game. I had lay on hands and smite(fully powered with 2nd level spells) and the healing/life domain made my healing better so every night before bed I cast goodberry uped in level with every slot so out of combat I had tons of healing unless I used up all my slots. (in the end my 4th level good berry healed 1+6 or 7hp per berry 10 berries, so if we took 1 day to travel I had 20 7hp berries to give out plus 30 6hp plus 40 5hp plus 40 4hp...so almost 700hp out of combat healing).


edit: player of the warlock was PISSED that he didn't have a way to attack with cha but I had a way to attack with WIS, so he did go more ranged with eldritch blast that did come close to being as good, he would attack twice with +4 cha +2 prof to deal 1d10 or 1d10+1d6 if he hexed. but to be honest +6 to hit 1d10 damage didn't feel anywhere near +7 to hit 1d8+5 damage and can drop a spell to add 3d8 radiant damage.


----------



## smbakeresq (Aug 31, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I dont pre-ban any MC that meets the rules.
> 
> ...




The HexBlade spam is ridiculous.  Test your players and ask them if they read these parts:

"You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell—a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow. The mighty sword Blackrazor is the most notable of these weapons, which have been spread across the multiverse over the ages. The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it. Many hexblade warlocks create weapons that emulate those formed in the Shadowfell. Others forgo such arms, content to weave the dark magic of that plane into their spellcasting. Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the ﬁrst of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends."

To me it seems such a pact would never be granted to a good aligned PC (unless to subvert the PC) nor would any good aligned PC search them out.  Using the tools to "manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends" to me means the hexblade probably wouldn't play well with others.  

I am not even sure the Pact creature would continue to grant the Pacts benefits if you multiclass just to dip as:

"A pact can range from a loose agreement to a formal contract with lengthy, detailed clauses and lists of requirements. *The terms of a pact—what a warlock must do to receive a patron’s favor—are always dictated by the patron. *On occasion, those terms include a special proviso that might seem odd or whimsical, but warlocks take these dictates as seriously as they do the other requirements of their pacts. Does your character have a pact that requires you to change your behavior in an unusual or seemingly frivolous way? Even if your patron hasn’t imposed such a duty on you already, that’s not to say it couldn't still happen."


That seems to me the DM dictates ALL the terms and change them at ANY time for ANY reason.  It is certainly within DM bounds to withhold Warlock features and benefits until you "show your devotion to me" i.e. gain more levels in the Warlock class.


----------



## Arial Black (Aug 31, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Did ah hoc block you?




How would I find out?

And if he did, he blocked me because of one post which said that I fundamentally disagreed with his stance on multiclassing?

Seems an extreme reaction to a civilised post...!


----------



## Seramus (Aug 31, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> To me it seems such a pact would never be granted to a good aligned PC (unless to subvert the PC) nor would any good aligned PC search them out.  Using the tools to "manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends" to me means the hexblade probably wouldn't play well with others.



There is not much known about The Raven Queen, but nothing about her tenants suggests an actively malevolent entity. Her battles against the undead, and especially the demon Orcus, would very reasonably attract good aligned people.

Though I do agree that a Warlock's Patron should always be an important part of any story. Even if you dip it, you're accepting those story hooks in a major way. But for some people (like me) that's a good thing!


----------



## smbakeresq (Aug 31, 2018)

Seramus said:


> There is not much known about The Raven Queen, but nothing about her tenants suggests an actively malevolent entity. Her battles against the undead, and especially the demon Orcus, would very reasonably attract good aligned people.
> 
> Though I do agree that a Warlock's Patron should always be an important part of any story. Even if you dip it, you're accepting those story hooks in a major way. But for some people (like me) that's a good thing!




Really?  Here is a description of the Shadowfell:

"The Shadowfell, also known as the Plane of Shadow, was one of the planes of existence in various cosmological models. Its purpose and characteristics evolved as new cosmologies were formulated. Other names for this plane included Shadowland,[3] the Demiplane of Shadow,[4] and simply Shadow.[5] 
It existed as sort of counterpart to the Feywild, in the sense that it was a reflection, or "echo", of the Prime Material Plane. Unlike the Feywild, it was a bleak, desolate place full of decay and death.[5][10] 
“ 
It is the toxic plane of darkness and power.
It is the hidden place that hates the light."


All available information on the Raven Queen states that Raven Queen rules the ShadowFell, a dark, toxic place, and hates intelligent undead, that's why she battles them.  She fights with Orcus over control of the dead, not because she thinks he is evil while she is good.  To me its very unreasonable that any good aligned people would ever call on her for power nor make a deal with her wherein she controls all the terms. That's what other patrons are for.

I see your argument all the time by players who want to dip Hexblade for armor and weapons powered by their primary stat but want to be good-aligned to justify their selection.  Maybe its me but to me its just an attempt at min/maxing a PC with just a veneer.  At least put in the effort to re-flavor the subclass completely to make an attempt at getting it in.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 31, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The HexBlade spam is ridiculous.  Test your players and ask them if they read these parts:
> 
> "You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell—a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow. The mighty sword Blackrazor is the most notable of these weapons, which have been spread across the multiverse over the ages. The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it. Many hexblade warlocks create weapons that emulate those formed in the Shadowfell. Others forgo such arms, content to weave the dark magic of that plane into their spellcasting. Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the ﬁrst of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends."
> 
> ...




Out of curiosity, where did the bolded portion come from?  I am guessing that is not PHB (unless is changed with a newer print run?).  Thanks in advance for pointing me in the right direction!


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 31, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The only thing I require to Multiclass is a good reason and explanation on how it fits into your PC background and development.
> 
> For example, it makes sense to start as Barbarian and then take professional training (MC as a fighter.). It does not make sense to start as a fighter and then become barbaric unless somehow the PC lives with a tribe, or befriends a barbarian who teaches him to focus his rage, or something like that.
> 
> I am real big on PC background and life development and will greatly aid players that put the time and effort in.




I don't even require that generally. I figure my players will come up with a flimsy reason whether I ask for it or not.


I did implement a serious roadblock to multiclassing into warlock, though, for my current megadungeon campaign. A player wanting to do so has to actually find the means to make the pact with the various available patrons. The most obvious method is to find the patron in the dungeon and negotiate.

I should've done the same thing for clerics, since the available deities are hanging around as NPCs too.


----------



## Satyrn (Aug 31, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Out of curiosity, where did the bolded portion come from?  I am guessing that is not PHB (unless is changed with a newer print run?).  Thanks in advance for pointing me in the right direction!




It's from Xanathar's.

But even with that, [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] is leaving out all the places where the books say the opposite of that. The text for the Great Old Ones talks about some those patrons being totally oblivious/indifferent to the warlock's existence, or even how any patron might be different.

Some patrons are exactly what he's saying they are, others are nothing like that. Each of them is a unique snowflake.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 31, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> It's from Xanathar's.
> 
> But even with that, [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] is leaving out all the places where the books say the opposite of that. The text for the Great Old Ones talks about some those patrons being totally oblivious/indifferent to the warlock's existence, or even how any patron might be different.
> 
> Some patrons are exactly what he's saying they are, others are nothing like that. Each of them is a unique snowflake.




Ah!  Many thanks!  Yes agree that seems to be inconsistent with some patrons...

I prefer the PHB description of a mentor and that once learned the powers are yours to keep...

I could see a patron refusing to teach more if a character was at odds with their agenda maybe?  But even then the PHB talks about working against the evil aims of a patron as well...at least in some cases.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The HexBlade spam is ridiculous.  Test your players and ask them if they read these parts:
> 
> "You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell—a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow. The mighty sword Blackrazor is the most notable of these weapons, which have been spread across the multiverse over the ages. The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it. Many hexblade warlocks create weapons that emulate those formed in the Shadowfell. Others forgo such arms, content to weave the dark magic of that plane into their spellcasting. Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the ﬁrst of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends."
> 
> ...




So it seems you are zeroing in on one specific patron for your games - thats certainly a lot more "for setting consistency" than "because i said so" than banning all warlock multiclassing. Cannot speak for your setting and the limits you choose to set into its most powerful operators *but for my worlds i can answer some of these...*

1st Do the players need to read the bits about the new classes and patrons etc? yup, or at least, when we have that warlock-patron/player-gm pre-choice-talk i will make it clear to them how i run the patrons and how they vary quite a bit between one pact to another. Just like with clerics and to lesser extent every character alliances and deals are two-sided. The one's key to a class, race or background - even more so.

2nd Whether the Raven Queen, hex-patrons and hexblade could offer their pact to good aligned individual - of course. Whether or not they could have warlock's beholden to them that did play well with others, of course. Even an outright evil god/patron could... and relish in using them to serve their purposes - like say perhaps being very effective tools to work with others to weaken the patron/gods rivals. Right? Evil does not play well with others" includes at times "other evil" and why expend loyal evil deinzens when you can expend disposable gooders who owe you? The very powerful beings we are discussing here may not be as limited in my worlds as in yours - thats fine of course.

But the "one evil faction" using and backing "goodly do rights" to go kill the opposition is old classic solid staple storylines with plenty of analogs in real life and history. not sure why a Gm would want to limit that and ban it out of their games.

3rd As for the idea that a patron would somehow "punish" the pawn for gaining other levels in other classes - well, i supposed some might feel that way - but again if they see the pawn as a tool for being used - why object to your tool getting better by a means that doesn't need you to provide more power? other than maybe vanity sake, why not let your pawn gain ten levels in fighter and be an even better pawn? They still want what you give them and use it every day so... you still have them on the hook. 

hold your big leverage for when they actually refuse to do something you ask... not when they just get more powerful on their own, right? makes more sense.

And yes... the discussion between player-gm about the warlock-patron and what that means is vital to the class - as is so very highlighted in the main intro to the warlock class. 

But, that would apply - most of what you describe here in fact - that all applies whether multi-classing at all or primary-classing.

So this really seems more like a series of "trouble with the warlock" items than anything specific to multi-classing.

Right?

The good character hexblade - not just related to multi-=classing?
The patron hold back powers, patron might change up terms etc - multi and single class both right?

Sounds like you dont like warlocks or maybe hexblade warlocks. maybe that should be its own thread separate from multi-classing?


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> How would I find out?
> 
> And if he did, he blocked me because of one post which said that I fundamentally disagreed with his stance on multiclassing?
> 
> Seems an extreme reaction to a civilised post...!




IDK about how to find out but its never going to be able to see for sure whether it was one post or many or whatever led to the choice. people block. it happens.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Really?  Here is a description of the Shadowfell:
> 
> "The Shadowfell, also known as the Plane of Shadow, was one of the planes of existence in various cosmological models. Its purpose and characteristics evolved as new cosmologies were formulated. Other names for this plane included Shadowland,[3] the Demiplane of Shadow,[4] and simply Shadow.[5]
> It existed as sort of counterpart to the Feywild, in the sense that it was a reflection, or "echo", of the Prime Material Plane. Unlike the Feywild, it was a bleak, desolate place full of decay and death.[5][10]
> ...




Well, see here we get into that whole "how do you see the good alignment" or "alignment at all" blah blah blah blah blah blah ad infinitum.

So to step aside from that - i can *easily see* in stories, legends, myths and even IRL histories and events cases where "good folks" for "good reasons" took up deals with "very bad even evil types" to go after "even badder evil types." that may lead to a gradual shift towards neutrality or even evil and that is what often makes those stories and histories so damned compelling. 

Now one can wave the alignment straightjacket flag and ban these...  or one can see them play out as part of a danged good ongoing story of character de-facto rebirth and development.

its up to the GM. 

but, as i read it, a perfect case for this could be a very good person, fighter, whatever - who sees something he cares about by some massively evil lich or such and who goes out for revenge/justice and that creates the opportunity for the RQ to step in and thru her intermediary cut a bargain, cut a deal... and gain a very "useful tool". 

it all depends on how much a Gm wants to limit his patrons/divinities and how limited he wants his "stories" to seem.


----------



## 5ekyu (Aug 31, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Ah!  Many thanks!  Yes agree that seems to be inconsistent with some patrons...
> 
> I prefer the PHB description of a mentor and* that once learned the powers are yours to kee*p...
> 
> I could see a patron refusing to teach more if a character was at odds with their agenda maybe?  But even then the PHB talks about working against the evil aims of a patron as well...at least in some cases.




To be very clear - there is nothing in the warlock PHb that says "the powers are yours to keep" and quite a few places that go into the patron requiring services not in the past but also going forward into adventuring. i think it even specifically references the patrons demands driving the character to adventuring at the very close before going into mechanics (and especially mentions services performed even when it does make the vague master and apprentice reference for some patrons.)

But to be clear - as i have referenced earlier - a Gm and player need to be on the same page regarding this and other things *before8 the class is chosen - as they strongly suggest.

In my games, its made clear to the player that the service to the patron is *not* just a price to gain power but a price to keep using the power.... unless it isn't as it is entirely possible that *at some point* a given patron would say "ok good enough".

For the old ones i tend to references older WoD malkavians - powers that seem chaotic and even insane but with a "higher vision" that means their plans often have other meanings. So, expect the unexpected and unexpect it to maybe eventually kind of  make sense if looked at upside down while drunk and covered in honey.

The main keys to it IMO and which i emphasize to my players seeking warlocks is "expect to be involved in their plots and intrigues". if you don't want a push towards fighting off intelligent undead, orcus minions and other shadowy goodness - do not take hexblade/raven queen. if you dont want to be involved with feywild, demonics, celestials and their business and needs - dont pick them as patrons. 

**basically** your patron choice will shape the events you get drawn into, so make sure this is the direction you want your character to go.


----------



## Warpiglet (Aug 31, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> To be very clear - there is nothing in the warlock PHb that says "the powers are yours to keep" and quite a few places that go into the patron requiring services not in the past but also going forward into adventuring. i think it even specifically references the patrons demands driving the character to adventuring at the very close before going into mechanics (and especially mentions services performed even when it does make the vague master and apprentice reference for some patrons.)
> 
> But to be clear - as i have referenced earlier - a Gm and player need to be on the same page regarding this and other things *before8 the class is chosen - as they strongly suggest.
> 
> ...




If I was playing in your campaign I would consider a different class to play but be respectful of the structure of your world, patron and warlocks. 

However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either.  It only speaks to gifts being bestowed, secrets learned and so forth.  In fact, a final showdown between a master and student sounds like a fun campaign idea.  The book actually says that the warlock learns and grows in power and not that they are simply allowed to borrow power for so long as they behave.  Of course it also states that there is price to learn and grow in power.  What is the price for an uncaring GOO warlock I wonder?

My sense is that once you taste power you comply with tasks and the patron's orders because you want more.  In your campaign it is also perhaps due to fear of losing already learned lore or bestowed gifts.  I would not tell you you are wrong.  I just would not do it that way and I would not think that I am violating RAW or RAI with a different take.
Note that there are  examples of patrons being unaware of or uncaring toward the conduct of their warlocks. 

The PHB clearly says that one should work with their DM to determine how big a part the pact will play in the adventuring career.  It sounds like you encourage players to follow this advice.

In short, I believe there are contradictory statements and vague references because one size does not fit all patrons or warlocks--and I like it that way.  I like the variety.  Some patrons don't care about the presence of the particular character, some are demanding.

With this variety, a DM can go in many directions and there is a lot of space for DM and player to create.  As with the thrust of my main argument in the thread though, I think we often see our preferences as "the way--RAW/RAI" where the books are much less prescriptive than we selectively recall.  And I think most players and DMs fall prey to this without realizing it (self perhaps included).


----------



## smbakeresq (Aug 31, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Well, see here we get into that whole "how do you see the good alignment" or "alignment at all" blah blah blah blah blah blah ad infinitum.
> 
> So to step aside from that - i can *easily see* in stories, legends, myths and even IRL histories and events cases where "good folks" for "good reasons" took up deals with "very bad even evil types" to go after "even badder evil types." that may lead to a gradual shift towards neutrality or even evil and that is what often makes those stories and histories so damned compelling.
> 
> ...




I see it as a player trying desperately to shoehorn a min/max concept into multiclassing with no effort.  

The reason why I believe this is no one tried or suggested it as a concept until the UA came out then Xanthars came out, then they got “inspired.”  No one even posted the idea for designers to borrow.  It suddenly just “happened” to a lot of people.

Give the designers credit, they are far more inspiring then most people.


----------



## smbakeresq (Aug 31, 2018)

Everyone could post their ideas they had but didn’t publish regarding this before it was allowed.  I think the posts will be barren...


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 1, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I see it as a player trying desperately to shoehorn a min/max concept into multiclassing with no effort.
> 
> The reason why I believe this is no one tried or suggested it as a concept until the UA came out then Xanthars came out, then they got “inspired.”  No one even posted the idea for designers to borrow.  It suddenly just “happened” to a lot of people.
> 
> Give the designers credit, they are far more inspiring then most people.




i cannot speak for your experience with your players.

i can only speak to mine and i have not found that any class or any sub-class has any sort of exclusively power gamer minmaxey sort of vibe from the players i encounter built into it. A Gm who took a story like what i suggested with the same regards as you seem to have - i would simply thank for his time and move on.

No sense spending my time with someone who as a start distrusts my motives in a friendly game.

RPGs and DND tend to involve trust - a lot put into the Gm by the players. Not gonna do that when we start from the Gm deciding i am trying some form of shoehorn or semi-sarcastic "inspired" riff.

The designers said they wanted specifically to add hexblade to provide a better vehicle for those wanting to run pact of the blade than what was provided. it was just one of the cases they referenced where what was included was intentionally meant to provide appropriate options to the PHB. 

is it possible some folks who liked the idea were turned off by the poor PHB implementation - sure. Does that make them a target for derision when a better and needed option is provided? Nope. At least not to me.

But again, it sounds again like more a "problem" with the warlock - not multi-classing.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 1, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> If I was playing in your campaign I would consider a different class to play but be respectful of the structure of your world, patron and warlocks.
> 
> However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either.  It only speaks to gifts being bestowed, secrets learned and so forth.  In fact, a final showdown between a master and student sounds like a fun campaign idea.  The book actually says that the warlock learns and grows in power and not that they are simply allowed to borrow power for so long as they behave.  Of course it also states that there is price to learn and grow in power.  What is the price for an uncaring GOO warlock I wonder?
> 
> ...




The reason the "However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either." doesn't resonate with me is two-fold.

First, the book absolutely hammers in that the pact and agreement are the source of the power - you dont get power without the pact - period. They go hand in hand. So, the necessity of the pact is clearly and solidly established.

Similarly, the service for power is also established and even emphasized at the end as a driving force for the adventurer going out.

So, those two things even tho you present them as opposite sides of the coin - one has quite a bit of emphasis - no pact np power - pretty clear.

the other - pact over keep power - not at all really emphasized or explicitly stated.

Second, look at the cleric text in the same places... ever see the rules about losing your cleric abilities if you tick off your divinity? there are none. matter of fact there aqre a whole lot of similarities between how the cleric intro is worded and how the warlock is - including following the goals, demands, etc and how that can lead into adventuring.

So, if i were to say to my warlock players "because there is no explicit statement in your PHB intro that you can lose anything at all if you tell your patron to sod off then as Gm i must accept you cannot have those taken away from you if you do not follow your patron" then i would be forced to give the same answer to my clerics cuz they also have no such explicit reference to losing abilities. 

And there is no way in my worlds that i am going to ignore tons of text linking in both cases power to the source and serving the goals of the source power etc etc etc and then tell clerics and warlocks they get to keep all their powers regardless of how they deal with their "provider."

To me i go with the weight of the evidence and not the lack of evidence. 

others can do what they want.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 1, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> The reason the "However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either." doesn't resonate with me is two-fold.
> 
> First, the book absolutely hammers in that the pact and agreement are the source of the power - you dont get power without the pact - period. They go hand in hand. So, the necessity of the pact is clearly and solidly established.
> 
> ...



If we make a pact where I lend you my lawn mower and you agree to mow my lawn, and you welch on your side of the agreement, you don't immediately and automatically lose the lawn mower. Our pact is the source of the lawn mower - you wouldn't have gotten the lawn mower without the pact - but once the lawn mower is in your possession, the source of it is immaterial to the fact that you have it. I'm certainly going to be pissed at you for welching, and I'm going to do everything in my power to get my lawn mower back, and if I'm a god or devil then you are in a perilous position indeed. For the moment, though, you have the lawn mower and can do whatever you like with it.

Of course, if instead of a lawn mower I am lending you my Netflix password, then the situation changes dramatically.

All of this is to say that while your interpretation is not objectively _wrong_ based on the evidence, it's not objectively _right_ either. It all depends on the nature of the magic being granted.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 1, 2018)

I don't understand why people think there's some kind of hierarchy of legitimacy in where character concepts come from.   

I have no problem with somebody starting with a min/max concept and then producing a "concept" to rationalize it...as long as they then actually attempt to develop and play the character they are describing.  In the example being discussed, the good character who strategically makes a deal with an evil being, I would love to see the player include the inevitable complications/tradeoffs/conundrums into his/her play.  

It's only when they play the character as a one-dimensional automaton of destruction that I kinda roll my eyes.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 1, 2018)

GMforPowergamers said:


> we didn't have a 5th level paladin  to compare it to, that game had 6 of us 5 players (all started at 5th and made it to 9th before imploding) and a DM
> 
> I was a Paladin Druid Cleric (I started 2/1/2, and ended 2/1/6)
> We had:
> ...




So, yeah, you were the DPR king in a group that had zero interest in dealing damage.  Compare your character to a single classed character of any of the three classes you chose and you are dealing far, far less damage.  DPR king doesn't mean a whole lot in a group of Timmy's.  That's not what game breaking means when you deal more damage than other characters that are completely disinterested in dealing damage.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 1, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> How would I find out?
> 
> And if he did, he blocked me because of one post which said that I fundamentally disagreed with his stance on multiclassing?
> 
> Seems an extreme reaction to a civilised post...!




Don't worry about him. He has a habit of blocking people who disagree with his One True Way to play D&D.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 1, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Ah!  Many thanks!  Yes agree that seems to be inconsistent with some patrons...
> 
> I prefer the PHB description of a mentor and that once learned the powers are yours to keep...
> 
> I could see a patron refusing to teach more if a character was at odds with their agenda maybe?  But even then the PHB talks about working against the evil aims of a patron as well...at least in some cases.




It is like that in the PHB because this is the version of the game where the designers refused to put in ways for characters to become ex-any class. As much as I enjoy 5E, this is one of the areas I have to houserule back into the game for my homebrew settings.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 1, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> If we make a pact where I lend you my lawn mower and you agree to mow my lawn, and you welch on your side of the agreement, you don't immediately and automatically lose the lawn mower. Our pact is the source of the lawn mower - you wouldn't have gotten the lawn mower without the pact - but once the lawn mower is in your possession, the source of it is immaterial to the fact that you have it. I'm certainly going to be pissed at you for welching, and I'm going to do everything in my power to get my lawn mower back, and if I'm a god or devil then you are in a perilous position indeed. For the moment, though, you have the lawn mower and can do whatever you like with it.
> 
> Of course, if instead of a lawn mower I am lending you my Netflix password, then the situation changes dramatically.
> 
> All of this is to say that while your interpretation is not objectively _wrong_ based on the evidence, it's not objectively _right_ either. It all depends on the nature of the magic being granted.




My position is that the nature of the pact determines the nature of the possibilities - just as you describe.

Nothing requires the world to ever have a lawnmower pact given by any patron ever.

The argument that the lack of an explicit rule allowing the patron to take back powers somehow limits that from happening is what i object to.

I believe i even observed that it may well be the case that at some point a patron gives the pawn freedom... perhaps asa reward etc.

Which gets all the way back to the key being the "discussion" between player-Gm and character-patron is extremely important and at the core of the warlock character and play (regardless of how real or ephemeral that "discussion" may be on the character-patron side.)

Edit to add...

to your specific examples - even reference in the PHB refers to granting "access to powers" would seem to point more to the netflix password interpretation - i would not at all be adverse to the lawnmower option as a pact agreement in the right circumstance and case - as that creates a physical object as a manifestation of the pact and source of the powers and so - *just like the lawnmower case -* the patron (and presumably others) could send his minions to "collect" the item and break the link to powers. 

Now of course, a patron can normally send other minions to go mess with an "unruly pawn" or a lot of other more subtle means without a lawnmower pact  - but to me the added umphh of the warlock needing to be worried about losing his "lawnmower" to even non-patron agencies more than balances out the "patron has to do more work to take it back" side of things. A lot of story hey for a patron can be had  when a pawn loses their lawnmower and has to come begging for a replacement.

"vasily, are you sayin' you lost another submarine?"


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 1, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> It is like that in the PHB because this is the version of the game where the designers refused to put in ways for characters to become ex-any class. As much as I enjoy 5E, this is one of the areas I have to houserule back into the game for my homebrew settings.




Well, i have a slightly different take on this - i think they included several points in the rules and classes where "bonds to others matter" a lot  and clerics and warlocks are the two most obvious cases - as well as pallys. 

hoiwever, they chose not to hard code the consequences of violating such bonds to allow a lot of flexibility for each Gm/player and each character and each table and each patron/pawn and each god/devotee to play out as fits that circumstance.

its similar to the objection i have with the skew it seems some have when you see things akin to *if you take classes other than warlock the patron removes your power* or those who somehow see references to *working against the goals of the  patron* as somehow indicative of a lack of power on the patron etc etc...

You would almost think there was never a disagreement between employee and employer that did not result in absolute termination... never an employee hired who did not slavishly follow the corporate mission statement and guidelines... etc.

there is a lot of subtlety possible in these kinds of arrangements and exchanges - both from "common sense" and from "real life analogs" and from the lore and legends and myths and depictions of such fantasy and scifi.

If the designers had said "if your warlock goes against your patron's goals, the patron may withhold..." way too many would take that as "must..." and take that as "any slight..." and so on and so forth and i think the designers have at least enough sense to see that too.

So, instead they leave the nature of the pact as TBD and the nature of what a break of doctrine results in or requires as atonement (if any) as TBD so that it can be suited to each table, world, deal and specific case as needed.

I don't need or want a rule or a chart and a roll to tell me some form of universal HR policy guide for patron-pawn or god-devotee. There cannot be enough of those to cover the vast reaches of our game.

So count me in the amazingly happy the rules did not dictate and define more about that than emphasizing how important it should be in the nature of the characters and how it should definitely be something they palyer-gm reach agreement on.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 1, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Well, i have a slightly different take on this - i think they included several points in the rules and classes where "bonds to others matter" a lot  and clerics and warlocks are the two most obvious cases - as well as pallys.
> 
> hoiwever, they chose not to hard code the consequences of violating such bonds to allow a lot of flexibility for each Gm/player and each character and each table and each patron/pawn and each god/devotee to play out as fits that circumstance.
> 
> ...




I am in absolute agreement with satisfaction with the rules and their occasional vagueness.  When I play make believe I like to create and not just be constrained.  Boundaries and suggested boundaries make it more of a game but thank goodness the rules don't suggest do X or lose all your powers.  This would be the ultimate in no fun railroading.  I prefer consequences that don't immediately nullify a character's choices.

I like he presence of middle ground and variety with some suggested boundaries and stories.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 1, 2018)

Two parents sell their baby's soul to a fiend, then leave her on the steps of a temple of Helm. The temple raises the child and trains her to be a paladin, but the fiend has its hooks in her. The fiend wants to corrupt the paladin, and one way to do that is to give her access to warlock powers. The fiend doesn't want to 'win' too quickly, because a high level fallen paladin is better than a low level one.

But the paladin-or Pal/War-will be trying to do good deeds all her life. Probably be consciously trying to defeat the plans of the fiend. Is that a reason for the fiend to take away her warlock powers? No! That would defeat the fiends own plan!

Elric of Melnibone's patron is Arioch, Prince of Swords, Duke of Hell, and all around proper baddy. Elric was the....least evil...of an evil race. Elric hated Arioch, hated serving him, and tried not to do his bidding. Arioch didn't really directly ask much of Elric, apart from asking him to dedicate the slain to him. Elric's warcry was "Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!"

Arioch wanted Elric to destroy the city of Tanelorn. Elric wanted to save Tanelorn, and successfully defended the city from an army of Chaos demons. Did Arioch take Elric's powers away? No. Even at the end of the world when Elric personally slew the gods of Chaos-including Arioch-Elrics powers were never taken away.

The comic character Spawn was given powers by the Devil. Spawn even had a 'Power Clock' which ticked down whenever he used the supernatural power bestowed upon Spawn by the Devil. Spawn knows that when the clock reaches zero then he'll be under the Devil's thumb for eternity, a fate he badly wants to avoid!

But Spawn uses his power to work _against_ Satan! Does Satan take away Spawn's power? No, even to the point where Spawn replaces Satan as the ruler of Hell.

Some of my worst experiences in 40 years of D&D is when DMs take away my agency over my PC. They do this by picking on any PC who, conceptually, gains some or all of their powers, their game mechanics, their special abilities, from an intelligent supernatural source. "If you do that then your god will take your powers away", "If you save _those_ orphans instead of _these_ orphans then you'll lose your paladinhood because you failed to save some orphans. Gotcha!"

The DM takes away my agency through the threat of taking away my PC's game abilities unless I do what the DM wants my PC to do. But I play the game to make those decisions myself, not to watch the DM play my PC as just another one of his NPCs.

So, in those games, the players quickly learn to avoid playing clerics, paladins, warlocks, druids, whatever classes have their powers taken away by DM whim. Nobody says, "Your fighter is making the wrong choices in my opinion, therefore he no longer gets more than one attack per round, loses his fighting style, and cannot use any abilities of his subclass. Any further infractions and you'll be a 1HD commoner. Because I said so".

I an _very_ glad that 5e PCs cannot have their powers taken away, RAW. If the DM does, he is abusing rule zero to do so, and may lose his players as a result.


----------



## Nick Nick (Sep 1, 2018)

I’m new here and just want to say how OUTRAGED I am .

Thankyou


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 1, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> I am _very_ glad that 5e PCs cannot have their powers taken away, RAW. If the DM does, he is abusing rule zero to do so, and may lose his players as a result.



If you want to stick with RAW, then the DM is in charge of playing all NPCs, including the omniscient and omnipotent deities. The DM is entirely within RAW to say that the cleric or warlock loses their magical ability when they gravely offend their patron deity, because that is what the patron would do in those circumstances. If you make a pact with a deity, and then turn your back on them, you would be lucky if you get to retire in obscurity rather than being struck down and tortured for all eternity.

If the player isn't going to play their character seriously, then they are abusing the good will of the entire group (who have devoted significant time and effort to the campaign), and such a player is unlikely to be welcome back regardless.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 1, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> If we make a pact where I lend you my lawn mower and you agree to mow my lawn, and you welch on your side of the agreement, you don't immediately and automatically lose the lawn mower. Our pact is the source of the lawn mower - you wouldn't have gotten the lawn mower without the pact - but once the lawn mower is in your possession, the source of it is immaterial to the fact that you have it. I'm certainly going to be pissed at you for welching, and I'm going to do everything in my power to get my lawn mower back, and if I'm a god or devil then you are in a perilous position indeed. For the moment, though, you have the lawn mower and can do whatever you like with it.
> 
> Of course, if instead of a lawn mower I am lending you my Netflix password, then the situation changes dramatically.
> 
> All of this is to say that while your interpretation is not objectively _wrong_ based on the evidence, it's not objectively _right_ either. It all depends on the nature of the magic being granted.




The lawnmower is a physical object so it’s completely irrelevant.

The password is somewhat relevant, but you can change the password as you stated.


In these cases the powers you are being granted are mystical powers granted by a magical/mystical contract with all terms dictated by a being of great power whose purposes and goals are it own.  It certainly would have power to just take away your powers in an instant, or at the very least send a powerful servant to just kill you.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 1, 2018)

I didn’t know people played by the theory of “if it isn’t explicitly stated and banned in the rules then f**k it, exploit it to the max!!!!!!”

In only a few cases is explicitly stated in the rules that moving creatures make noise, but at my table all of them do.   It’s a rule set as a framework, it’s not like the books came off the mountain on tablets.

Have some spirit and and understand and figure out what’s logical and consistent and in the spirit of what the game is.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 2, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The lawnmower is a physical object so it’s completely irrelevant.



Is it your contention that nothing except a physical object could possibly have these properties? That it is incoherent for a person to be granted power or privilege or title or knowledge or some other non-phyical thing, and to turn that grant against its intended use?



smbakeresq said:


> In these cases the powers you are being granted are mystical powers granted by a magical/mystical contract with all terms dictated by a being of great power whose purposes and goals are it own.  It certainly would have power to just take away your powers in an instant...



_"Certainly"_? You know this from your extensive real-world experience with mystical powers, perhaps?



smbakeresq said:


> ...or at the very least send a powerful servant to just kill you.



Did you miss the part where I wrote, _"I'm going to do everything in my power to get my lawn mower back, and if I'm a god or devil then you are in a perilous position indeed"_?


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 2, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The lawnmower is a physical object so it’s completely irrelevant.
> 
> The password is somewhat relevant, but you can change the password as you stated.
> 
> ...




By extension if the DM sends a vision from a patron and your character does not accept and complete a task they are either rendered unable to adventure or may be killed outright with no way around it.

If that is the case the player better enjoy a lack of free will.  Ick! Sounds like a major railroad.  No thanks.  I don't think that is in the spirit of the rules at all. Consequences?  Sure. But immediate loss of levels or death?  I will just let the DM write their novel in peace while I seek a _game_!

I will say it this too.  If that was in fact RAI, it is something I would seek to remedy ASAP.  The game is meant to be customized as needed.  If that _is_ what the class requires, would that even be fun?

In some of the narrative they talk about striving against a patron's aims.  How can you if you have no powers?  Worse yet, what about the character that chances into a pact as described.  They did not want he pact per se and now they have to do what the patron says or face oblivion (in terms of ability to adventure)?   

A talk with the DM would hopefully take place so that I could select absolutely anything else to play.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Are we talking white room theorycrafting or actual play experience.
> 
> Because, IME, paladin is almost never chosen as a second class.  Fighters are by far the most common second class IME.  I've yet to see a player start as one class and then MC into paladin.  Maybe my group is just strange.




We have a PC doing that right now because of story! He is a Fighter (EK) and our group met with a spirit or deity (unclear to us) of Vengeance and the PC is now going to start taking paladin levels to go Oath of Vengeance.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The lawnmower is a physical object so it’s completely irrelevant.
> 
> The password is somewhat relevant, but you can change the password as you stated.
> 
> ...




This is making some serious presumptions about the setting though.

What would a Great Old One care about how a warlock used his or her powers?  How could you possibly know what a Great Old One wants?

The thing to remember here is that the Patron's are going to take a VERY long view of things.  The day to day stuff that the PC does is most like way, WAY below their notice.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 2, 2018)

I am not against multi classing in general, but I have two criteria: it needs to follow what’s been going on in the game, and it can’t be two classes that fundamentally oppose each other. 

With the first, it’s things like a PC being a fighter, doing fighter things his or her whole life and adventuring career, and then suddenly gaining a level and being a wizard with those wizard abilities. If you want to multiclass into a wizard, then at some point you should have been telling me how you’re hanging out with the wizard to learn magic, or the equivalent. 

With the second, the most common example is the cleric who milticlasses into a warlock or similar. If your cleric powers are granted to you by being a faithful servant of X god who is goodly, then X god is going to have issue with you making a pact with a demon for example.


----------



## jgsugden (Sep 2, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> How would I find out?
> 
> And if he did, he blocked me because of one post which said that I fundamentally disagreed with his stance on multiclassing?
> 
> Seems an extreme reaction to a civilised post...!



I block a good number of people.  Some after one post that tells me all I want to know about them.  All it means is I'm happier not seeing their posts... it doesn't mean I think they are bad people.  

Don't worry about it.  If it looks like someone blocked you, it just means they miss out on seeing your ideas.  If they say anything worthwhile, it is likely to be quoted anyways.


----------



## jgsugden (Sep 2, 2018)

1.) I can make 'overpowered' single class characters.  Accordingly, I'm not worried if we can do it with multi-class, too.

2.) As long as the character origin and development tell a good story, I do not have any concerns about it being a multi-class.   If you're building a cleric 1, warlock 5, bad 6, paladin 8 design.... why?  What is the story?  As long as the development makes sense for the character story, and as a DM I can build off it n create a great game with all the players.... GREAT.

That is the beginning, middle and end of my concerns on muti-classing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, yeah, you were the DPR king in a group that had zero interest in dealing damage.  Compare your character to a single classed character of any of the three classes you chose and you are dealing far, far less damage.  DPR king doesn't mean a whole lot in a group of Timmy's.  That's not what game breaking means when you deal more damage than other characters that are completely disinterested in dealing damage.




SO just to make sure your point is clear here, being MORE powerful then the rest of the table isn't a problem if someone in a theoretical other game MIGHT be more powerful? I don't understand at all how that makes any sense.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> What would a Great Old One care about how a warlock used his or her powers?  How could you possibly know what a Great Old One wants?
> 
> The thing to remember here is that the Patron's are going to take a VERY long view of things.  The day to day stuff that the PC does is most like way, WAY below their notice.




The same could be said about the "God" in several monotheistic religions IRL.  And yet...supposedly...those deities care very deeply about seemingly trivial choices made by each and every one of their followers on a daily basis.  And they are...again, supposedly...watching.  

So there's that.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 2, 2018)

GMforPowergamers said:


> SO just to make sure your point is clear here, being MORE powerful then the rest of the table isn't a problem if someone in a theoretical other game MIGHT be more powerful? I don't understand at all how that makes any sense.




The point is that the multiclassing is not the problem; as illustrated by *single* class 5th level PCs being *more* powerful than multiclass ones, generally speaking.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 2, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The same could be said about the "God" in several monotheistic religions IRL.  And yet...supposedly...those deities care very deeply about seemingly trivial choices made by each and every one of their followers on a daily basis.  And they are...again, supposedly...watching.
> 
> So there's that.




In a (real) world full of peodophile priests and scam-artist televangelists, suicide-encouraging imams and mutually-exclusive heresies, I can't remember a single instance of one being struck by divine lightning or losing their god-given 'class' abilities.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 2, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> If you want to stick with RAW, then the DM is in charge of playing all NPCs, including the omniscient and omnipotent deities. The DM is entirely within RAW to say that the cleric or warlock loses their magical ability when they gravely offend their patron deity, because that is what the patron would do in those circumstances.




In previous editions, paladins could fall and lose their class abilities. We _know_ this, because the rules said so. Rules As Written.

But in 5e, such rules are conspicuous by their absence. The lack of such rules =/= these rules exist RAW, because Rules As NOT Written are not Rules AS Written.



> If you make a pact with a deity, and then turn your back on them, you would be lucky if you get to retire in obscurity rather than being struck down and tortured for all eternity.




First, the examples I quoted from the very fiction that inspired the hobby, plus _actual written_ 5e text to the tune of some patrons don't pay any attention to their warlocks, shows clearly that it is NOT a given that such beings automatically punish transgressors.

Second, even those beings who are inclined to punish wayward servants do so by in-game means, such as sending more and more powerful loyal servants to persuade/kill the naughty PCs. What they _don't_ do is punish them by metagaming! They don't mess with our real world character sheets, they mess with the game-world characters!



> If the player isn't going to play their character seriously, then they are abusing the good will of the entire group (who have devoted significant time and effort to the campaign), and such a player is unlikely to be welcome back regardless.




And here is an assumption: the player is deliberately playing _wrong!_ But in my experience what happens is that the player and DM disagree about the best way to role-play their devotion. In real life religious people, even of the same religion/denomination/church disagree about religious matters, and each still goes on happily being a member of that religion. But the DMs I'm talking about say it's their way or the highway, taking away the player's agency.

The first example character in my previous post was a Pal/War whose parents sold her soul to a fiend, left her on the steps of the temple to Helm, was brought up and trained to be a good paladin, while the fiend was secretly rubbing his hands with glee in the thought that he could slowly corrupt a high level paladin. It just would not make ANY sense for the fiend to take her warlock powers away because that would defeat the fiend's own object, and it wouldn't make any sense for Helm to cripple his own paladin's fight against the will of the fiend.

Yet, on this forum and in real life, the knee-jerk reaction of some DMs is, "Paladin/Warlock? The player MUST be making a mockery of the story and the PC cannot possibly make sense!" Ban, ban, ban!


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 2, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> In a (real) world full of peodophile priests and scam-artist televangelists, suicide-encouraging imams and mutually-exclusive heresies, I can't remember a single instance of one being struck by divine lightning or losing their god-given 'class' abilities.




That might be because real world religions are lies made up by the powerful and power hungry in order to control the powerless masses.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 2, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I didn’t know people played by the theory of “if it isn’t explicitly stated and banned in the rules then f**k it, exploit it to the max!!!!!!”
> 
> In only a few cases is explicitly stated in the rules that moving creatures make noise, but at my table all of them do.   It’s a rule set as a framework, it’s not like the books came off the mountain on tablets.
> 
> Have some spirit and and understand and figure out what’s logical and consistent and in the spirit of what the game is.




The way I have seen it, there are two sides: exclusion and inclusion. One side says that if the rules do not expressly forbid something, then they are free to do. The other side says that if the rules do not expressly allow it, then they cannot do it. Rules lawyering between the two extremes can get really nasty.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 2, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Two parents sell their baby's soul to a fiend, then leave her on the steps of a temple of Helm. The temple raises the child and trains her to be a paladin, but the fiend has its hooks in her. The fiend wants to corrupt the paladin, and one way to do that is to give her access to warlock powers. The fiend doesn't want to 'win' too quickly, because a high level fallen paladin is better than a low level one.
> 
> But the paladin-or Pal/War-will be trying to do good deeds all her life. Probably be consciously trying to defeat the plans of the fiend. Is that a reason for the fiend to take away her warlock powers? No! That would defeat the fiends own plan!




In Dragonlance, the gods turned their back on the Kingpriest of Ishtar....(snip)... clerics lost their access to divine magic.



> Elric of Melnibone's patron is Arioch, Prince of Swords, Duke of Hell, and all around proper baddy. Elric was the....least evil...of an evil race. Elric hated Arioch, hated serving him, and tried not to do his bidding. Arioch didn't really directly ask much of Elric, apart from asking him to dedicate the slain to him. Elric's warcry was "Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!"
> 
> Arioch wanted Elric to destroy the city of Tanelorn. Elric wanted to save Tanelorn, and successfully defended the city from an army of Chaos demons. Did Arioch take Elric's powers away? No. Even at the end of the world when Elric personally slew the gods of Chaos-including Arioch-Elrics powers were never taken away.




In the series Charmed, Phoebe had her witchy powers stripped from her by The Tribunal as she was using her powers for personal gain.



> The comic character Spawn was given powers by the Devil......(snip)...But Spawn uses his power to work _against_ Satan! Does Satan take away Spawn's power? No, even to the point where Spawn replaces Satan as the ruler of Hell




The comic book character Hal Jordan was given a magic ring by Abin Sur ....(snip).... But Hal Jordan as Green Lantern disobeyed the direct instructions of the Guardians of the Galaxy and so had his Green Lanternship stripped from him. 



> If the DM does, he is abusing rule zero to do so, and may lose his players as a result.




For clarification purposes:
1) If a DM is being a dick he may lose his players.
2) Your opinion is that if the DM strips the player of their abilities (no matter what the circumstances) he is abusing rule zero.
3) The DM stripping a player's character of their abilities is not an abuse of rule zero.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 2, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> In previous editions, paladins could fall and lose their class abilities. We _know_ this, because the rules said so. Rules As Written.
> 
> But in 5e, such rules are conspicuous by their absence. The lack of such rules =/= these rules exist RAW, because Rules As NOT Written are not Rules AS Written.




And yet, we are all aware of the 5e mantra, rulings not rules.
So rulings are ok for stealth rules, and certain spells and and and...but when it comes to PC's being stripped of powers then the letter of the RAW must be adhered to otherwise you're abusing rule 0.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Sep 2, 2018)

DMG page 97: "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths"..."the paladin replaces the features specific to his or her sacred oath with Oathbreaker features"..."you can later allow the paladin to atone and become a true paladin once more"


I.e. paladins can still fall in 5e, there are even specific rules to cover it.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 2, 2018)

Sadras said:


> And yet, we are all aware of the 5e mantra, rulings not rules.
> So rulings are ok for stealth rules, and certain spells and and and...but when it comes to PC's being stripped of powers then the letter of the RAW must be adhered to otherwise you're abusing rule 0.




These rulings require more scrutiny because they would have the potential to ruin a character or player's fun in a big way.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2018)

*Folks,

Apparently, several of you need a reminder that EN World asks you to leave real-world politics and religion at the door.  

Continued commentary on real-world religion will get you a week's vacation from the site.  No further warning will be given.  I hope that's clear.  If it isn't, please take it to e-mail or PM with a member of the moderation staff.*]


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 2, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The point is that the multiclassing is not the problem; as illustrated by *single* class 5th level PCs being *more* powerful than multiclass ones, generally speaking.




except It was an example of a 5th level character who was more powerful then 4 other 5th level character by multi classing right, and it was a mistake I wasn't trying to min max, I was trying to lessen my power form being a 5th level cleric.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 2, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> We have a PC doing that right now because of story! He is a Fighter (EK) and our group met with a spirit or deity (unclear to us) of Vengeance and the PC is now going to start taking paladin levels to go Oath of Vengeance.




That sounds great and working as intended.  If the Paladin blatantly goes against this Oath how would you have the benefactor react?

My theory (and it seems I am in a minority) is that the very being that GRANTS you powers has their own motivations for doing so, and if you go against that beings plans then they would take back the powers they granted to you to accomplish their goals.  It’s seems that is written all over the descriptions for clerics, druids, Paladins and warlocks.  There is no explicitly stated rule that says that, but it’s all over the descriptive text.  

Those powers are controlled by the DM as the PC only controls himself.  There has to be some give and take there, it can’t be the PC tells the DM “No it’s my PC so I control the whole situation between my PC and its power/diety/patron.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 2, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> 1.) I can make 'overpowered' single class characters.  Accordingly, I'm not worried if we can do it with multi-class, too.
> 
> 2.) As long as the character origin and development tell a good story, I do not have any concerns about it being a multi-class.   If you're building a cleric 1, warlock 5, bad 6, paladin 8 design.... why?  What is the story?  As long as the development makes sense for the character story, and as a DM I can build off it n create a great game with all the players.... GREAT.
> 
> That is the beginning, middle and end of my concerns on muti-classing.




Correct.  It seems that many do not care about 2 at all or very little, a simple sentence of PC origin and development is enough to justify anything.  That’s the point I am making


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 2, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> DMG page 97: "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths"..."the paladin replaces the features specific to his or her sacred oath with Oathbreaker features"..."you can later allow the paladin to atone and become a true paladin once more"
> 
> 
> I.e. paladins can still fall in 5e, there are even specific rules to cover it.




Correct.

However the prevailing theory it seems is that since there is no specific rules to cover clerics or warlocks falling it simply can’t happen under any circumstances and any DM who rules that a PC has failed to uphold their faith or pact is screwing the PC and player completely over.  

For a DM to suggest that such a thing could occur to a PC if the PC took such and such action would immediately be a cause for the player to leave the game for being “treated very unfairly!!”


I play with older players who get the spirit of the game and create intricate backstory to justify decisions, which is made much easier through email.  I also play with my kids and their friends also ages 10-13, who just don’t think along terms of “it’s not in the rules so it’s completely allowed if it’s good for me and is impossible to happen if it’s bad for me.”  They just act out their PC all the time, just saying what they are doing.

The whole point I have been trying to make is as above, have a good story and reason for why your PC is MC. The reason can’t be “I get free heavy armor proficiency for doing this, so what do I need to do to justify this.”

The post where the fighter met the deity/spirit is an example.  Obviously the DM set up the meeting, I would assume it was setup by the player and DM, which is great cooperation.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 2, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Correct.
> 
> However the prevailing theory it seems is that since there is no specific rules to cover clerics or warlocks falling it simply can’t happen under any circumstances and any DM who rules that a PC has failed to uphold their faith or pact is screwing the PC and player completely over.
> 
> ...




My argument is one size does not fit all.  Where this effects multiclassing I suggest looking at the specific patron, pact and shared desire to have fun.  From PHB:

"Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods."

"More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and 
an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf."

No where does it suggest that powers once gained are revocable---much less
state.  I don't think it is rules lawyering to argue this is very simply what some people believe or choose vs. RAW or RAI.

There is also a statement in PHB about deciding with DM about how big of a role the pact will play in the actual game.

I don't think it's just whiny kids who might not prefer or believe that a character will immediately lose previously gained ability for crossing a patron (or have a hit squad to contend with).

I prefer a world where the apprentice might rebel and maybe with help even face a patron later on.  The text says a warlock completes tasks to learn and grow---I am more on board with stalling progression with a particular master than altering a warlock's previously gained abilities.

I also prefer the big tent over patrons with some less Involved or even uncaring along With those who are whimsical and others who might try to dominate more (all consistent with PHB fluff).


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 2, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> In previous editions, paladins could fall and lose their class abilities. We _know_ this, because the rules said so. Rules As Written.
> 
> But in 5e, such rules are conspicuous by their absence. The lack of such rules =/= these rules exist RAW, because Rules As NOT Written are not Rules AS Written.



They're only conspicuous by absence if you put them in the wrong context. If you look at the AD&D rules and compare them to the 5E rules, then you might draw the conclusion that paladins could fall in AD&D and can't fall in 5E.

But AD&D rules aren't 5E rules, and it would be wrong to take them into consideration here. Just by what it says in the PHB, about how the game works, the DM is already fully expected to role-play the gods to the best of their ability. We might reasonably disagree about whether any given action is something that a particular deity could or should do, but both perspectives are equally RAW, as long as both of our opinions are based on what it actually says in the book.

My own best guess is that they took out the specific rules for falling, because they didn't want to seem like they were encouraging that as the only option. I've heard stories of bad DMs who would contrive moral dilemmas that were nearly guaranteed to make a paladin fall, because they read those rules in the book and assumed that's the sort of thing they were supposed to do. By not explicitly calling out the possibility, it leaves the DM free to address egregious cases, but it doesn't encourage them to pull the rug out under a well-intentioned player.


Arial Black said:


> And here is an assumption: the player is deliberately playing _wrong!_ But in my experience what happens is that the player and DM disagree about the best way to role-play their devotion. In real life religious people, even of the same religion/denomination/church disagree about religious matters, and each still goes on happily being a member of that religion. But the DMs I'm talking about say it's their way or the highway, taking away the player's agency.



There are players who intentionally make a mockery of the setting, by playing to the letter of the rule rather than its underlying intent, and banking on the expectation that the DM won't call them out for it. That sort of thing happens all the time. 

In my experience, jerk players are significantly more common than jerk DMs. If I have one message for anyone reading this, it's that the DM needs to stand up for themselves and their game. Don't let a player use the rules to bully you, because nobody at the table will have any fun if the DM isn't having fun.







Arial Black said:


> Yet, on this forum and in real life, the knee-jerk reaction of some DMs is, "Paladin/Warlock? The player MUST be making a mockery of the story and the PC cannot possibly make sense!" Ban, ban, ban!



The DM is the only one who could possibly know with certainty what makes sense in their own world. If their immediate reaction is to assume the player is up to something with such a suggestion, then that makes sense, because it is likely to be the case most of the time. If the DM has a reason to believe that the players is well-intentioned, then they may choose to look further into the matter, and then make a decision. 

It is unreasonable of a player to bring such a character to the DM with the expectation that it will be allowed. That's just pure player entitlement.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 2, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> They're only conspicuous by absence if you put them in the wrong context. If you look at the AD&D rules and compare them to the 5E rules, then you might draw the conclusion that paladins could fall in AD&D and can't fall in 5E.
> 
> But AD&D rules aren't 5E rules, and it would be wrong to take them into consideration here. Just by what it says in the PHB, about how the game works, the DM is already fully expected to role-play the gods to the best of their ability. We might reasonably disagree about whether any given action is something that a particular deity could or should do, but both perspectives are equally RAW, as long as both of our opinions are based on what it actually says in the book.
> 
> ...




To me, this sort of thing is entirely dependent on the game system you're using as it grants you the lens to look through the world at.

With D&D players tend to look at their characters as "class first"  that's not to say that there aren't people who put together great backstories and concepts, the rules as written just shoehorn you into a certain point of view.

Now lets say just as an example, you end up playing rolemaster, where it's damn near impossible to navigate the rules system until you know what story lens the GM tells you to look at the world through, then tells you to come up with your backstory and develop your character first, based on the story and then only spend on things that don't fit the story if you can afford them.

Now neither game is better than the other, and certainly one is more financially successful, but the system sort of creates the arguments you're going to have.  You can certainly play either game either way if you just tell your players up front that the only time you care about "class" as a story element is at character generation.

Then the Sorlock or Lockadin doesn't matter, it just is.

KB


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2018)

GMforPowergamers said:


> SO just to make sure your point is clear here, being MORE powerful then the rest of the table isn't a problem if someone in a theoretical other game MIGHT be more powerful? I don't understand at all how that makes any sense.




But, you were more powerful, barely, than 4 support characters.  The argument is that multiclassing makes your character more powerful.  And, let's not forget, in your example, other than the Beastmaster, every other character multi classed (very poorly) too.

I mean, good grief, reverse the levels of your fighter/Mastermind and he doubles his damage output.  The fact that you have this many characters and, because they all multiclassed, none of them have multiple attacks per round is hardly a fair comparison.  

IOW, your character was more powerful than the rest of the table because the rest of the table made choices to make their characters as absolutely weak as possible.  Being the DPR king in this group is hardly proof of anything other than you have a group that apparently is not power gamers.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 3, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Two parents sell their baby's soul to a fiend, then leave her on the steps of a temple of Helm. The temple raises the child and trains her to be a paladin, but the fiend has its hooks in her. The fiend wants to corrupt the paladin, and one way to do that is to give her access to warlock powers. The fiend doesn't want to 'win' too quickly, because a high level fallen paladin is better than a low level one.
> 
> But the paladin-or Pal/War-will be trying to do good deeds all her life. Probably be consciously trying to defeat the plans of the fiend. Is that a reason for the fiend to take away her warlock powers? No! That would defeat the fiends own plan!
> 
> ...



This seems to paint the DM in an adversarial role. 

It also somehow redefines player agency into clerics defying gods and keeping their daily prayers.

How odd.

See, here is the rub... in my games, I cannot remember ever having clerics lose powers and certainly not warlocks. The **possibility** tends to work to create characters with pact and religious ties that suit their intended character play.

Additionally, the higher power might be perfectly fine with this "defiance" of it fits longer goals.

In my experience, pulling the plug is simply so far down the list of options that its rarely used... if ever... but the threat is important.

But, to be very clear, if there were some omni-god of player agency which declared that all powers granted had to be kept forever or Hasbronies would descend to punish... the pacts and clerics etc would most certainly find it different as every bit of their "payments would have to be paid up front.

"You want to level to 2? Once I give it you keep it? Well, here is your list? Call me when it's done, since the Hasbronies forbid ongoing service contracts."


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Sep 3, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> You can't multiclass with Paladin if there are no Paladins.
> 
> Gotta take out the roots of the problem, not the branches and leaves.




I agree, get rid of the players and DMs that don't like paladins. Problem solved.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 3, 2018)

Just to be clear... I dont think the "yes patrons and gods can cut the power to their followers/pawns" are suggesting it as common or anything to be done to remove free will or as any immediate response to any slight.

They are, at least I am, saying it is a part that needs to be considered in the player gm discussion about those classes and what the agreements between character and patron/divine.

If the patron-pact and deity-cleric is, as some suggest, restrained to only (on the divine/patron side) capabilities **explicitly stated in the rules** then it is not a relationship, not a pact, but a case of an enslaved divinity or patron. 

The patron/divine is not explicitly allowed to removes powers... well it also isn't explicitly allowed to refuse leveling, to spy on its pawn/follower.

So if you take that approach, it's not anything the character has to concern with or player discuss... the patron/divine just lays down and offers up power. 

That's why, imo, the classes make sure to emphasize working out the details with gm-player and character-patton on same page.

Maybe one pair handles it with permanent endowments. Maybe others dont. 

But player agency should not be so transformed into granting unilateral control over arrangements with NPCs, imo. 

But others may have different views.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 3, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> In previous editions, paladins could fall and lose their class abilities. We _know_ this, because the rules said so. Rules As Written.
> 
> But in 5e, such rules are conspicuous by their absence. The lack of such rules =/= these rules exist RAW, because Rules As NOT Written are not Rules AS Written.




Oathbreaker.




> First, the examples I quoted from the very fiction that inspired the hobby, plus _actual written_ 5e text to the tune of some patrons don't pay any attention to their warlocks, shows clearly that it is NOT a given that such beings automatically punish transgressors.




Generally I agree.  Depends on:

1. Patron - Some may care, most probably won't until you have something they want.  I'd imagine that some patrons seed the world and see what grows, while others may have a direct reason to empower a character.  
2. The story - As a DM or GM, I never overlook the patron/deity relationship and how that factors into the world or the setting.  At low levels, players get a lot of slack usually.  At higher levels less so because the relationship generally matters more to the patron.  Of course, I let the player know this directly out of game and through tells during the game, but I do the best I can to make sure it comes across naturally.  Things have to make sense and folks need to be comfy with it.



> Second, even those beings who are inclined to punish wayward servants do so by in-game means, such as sending more and more powerful loyal servants to persuade/kill the naughty PCs. What they _don't_ do is punish them by metagaming! They don't mess with our real world character sheets, they mess with the game-world characters!




Agree, though to be fair - it's much better to have the character go through in game things that are not immediately thought to be punishments, but rather trials.  "Ok, you schtuped the king's daughter.. now I need you to go find the golden fleece."



> And here is an assumption: the player is deliberately playing _wrong!_ But in my experience what happens is that the player and DM disagree about the best way to role-play their devotion. In real life religious people, even of the same religion/denomination/church disagree about religious matters, and each still goes on happily being a member of that religion. But the DMs I'm talking about say it's their way or the highway, taking away the player's agency.
> 
> The first example character in my previous post was a Pal/War whose parents sold her soul to a fiend, left her on the steps of the temple to Helm, was brought up and trained to be a good paladin, while the fiend was secretly rubbing his hands with glee in the thought that he could slowly corrupt a high level paladin. It just would not make ANY sense for the fiend to take her warlock powers away because that would defeat the fiend's own object, and it wouldn't make any sense for Helm to cripple his own paladin's fight against the will of the fiend.
> 
> Yet, on this forum and in real life, the knee-jerk reaction of some DMs is, "Paladin/Warlock? The player MUST be making a mockery of the story and the PC cannot possibly make sense!" Ban, ban, ban!




Well there's the small problem that a character without a soul should not be able to become a paladin in the first place.  Granted, this is my world view and other DMs can do whatever their desires are, but if the world follows a generic "gods need followers" and "soul is the faith" model, then being trained by Helm followers is great, but when you finally go to be empowered by the god and the soul isn't there... oopsy.  Now if you wanted the demon pact that enabled the warlock to gain power to also take on some paladin'y goodness, I'd have no issue there.  Sounds fun.

I have no issue with any multiclass combo that makes sense from a story perspective.  Classes to me are like templates, no one walks around in game going "Hey you're a paladin, or Hey you're a warlock", but if you come to me with a backstory that doesn't make sense setting wise and you want the powers, I'll say "OK" and then you'll find out at some point in your roleplay over time that the story your parents told you was a little off.  

You get to do what you want, but you don't get to do it exactly the way you thought.  Most players are ok with that so long as the game (and most importantly their character) is cool and makes sense.


----------



## Seramus (Sep 3, 2018)

There are interesting stories to be told about getting your powers cut off and how you overcome those odds.
There are interesting stories to be told about gaining power, and then using that power against your god or patron.
Either way, work with your player to come up with a great story.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, you were more powerful, barely, than 4 support characters.  The argument is that multiclassing makes your character more powerful.  And, let's not forget, in your example, other than the Beastmaster, every other character multi classed (very poorly) too.
> 
> I mean, good grief, reverse the levels of your fighter/Mastermind and he doubles his damage output.  The fact that you have this many characters and, because they all multiclassed, none of them have multiple attacks per round is hardly a fair comparison.
> 
> IOW, your character was more powerful than the rest of the table because the rest of the table made choices to make their characters as absolutely weak as possible.  Being the DPR king in this group is hardly proof of anything other than you have a group that apparently is not power gamers.





Well we had 1 newbie, 1 power gamer who sucks at power gaming (I mean like he makes the worst characters it is almost a joke) and 2 I would say average players... I was trying to cut my power by multi classing. By accident I synergyed a pretty powerful character. 

My problem isn't "Hey all multi class characters are powerful" it's "Multi class rules make it easier to make more or less powerful characters than you mean to"

I spent years thinking High level spells were the powergame. As such my default answer was to play a single class spell caster (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard) as tier one power gaming. The idea of spreading out class levels delaying higher level spells known (and spell slots if not a main caster) being a hit to your power seemed obvius to me.   The problem was I also assumed the GM was more or less right with how high we were going... 16-18th level. So I deversafied, and made a much better low level character then I thought I would.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 3, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> To me, this sort of thing is entirely dependent on the game system you're using as it grants you the lens to look through the world at.
> 
> With D&D players tend to look at their characters as "class first"  that's not to say that there aren't people who put together great backstories and concepts, the rules as written just shoehorn you into a certain point of view.
> 
> Now lets say just as an example, you end up playing rolemaster, where it's damn near impossible to navigate the rules system until you know what story lens the GM tells you to look at the world through, then tells you to come up with your backstory and develop your character first, based on the story and then only spend on things that don't fit the story if you can afford them.



I can't speak for Rolemaster, but with GURPS, the first job for a GM creating a new campaign is to figure out what the world looks like. You need to decide whether magic exists, and if so, what spellcasting is. You need to determine whether anyone can learn magic, or if it's limited to certain people; and whether they learn spells from a list, or if their magic manifests in the form of inherent gifts. You need to decide how many different types of magic there are, and if some magic is divine in nature, then you need to figure out the whole patron/servant relationship.

You can do anything with the system, but it takes a ton of work to reach the level of detail that D&D assumes as a baseline. Meanwhile, although D&D does all of that work up front to tell us _exactly_ what a wizard is and _exactly_ what a paladin is, it's a lot harder to customize if you want something that doesn't exactly follow those assumptions. You can't just change the fluff, because the fluff is intrinsically tied to the crunch, and there aren't really guidelines for how to make those changes.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 3, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> It is unreasonable of a player to bring such a character to the DM with the expectation that it will be allowed. That's just pure player entitlement.




Player: I'm going to play a fighter this time.

DM: It's unreasonable to bring such a character to me with the expectation it will be allowed! Bloody player entitlement! Players picking their own characters! Whatever next!


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 3, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I can't speak for Rolemaster, but with GURPS, the first job for a GM creating a new campaign is to figure out what the world looks like. You need to decide whether magic exists, and if so, what spellcasting is. You need to determine whether anyone can learn magic, or if it's limited to certain people; and whether they learn spells from a list, or if their magic manifests in the form of inherent gifts. You need to decide how many different types of magic there are, and if some magic is divine in nature, then you need to figure out the whole patron/servant relationship.
> 
> You can do anything with the system, but it takes a ton of work to reach the level of detail that D&D assumes as a baseline. Meanwhile, although D&D does all of that work up front to tell us _exactly_ what a wizard is and _exactly_ what a paladin is, it's a lot harder to customize if you want something that doesn't exactly follow those assumptions. You can't just change the fluff, because the fluff is intrinsically tied to the crunch, and there aren't really guidelines for how to make those changes.




It depends on which version of RM.  If you're running classic, then there's at least a dozen decisions you need to make about what rules you're using (per rulebook).  If you're running a later version it's less involved, but since the character generation is so open ended if you don't give your players a good idea of the setting and what's possible, you'll get through chargen and the game will fail.

Still, I like it more than GURPS because it's focused on the fantasy genre, though I love GURPS and have used it in the past.

KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 3, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Player: I'm going to play a fighter this time.
> 
> DM: It's unreasonable to bring such a character to me with the expectation it will be allowed! Bloody player entitlement! Players picking their own characters! Whatever next!




As with most things there's a level of detail, or lack thereof where any statement used breaks down.  I think it's clear that that level of detail is not what Saelorn was referring to.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 3, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 3, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Player: I'm going to play a fighter this time.
> 
> DM: It's unreasonable to bring such a character to me with the expectation it will be allowed! Bloody player entitlement! Players picking their own characters! Whatever next!




Hmmm... comparing that to the post it was directed at warlock pally multi-class...

it almost seems as if one person/poster was referencing a build that used an optional rule and the other was referencing a core one in juxtaposition to it.

That seems odd? 

But to the point 
YES "some GMs IRl and here may look at multi-classing and yell ban ban ban!
YES some GMS may look at multi-classing warlock and pally and yell ban ban ban!
YES some Gms may look at a player who wants to multi-class warlock and pally and see a player who is just power gaming and see no possibility worth mentioning of a good story path.
YES other Gms like me may see it as perfectly fine - given the right story and background and subject it to the same scrutiny of story that other multi-class are.

Which sort of starts to skethc in a line where a player should perhaps not feel its an affront to their ***PLAYER AGENCY THUNDEROUS RIGHT OF DOOM*** to look at optional rules (multi-classing) and classes where there are lotsa of statements about things to work thru with GM as part of creation and especially very close links to an NPC agency and feel entitled to have it all work out the way they want and the other "agency" to have basically little more than a toothless sham of a position of influence.

Either side of a collaboration can be a jerk, after all.




Some


----------



## Sadras (Sep 3, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Player: I'm going to play a fighter this time.
> 
> DM: It's unreasonable to bring such a character to me with the expectation it will be allowed! Bloody player entitlement! Players picking their own characters! Whatever next!






5ekyu said:


> Hmmm... comparing that to the post it was directed at warlock pally multi-class...
> 
> it almost seems as if one person/poster was referencing a build that used an optional rule and the other was referencing a core one in juxtaposition to it.
> 
> That seems odd?




I do not think it is THAT odd... I do not allow monks in my campaign. Lowkey probably doesn't allow paladins.
I guess if we are accepting of DMs disallowing classes, races, spells...etc in their campaigns, then it would be equally fair to allow DMs to disallow MCing or particular MCing in their games.

I'm playing devil's advocate in this conversation, but this position does make sense. I mean I cannot fault a DM from disallowing a pallock when I myself place various limits on character creation within my own campaign.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 3, 2018)

Sadras said:


> I do not think it is THAT odd... I do not allow monks in my campaign. Lowkey probably doesn't allow paladins.
> I guess if we are accepting of DMs disallowing classes, races, spells...etc in their campaigns, then it would be equally fair to allow DMs to disallow MCing or particular MCing in their games.
> 
> I'm playing devil's advocate in this conversation, but this position does make sense. I mean I cannot fault a DM from disallowing a pallock when I myself place various limits on character creation within my own campaign.



What i found odd tho (unclear apparently) was the immediate juxtaposition of disallowing an expressly optional element and disallowing a core element to try and use that juxtaposition to paint the former with the latter.

Odd was the ommission of consideration of optional per the rules vs core per the rules.

Its not odd at all for groups tp limit and/or expand the elements of the system to those that fit the setting, those that work with the setting and those that serve the game they want to play. 

But truthfully, in fact, its not odd really for some to ignore what doesnt help your argument... so point taken


----------



## Sadras (Sep 3, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> What i found odd tho (unclear apparently) was the immediate juxtaposition of disallowing an expressly optional element and disallowing a core element to try and use that juxtaposition to paint the former with the latter.
> 
> Odd was the ommission of consideration of optional per the rules vs core per the rules.




True, but if the DM allows MC but disallows a pallock, then the juxtaposition made by @_*Arial Black*_ stands. I could be mistaken, but that is what it seemed like in [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s post - he/she was referring to a particular MC being disallowed.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 3, 2018)

Sadras said:


> True, but if the DM allows MC but disallows a pallock, then the juxtaposition made by @_*Arial Black*_ stands. I could be mistaken, but that is what it seemed like in [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s post - he/she was referring to a particular MC being disallowed.



So its not the utter demise ofvplayer agency to say "no multi-classing" but it is an assault on reason to say "almost all multi-classing is ok but these are not"?

Where in RAW does it say an optional rule must be used in toto or not at all as opposed to being... optional?

I would think the greater assault on whatever counts for player agency these days would be the one that gave you the least choices.

Clearly, i am just confused.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 3, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So its not the utter demise of player agency to say "no multi-classing" but it is an assault on reason to say "almost all multi-classing is ok but these are not"?
> 
> Where in RAW does it say an optional rule must be used in toto or not at all as opposed to being... optional?



I can't find the exact quote right now, but it's definitely in the rules that the DM can choose to allow or disallow any game element, whether it's explicitly tagged as optional or not. If your DM doesn't like gnomes, then they can choose to not allow them in their game. The same is true for humans, fighters, the Resilient feat, or multiclassing for paladins.

Classes and races are not optional - you have to have something in the game that correlates to class, and something that serves as a race, in order for the game mechanics to work - but any individual class or race is optional. Feats are optional, and any individual feat is also optional.

Before any DM complains about GWM being overpowered (or non-sensical, as the case may be), they should realize that they explicitly chose to double-unlock that because they intentionally wanted it as part of the game. There is no obligation to allow feats in the first place, and even if they wanted to add that option, there was no obligation to allow GWM. 

The same is true of multi-classing a paladin with a warlock. That is not a part of your game world unless you explicitly choose for it to be, and any player who says otherwise can jump in a lake.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2018)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Well we had 1 newbie, 1 power gamer who sucks at power gaming (I mean like he makes the worst characters it is almost a joke) and 2 I would say average players... I was trying to cut my power by multi classing. By accident I synergyed a pretty powerful character.
> 
> My problem isn't "Hey all multi class characters are powerful" it's "Multi class rules make it easier to make more or less powerful characters than you mean to"
> 
> I spent years thinking High level spells were the powergame. As such my default answer was to play a single class spell caster (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard) as tier one power gaming. The idea of spreading out class levels delaying higher level spells known (and spell slots if not a main caster) being a hit to your power seemed obvius to me.   The problem was I also assumed the GM was more or less right with how high we were going... 16-18th level. So I deversafied, and made a much better low level character then I thought I would.




You're missing my point.  You made a character that looks pretty powerful in comparison to the other PC's.  Compared to baseline characters though, yes, this is a very weak character.  IOW, the issue isn't multiclassing, it's that you are setting a very low baseline.  You talk about dealing the most damage in a group where no one has multiple attacks.  Well, again, that's not a mechanics issue.  That's an issue where you happened to choose the most damaging of what is arguably the least damaging combinations of classes.

I look at it this way.  My 5th level party had no core-casters.  None.  They were banned.  No classes with a cantrip.  So, everyone had multiple attacks.  Many of the characters multiclassed.  Yet, for all the shenanigans, everyone was pretty much par for damage - about 20-30 points of damage per character per round, from 5th to 9th level.  Pretty much like clockwork.  Didn't matter that half the characters were multiclassed and half were single classed.  Everyone was pretty close to even.


----------



## SolidPlatonic (Sep 4, 2018)

I'm late to this thread and most of this has been rehashed so YMMV, I am just saying what I and the players I play with would like.

I am DMing a game where I didn't allow multiclassing and feats.  It worked out really well and I made sure the players got magic items, magical runes (think Dragon Marks from Eberron), and non-combat cool stuff so they felt like they were progressing their characters how they wanted.

So it is quite possible to play without the OPTIONAL rules, and a DM isn't limiting player agency if they do so.

That said, if I were to do it again I would do the following:

a) Allow any multiclass that doesn't MC two CHA-based spellcaster classes.  This is not because I don't think a pally-warlock could exist, but rather because D&D 5e MCing does a poor job of thinking through the combinations of these classes.

b) I would get rid of Great Weapon Master, Sentinel, and Sharpshooter feats and replace them with slightly redesigned feats.  I think these three feats are poorly designed, but fighters deserve some way of getting some combat option feats.

c) No coffeelocks

It would be the absolutely lighest touch to get rid of 99% of the abuses I've seen on various boards, but allow the most flexibility for players.

Again, YMMV.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 4, 2018)

SolidPlatonic said:


> It would be the absolutely lighest touch to get rid of 99% of the abuses I've seen on various boards, but allow the most flexibility for players.



What you've seen _on boards_ is not necessarily an accurate representation of what it looks like _in actual play_. I would suggest resisting the urge to ban anything based on hearsay.


----------



## pming (Sep 4, 2018)

Hiya!

I think multi-classing is fun and interesting...in 1e and 2e AD&D. Everything after 2e, however, sucks. 

It's not that I think they are more powerful or anything (although some combo's, when also mixed with other optional rules like feats, spells, races, etc., can produce some monstrosities). It's that someone who has "Fighter/Wizard/Thief" on their character sheet isn't _actually_ a multi-classed F/W/T...they are a character that is a Fighter, and a Wizard, and a Thief. 

My problem, if I boil it down as much as possible, is that each class sits COMPLETELY interdependently of the others...mostly (mechanics wise) with regards to XP progression. When that F/W/T gets 1400 xp and gains a 'level', they up *A* class or add a new one. That screams, to me again (ymmv), "You just gained a level of Fighter! ...the last three months of sea travel, fighting the leviathan, rescuing the sea-princes bride to be, sending the horrible water-demon back to the abyss, sneaking into the half-submerged lighthouse dungeon, and deciphering all the runes, puzzles and riddles had ZERO EFFECT on your capabilities as a Wizard or Thief".  All the sneaking? Irrelevant. All the Sneak Attacks? Irrelevant. All the spells cast? Irrelevant.

So, in my mind, the old-skool way of actually BEING a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief from day one, and advancing each class more or less collectively, has a _completely different_ feel and in-campaign narrative than the 3.x+ versions of the game where you are but a single class at level 1. Then you add a new class later. Then maybe another after that. At no point are you ever "advancing all aspects of your skill-set" at the same time. Ever. It's only ONE at a time. Always. That feels _completely different_ than the 1e/2e characters that are multi-classed. Again, IMNSHO, 1e/2e did it MUCH better. Like, leaps and bounds better.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2018)

There are some serious issues with the AD&D way of doing it though.  Because of the wonkiness of the XP tables in 1e, a character with 2 classes was essentially only one level behind the rest of the group.  The XP for a 7th level fighter, forex, made a 6/6 fighter wizard.  Which is an incredibly powerful combination for very little cost.  I'm losing 5 HP and +1 attack to gain 6 levels of wizard?  I'll take that trade, thanks.

To combat this, we had racial level limits.  But, the problem with that was, people simply didn't play the low limit race/class combos.  So, you played an elven wizard/thief because, well, MU was limited to 12th (not really limited at all in most games) and the thief wasn't limited at all.  There was virtually no mechanical reason not to multiclass because multiclass characters, if you chose the right combos had pretty much no meaningful restrictions and gained so much power.

From an in game POV, sure, I'll agree that it's wonky that I'm suddenly casting spells after murdering orcs with a lumpy metal thing.  But, from a mechanical POV, AD&D multiclassing was a power gamers wet dream.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Sep 4, 2018)

DMG page 4: "The  DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."


----------



## Sadras (Sep 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> The XP for a 7th level fighter, forex, made a 6/6 fighter wizard.  Which is an incredibly powerful combination for very little cost.  I'm losing 5 HP and +1 attack to gain 6 levels of wizard?  I'll take that trade, thanks.




Just a quibble: I'm not sure how you calculated the 5HP. In AD&D you only rolled for HP up until (and including) 9TH level.


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 4, 2018)

pming said:


> So, in my mind, the old-skool way of actually BEING a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief from day one, and advancing each class more or less collectively, has a _completely different_ feel and in-campaign narrative than the 3.x+ versions of the game where you are but a single class at level 1. Then you add a new class later. Then maybe another after that. At no point are you ever "advancing all aspects of your skill-set" at the same time. Ever. It's only ONE at a time. Always. That feels _completely different_ than the 1e/2e characters that are multi-classed. Again, IMNSHO, 1e/2e did it MUCH better. Like, leaps and bounds better.
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming




Just wanted to point out that 3e had UA.  In UA you could make a gestalt character which is very much like the multiclass type characters of 1e and 2e.  The biggest problem people had with it was that BECAUSE there were no level limits and they advanced at the same rate as all the other characters, they tended to be 1.5 to 2x as powerful.  

Of course houserules to limit this (They have a maximum level of 10, and they require 2X the XP to advance a level for example) could change this.

However, in all effects, after UA came about 3.5 DID have something that was VERY similar to the old AD&D multiclass idea (Gestalts advanced at the same rate with both classes.  They took the best abilities of both classes, though that meant instead of taking the average of the two class dice rolls, they would simply use the HP rolls for the class with the highest HD).


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 4, 2018)

I don't play a Pallock, but I DO currently have a Barbarian/Warlock.

As Per Point #3 of the OP, that makes me Evil.

Do I mind?

No...I think I will revel in it before Eldritch blasting a foe right before jumping onto it swinging a greatsword!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Just a quibble: I'm not sure how you calculated the 5HP. In AD&D you only rolled for HP up until (and including) 9TH level.




Average of a D10.  I guess technically it's 5.5 HP.  But the point still remains.  Heck, even at 10 HP, I'm thinking that gaining 6 levels of wizard is worth one level of fighter.  Heck, at higher levels, because of the weirdness of the XP tables, a F/MU/Thief is something like 8/9/10 for the xp of a 10th level fighter.  Been a while since I looked at the chart, but, it was pretty close to that.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 4, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So its not the utter demise ofvplayer agency to say "no multi-classing" but it is an assault on reason to say "almost all multi-classing is ok but these are not"?
> 
> Where in RAW does it say an optional rule must be used in toto or not at all as opposed to being... optional?
> 
> ...




To be clear, on the greater picture we agree.

My thinking was that Arial Black's example of replacing a MC option with a core class option was not so much of a stretch, because if one allows MC, but disallows a specific MC option, it is the same as allowing all core but disallowing one of them (Monk say for instance at my table). Core or optional doesn't matter at this point, in both instances the core and MC were allowed, only specific instances of each were disallowed. I'm saying the example wasn't egregious.

Anyways, it is neither here nor there. Every DM has the right to exclude parts of the game they might take issue with, hell I'm one of those DMs.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 4, 2018)

GreyLord said:


> Just wanted to point out that 3e had UA.  In UA you could make a gestalt character which is very much like the multiclass type characters of 1e and 2e.  The biggest problem people had with it was that BECAUSE there were no level limits and they advanced at the same rate as all the other characters, they tended to be 1.5 to 2x as powerful.
> 
> Of course houserules to limit this (They have a maximum level of 10, and they require 2X the XP to advance a level for example) could change this.
> 
> However, in all effects, after UA came about 3.5 DID have something that was VERY similar to the old AD&D multiclass idea (Gestalts advanced at the same rate with both classes.  They took the best abilities of both classes, though that meant instead of taking the average of the two class dice rolls, they would simply use the HP rolls for the class with the highest HD).




I think that this quote has a hidden point that I'd like to make more openly.

If you allow multi-classing or gestalt classes, the issue isn't that these characters are more powerful.  The issue is that if you allow players to use the rules; it's often forgotten by the DM that he or she should ask "how do the use of these rules impact the rest of my game world."

Optional rules aren't meant to be used in a vacuum specific to just the players and their characters.  If you want to maintain game balance, the enemies and NPCs around them need to make use of the same advantages and be subject to the same disadvantages.

I've found that when characters who multi-class run into opposition that also dip or characters that didn't and show clear advantages due to it, it's a much more balanced game.  I've only run into issues when the players take advantage of the advantages and never run into the disadvantages because I didn't think about the setting and their adversaries well enough.

Be well
KB

(edit - House rules are only necessary when the game is balanced appropriately and the outcome is still broken.  If you balance adversaries against the party and something is still wrong, then do it.  That's not to say that every encounter needs to be balanced against the party - some should be easy and some should be impossible.  But houserules aren't the first answer to any problem.)


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 4, 2018)

My problem is not with restrictions per se.  I think it is absolutely within the DM's right to craft a world.  If a DM said "no multiclassing" I would shrug and make a single classed character.

What I object to is the idea that the fluff cannot be modified for fear of the destruction of absolutely essential archetypes (or worse yet, that the very spirit of the game demands single classing)!

First, look at some of the sub classes!  Looks like some fighters can learn magic and some clerics can swing greatswords.  But if I take a life cleric with a level of fighter it suddenly makes the game impure? I have destroyed the archetype because I now have second wind?  Even if I take acolyte background and was a temple guard who manifested clerical magic a few hundred experience later?

Let's call things like they are.  The spirit of the game is not violated with multiclassing per se.  It has almost always existed (well, for 4.5 decades anyway).  Banning multiclassing or only partially banning multiclassing is a PREFERENCE only.  It is as valid as any other, but the basic tenets of the game are not violated by the inclusion of this now optional rule.  

The other thing I object to is saying certain fluff is meant for modification or reflavoring and some is too sacred (as in you are cheating if you do so).  Again this is PREFERENCE without any more validity than another.  Some people selectively quote the books to show how "it has to be."  Unless it is an actual game balancing issue, why must this be so?  I don't think it has to be this way.  As DM, my player's have been pretty easy to deal with.  I have one character with three classes and his idea was forged by both mechanical as well as flavor related elements.  

As a player, I often have an image in mind and look for ways to make it happen in an effective way.  If I multiclass I either take a feat, background or both to telegraph my interest in a new class from level one because I see characters as integrated wholes and not "class levels."


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 4, 2018)

Last point I think I'll make based on personal experiences..

Player: May I multi-class?
DM: Sure.  May I make villains that multi-class?  
Player: Sure.  

DM learns from players and makes all rolls out in the open.  Party near TPK.

Next campaign

Player: May I gestalt?
DM: Sure, may I make enemies that also do so?
Player: Sure
Player 2: Um, remember what happened last time we used optional rules?  Lets take a look at this.
DM:  I'll allow anything you guys want to do, but know that your choices have consequences, not necessarily bad ones, but consider the outcomes fully during chargen.

A lot of this stuff comes down to the DM allowing him or herself to embrace the adversary role as well as the enabler.  No player is going to get angry if you enable them to make the decisions that affect their play within reasonable lines.


----------



## SolidPlatonic (Sep 4, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> What you've seen _on boards_ is not necessarily an accurate representation of what it looks like _in actual play_. I would suggest resisting the urge to ban anything based on hearsay.




I've played a paladin warlock and a paladin bard, and I've played with several paladin warlocks and one paladin sorcerer.  What I meant by "abuses I've seen on the boards," was an imprecise way of saying all of the "abuses" that are possible with CHA-based multiclassing, seen from firsthand knowledge, reading other peoples' experience, and doing the research myself.

I haven't had anyone play or ask to play a coffeelock, yet.  That's probably because that is just the most egregious, eye-rolling abuse of a poorly-designed rule.

It basically comes down to (one of the few) very sloppy design elements in 5e that can pretty easily be avoided.  A talk with players to say, "hey, don't abuse MC rules" also works in most cases, but the internet shorthand is to just to state that MCing CHA-based classes is uncool and should be avoided.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 4, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Last point I think I'll make based on personal experiences..
> 
> Player: May I multi-class?
> DM: Sure.  May I make villains that multi-class?
> ...




This is greatly true and not done enough in general.  The DM has access to everything the player era do also, and if laid out before hand it doesn’t cause problems.  

For example I use the old critical hit rules, a critical hit is max weapon damage plus whatever damage you roll, a critical hit is a big event for the PCs and shouldn’t be ruined by rolling low.  Players like it, but monsters get it also, the frost giant critical hit is 43 + 3d12, a big number.  While players hate getting hit by such a big number, it adds tension of a crushing blow.

Of course a MC bad guy is always a custom design, so isn’t used by a lot of DMs who are pressed for time.  A great way to avoid this is collect your PCs old PC sheets and use them as your bad guys, or have your PCs fight a mirror image of themselves.  

The reaction of your players when they have to wade  through enemy Spirit Guardians or an undead horde that keeps getting HP back through a necrotic version of Aura of Life is pretty good.

Most humanoid bad guys should have some element of MC in them for flavor, some make DMing easier.  An enemy wizard with 1 level of knowledge cleric gets armor proficiency and knowledge skills to know a lot about the group and thus justify using PC go-to moves against them without meta-gaming the PCs.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 4, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Hmmm... comparing that to the post it was directed at warlock pally multi-class...
> 
> it almost seems as if one person/poster was referencing a build that used an optional rule and the other was referencing a core one in juxtaposition to it.
> 
> That seems odd?




Well...allow me to elaborate....



> But to the point
> YES "some GMs IRl and here may look at multi-classing and yell ban ban ban!
> YES some GMS may look at multi-classing warlock and pally and yell ban ban ban!
> YES some Gms may look at a player who wants to multi-class warlock and pally and see a player who is just power gaming and see no possibility worth mentioning of a good story path.
> YES other Gms like me may see it as perfectly fine - given the right story and background and subject it to the same scrutiny of story that other multi-class are.




Let's break it down:-

* a game where multiclassing is banned. In such a game, the Pal/War isn't an issue that will arise. In that game, none of the classes is banned. Who gets to choose which class each player plays, DM or player? That's right, the player. Yes, the player is _entitled_ to play any (allowed) class they want to play. It's not okay for the DM to say that Tom, Dick and Harry can play whatever class they want, but Jane is not allowed to play ANY class without my prior permission because I assume that whatever class she plays she will abuse it!

* a game where multiclassing is allowed. In such a game, just like a single class game, it's the _player_ who gets to choose their own character class or classes 



> Which sort of starts to skethc in a line where a player should perhaps not feel its an affront to their ***PLAYER AGENCY THUNDEROUS RIGHT OF DOOM*** to look at optional rules (multi-classing) and classes where there are lotsa of statements about things to work thru with GM as part of creation and especially very close links to an NPC agency and feel entitled to have it all work out the way they want and the other "agency" to have basically little more than a toothless sham of a position of influence.




Each class is a set of game mechanics. Each class is also presented with several examples of fluff, but the fluff bits are not 'rules', they are suggestions. Players are expected and encouraged to make their own fluff. No-one can seriously look at the fluff in the Warlock description and assert that ALL warlock patrons WILL take away your hard-earned mechanical abilities if you choose to do something they don't like.

Sure, ideally, it makes for a much, much better game if there is collaboration between player and DM, but it _must_ be the player who makes the _choices_. Otherwise, the DM is just playing Magic Story Time and the players are just pushing the DM's pawns around the table at the DM's whim.

Which brings us to.... 



> Either side of a collaboration can be a jerk, after all.




Absolutely!

Both sides of this debate can envision the extreme, but in one side's minds the 'extreme' is the tyrannical DM, while in the other side's minds the 'extreme' is players who totally ignore their own fluff or make up nonsensical fluff just so they can be murderhobos without consequence.

So my complaints are specific, and it would be helpful if I were more precise in my objections:-

* the DM tells us what rules we're using. Fine. I make a PC accordingly. He THEN makes up a spurious excuse and alters the rules _for me_ in order that I can't play what I want

* I look at the god I worship, or the Oath I'm keeping, or the patron who's the other side of my Pact. I read what the books say, and I imagine what my PC will be like. Sure, there are _wrong_ ways to play, say, the Oath of the Ancients, but there are plenty of different _right_ ways to play it. After all, the Oaths (and gods and Pacts) are intentionally vague. 'Be the light' is one of the clauses in the Oath of the Ancients. What? Oh, be courageous and positive and so forth. Great, I can get my head around that kind of personality and play that honestly.

So I play my Ancients paladin honestly, according to my honest ideas about the kind of personality that would take that Oath. But, it has to be admitted, that there is not just one single possible personality that EVERY Ancients paladin has! That would be absurd! No, there are MANY ways that personality could manifest and still be an honest portrayal of that Oath. Yes, there are many _wrong_ ways too, but as long as the player plays the PC in one of the many _right_ ways, everything is kosher.

Or it should be!

My specific complaint is the kind of DM behaviour that boils down to, "No! _*I*_ play Ancients paladins *this* way, therefore ANY other way of playing them is *wrong* and I will take your powers away unless you play YOUR paladin (or cleric or warlock or whatever) the exact same way I would play it if I were playing that class/Oath/Pact/god!"

So the idea that ANY multiclass of paladin and warlock is impossible because the god/patron would not allow it is demonstrably flawed, simply by explaining how this particular character/god/patron works. It all makes sense.

So how can you pre-ban it before you've even heard about this specific character? How can you just ASSUME that I'm a jerk power-gaming munchkin as soon as the words 'paladin/warlock' escape my lips and refuse to even hear about my character?

That's not respectful. Assuming the lowest of motives and refusing to listen to what's actually going on shows that this DM is not worthy of respect since this DM shows such disrespect.

So these DMs take away class abilities (using Rule zero as a pathetic excuse) not because the player is *ignoring* the relationship between PC and god/patron/Oath, but because the DM would have made a different decision if HE were playing a PC with that god/patron/Oath. When HE is playing such a PC he can make those choices, but when I am playing such a PC those choices are MINE to make!

THAT is 'player agency'. Without it there is no point in playing the game at all. Taking that agency away is the greatest RPG crime a DM can commit!


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 4, 2018)

pming said:


> Hiya!




Hello, Paul.



> I think multi-classing is fun and interesting...in 1e and 2e AD&D. Everything after 2e, however, sucks.




Really? Please, explain!  



> It's not that I think they are more powerful or anything (although some combo's, when also mixed with other optional rules like feats, spells, races, etc., can produce some monstrosities). It's that someone who has "Fighter/Wizard/Thief" on their character sheet isn't _actually_ a multi-classed F/W/T...they are a character that is a Fighter, and a Wizard, and a Thief.




....errm...what? 



> My problem, if I boil it down as much as possible, is that each class sits COMPLETELY interdependently of the others...mostly (mechanics wise) with regards to XP progression. When that F/W/T gets 1400 xp and gains a 'level', they up *A* class or add a new one. That screams, to me again (ymmv), "You just gained a level of Fighter! ...the last three months of sea travel, fighting the leviathan, rescuing the sea-princes bride to be, sending the horrible water-demon back to the abyss, sneaking into the half-submerged lighthouse dungeon, and deciphering all the runes, puzzles and riddles had ZERO EFFECT on your capabilities as a Wizard or Thief".  All the sneaking? Irrelevant. All the Sneak Attacks? Irrelevant. All the spells cast? Irrelevant.




But in 1e/2e _exactly the same thing happened!_

My Ftr/MU/Thf has the levels x/y/z. I go on a loooong adventure (because we levelled more slowly in those days) and did plenty of sneaking and casting and, okay, a _bit_ of fighting, but when I accumulate enough XPs to level up in one of those classes (because each class had its own advancement table) the class that gets +1 level is not based on the things you did in the adventure that garnered those XPs but on those tables. It may very well be that those tables dictate that my fighter level increases, and now I am x+1/y/z.

In this respect, both pre-3e and post-3e multiclassing advancement is equally divorced from the kind of things you did in the previous adventure, so this is not a valid criticism of post 2e multiclassing.

In contrast, if you played RuneQuest or Stormbringer (which was based on a simplified RuneQuest rules set) then at the end of each adventure you rolled to see if you improved any of the skills you _actually used_ during the adventure.  



> So, in my mind, the old-skool way of actually BEING a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief from day one, and advancing each class more or less collectively, has a _completely different_ feel and in-campaign narrative than the 3.x+ versions of the game where you are but a single class at level 1. Then you add a new class later. Then maybe another after that. At no point are you ever "advancing all aspects of your skill-set" at the same time. Ever. It's only ONE at a time. Always. That feels _completely different_ than the 1e/2e characters that are multi-classed. Again, IMNSHO, 1e/2e did it MUCH better. Like, leaps and bounds better.




Conceptually, you could still have trained to be a F/M/T since 2e. You could be a long-lived elf who trained from childhood to be all three classes in 1e or 5e. In 1e you have the advantage that at first level you are all three, while in 5e you only start as one class and cannot actually use the abilities of a second class until you have killed 300 XP-worth of goblins. Wonky? Yeah.

But in 5e you can do some sensible things which you could not in 1e: you can, as a multiclass character, choose to emphasise some aspects of your multiclass over others, concentrating on (say) being the best fencer you can be while just using your wizard-y stuff for utility rituals and things that make you a better fencer, but that Bladesong really helps in a duel! You can also learn some stuff in later life that you never thought of in childhood. Both of these are sensible, realistic possibilities, and 5e allows them.

But 1e disallows any choice of focus for multiclass PCs, who remain bound by those class experience tables. It disallows-for demihumans-picking up new skills later. Meanwhile, humans CAN do the latter but CANNOT do the former! Why? Because 1e is _wonky_ that way.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 4, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Well...allow me to elaborate....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just two points worth mentioning...

Imo any game mechanic decision that is **player specific** as opposed to character specific or setting specific is imo basically poor Gming. The only exceptions I could see might involve some lesser mechanic fluff type stuff for cases where "Jackie likes cats so... I use more cats." But really not the same thing. I did not think we were discussing player agency violations in the context of favoritism tho. Maybe I missed that massive suction of this thread.

As for a GM having the absurd temerity for him to think he has the right to decide for himself what npcs of divine/Pattron level will agree to in the setting he is running - and from that say for instance pally-lock is not allowed in his game - and that bring a removal of player agency - well you know - we will just have to agree to disagree even though that particular case is one I do not choose for my games. I think many divine/patron combos are fine.


But then, in games I GM, its understood and made clear from the start  all PCs are subject to approval by GM, not given unlimited license. Its expected backgrounds and development makes sense and are worked as story elements, not deviations.

But you have shown me that whatever player agency may have started out as and whatever serious ills it was sought as a concept to define or address, it has been now transmuted into something I can now basically ignore as anything like a useful term for discussion.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 4, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> But you have shown me that whatever player agency may have started out as and whatever serious ills it was sought as a concept to define or address, it has been now transmuted into something I can now basically ignore as anything like a useful term for discussion.




At its most basic, player agency is that players choose what their PCs do and what their personalities are like, the DM chooses what all the NPCs do and what they are like.

Of course, the player can only choose the things the PC is actually able to do! The declared action, "I fly 60 feet up to the top of the tower" is only valid if the PC can fly! But, within the realm of the possible, it's the player who chooses, not the DM.

Imagine this:-
Player: I cast _sleep_ at the...
DM: No, you draw your dagger and move to melee.
Player: What? Have I failed some save against something?
DM: No, I just think it's what you'd do.

No! The _player_ makes those choices!

Similarly, the player chooses the PC's personality, how they interact with their god/patron/Oath from their end of the deal. And just like the player can only choose from the possible, they should also choose things that make sense in context. So saving _these_ orphans instead of _those_ orphans is a legitimate player choice, while murdering any orphans is not a legitimate player choice for any Ancients paladin to make IF he intends to keep to his Oath. Of course, he can choose to break his Oath if he wants.

With power comes responsibility. The player is responsible for making choices that make sense in context.

With great power comes great responsibility. The DM is responsible for making choices that make sense in context.

Sure, the orphan-murdering Ancients paladin must be reasonably judged to have broken his Oath. But saving _these_ orphans instead of _those_ cannot reasonably be judged to have broken that Oath.

My problem is DMs who make unreasonable judgements and take away powers based on that. The legitimate role-play of the god/patron/etc. is instead replaced by what the DM would have done if they were playing an Ancients paladin (or whatever god/patron) and ANY deviation from the DM's choice results in the player being punished. It's not really the god who's punishing, it's the DM using the god as an excuse to punish the player for playing his own PC as he sees fit.

It's a problem that exists when the PC conceptually receives powers from an intelligent source. It is not a problem for classes that gain their abilities through their own efforts. No-one takes away the rogue's class abilities for daring to steal _this_ necklace instead of _that_ necklace!

But the 5e devs don't discriminate between classes in that way. They don't _want_ some classes to be vulnerable to power-stripping while others are not. It's not fair, they recognise, to penalise players for having the temerity to choose to play paladins/clerics/warlocks but not fighters/rogues/wizards. That's why any such mechanics have been deliberately written out of the game! In fact, the only thing left that even resembles that is the Oathbreaker paladin, and even then it doesn't strip you of all your class abilities leaving you a powerless husk with too many hit points for a commoner, it _replaces_ the abilities of your original Oath with an equally powerful set of abilities and a new Oath.

The game itself doesn't want DMs to strip class abilities away! If the god/patron/whatever has a problem with the PC's behaviour then the entity should do something that makes sense _in the game world_ to address it, not punish the *metagame* by erasing portions of his character sheet!


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 4, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Each class is a set of game mechanics. Each class is also presented with several examples of fluff, but the fluff bits are not 'rules', they are suggestions. Players are expected and encouraged to make their own fluff.



False. That was only true of 4E. In 5E, as in every other edition, the game mechanics are inextricably tied to the fluff. The DM is free to create their own fluff, and can use the existing game mechanics as guidelines for how to do so, but that's an aspect of setting creation in which the players are not involved (unless it's by the DM's request, which goes beyond the purview of setting creation as described in the DMG).

If a player shows up at a game with a warlock whose pact does not work as the DM tells them it does, then the player needs to fix their character in order to better fit with the world.


Arial Black said:


> * I look at the god I worship, or the Oath I'm keeping, or the patron who's the other side of my Pact. I read what the books say, and I imagine what my PC will be like. Sure, there are wrong ways to play, say, the Oath of the Ancients, but there are plenty of different right ways to play it. After all, the Oaths (and gods and Pacts) are intentionally vague. 'Be the light' is one of the clauses in the Oath of the Ancients. What? Oh, be courageous and positive and so forth. Great, I can get my head around that kind of personality and play that honestly.



Much of the conflict can be resolved as long as everyone is playing in good faith. 

When it comes to some element of the setting that's vague or poorly-defined, then it's up to the DM to clarify that, because the DM is the absolute authority on how their setting works. They need to know literally everything about their world, in case some question comes up that they need to answer, and their word is the only one that matters. Players do not have the authority to establish facts about how the world works; players can only make decisions for their own character. If a player interprets an Oath (or Pact, or whatever) in a manner contrary to how the DM interprets it, then the player has made an honest mistake, and should work with the DM to resolve the conflict. That could mean playing a different character, or it could mean that this one player character works differently from everyone else in the setting (maybe they really are unique, but people might take notice, and there may be consequences).


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 4, 2018)

GreyLord said:


> Just wanted to point out that 3e had UA.  In UA you could make a gestalt character which is very much like the multiclass type characters of 1e and 2e.  The biggest problem people had with it was that BECAUSE there were no level limits and they advanced at the same rate as all the other characters, they tended to be 1.5 to 2x as powerful.



For that matter, 3E also had actual AD&D-style multi-classing, even at level 1. You started with some of the features from each class, and after that you alternated between gaining levels in each class. (Just as you alternated gaining levels in AD&D, since each class used a different XP chart.)

It was one of the few great things from 3.0 that was inexplicably dropped for 3.5.


----------



## pming (Sep 4, 2018)

Hiya!



Arial Black said:


> But in 1e/2e _exactly the same thing happened!_
> 
> My Ftr/MU/Thf has the levels x/y/z. I go on a loooong adventure (because we levelled more slowly in those days) and did plenty of sneaking and casting and, okay, a _bit_ of fighting, but when I accumulate enough XPs to level up in one of those classes (because each class had its own advancement table) the class that gets +1 level is not based on the things you did in the adventure that garnered those XPs but on those tables. It may very well be that those tables dictate that my fighter level increases, and now I am x+1/y/z.




Er...no? I mean, technically, if the DM always awards XP equally to all a MC characters classes, it may look that way, but it really isn't. I can't remember where (took a quick look in the 1e PHB and DMG in the likely spots) but I distinctly remember reading that the DM could/should award a MC characters XP "unequally" if it made more sense (e.g., a F/T who is in a gladatorial pit fighting his way to freedom gets 3000xp; the DM could say that 2k of it goes to Fighter, and only 1k to Thief, for example).

But even if the DM doesn't do that, and lets the player divide XP evenly, just because one of the characters classes advanced a level doesn't mean the character didn't learn anything in the other(s). It's just that they didn't learn _enough_ in the others. A Fighter/Thief who gets 500xp that bumps up his Thief a level but not his Fighter doesn't mean the PC didn't "learn anything about fighting"...because he did; he learned 250xp worth of fighting as indicated by the 250xp increase under his Fighter XP total. With 3.x onward, that doesn't happen. It's a lump sum of XP and when that total hits some amount, the character increases a level.

For a perfect example of that just look at what is referred to as "level dipping". A PC adds a single level of Warlock so he can get one particular special ability. And that's it. He then continues to only level up his Paladin, or Cleric, or whatever class and never increases his Warlock one...even if he is constantly using the one or two Warlock abilities because he can combine it with one of his 'main' classes abilities in order to get a power boost. The character never really "learns" anything about being a Warlock. Well, until that time when he gains another level and the player just decides "Well, why not? I'll add another level of Warlock for fun".

That's my main beef with MC'ing in 3.x+ editions.




> Conceptually, you could still have trained to be a F/M/T since 2e. You could be a long-lived elf who trained from childhood to be all three classes in 1e or 5e. In 1e you have the advantage that at first level you are all three, while in 5e you only start as one class and cannot actually use the abilities of a second class until you have killed 300 XP-worth of goblins. Wonky? Yeah.




Uh, no again? In 5e you are never a "F/M/T". The player may conceptualize and have a written background history that tries to explain the whole F/M/T class 'training', but the rules don't support it. Once you get 300 xp you THEN can add one of those classes abilities to your character. After some more xp you can add the third. After more xp you can even add a fourth...which could have nothing to do with your background history. Or you could up one of your F/M/T classes...but only one. And no matter what you do, or how your do it, the player can always choose to just up a single one of those classes.

This is fine for a lot of people who really enjoy the freedom that the 3.x+ editions of the game gave you. That's fine. But it's also not for me. As I said, my main beef with the MC system in 3.x+ editions has always been that it just doesn't feel like a MC character.



> But in 5e you can do some sensible things which you could not in 1e: you can, as a multiclass character, choose to emphasise some aspects of your multiclass over others, concentrating on (say) being the best fencer you can be while just using your wizard-y stuff for utility rituals and things that make you a better fencer, but that Bladesong really helps in a duel! You can also learn some stuff in later life that you never thought of in childhood. Both of these are sensible, realistic possibilities, and 5e allows them.




Yes, completely agree with the overall sentiment of the above. But I don't like it as far as trying to use MC rules to accomplish it. I would rather the player and DM have some means of accomplishing that. As there are a thousand different ways to do it, that's probably why the writers didn't; it would end up becoming more of a "point buy based" game system...and, imho, that's not D&D. The old "2.5e" Skills & Powers book took a stab at this. Decent enough stab, but one that required a LOT of effort and restraint on both the Player and DM side of the screen. Played a campaign using those rules way back when. It was the Night Below boxed set; played for a few months until a TPK somewhere in the depths. 

I can, of course, "rationalize" why a 5e F/M/T gets good at one class and has no _specific_ advancement towards the others. I can come up with backgrounds, special "Professions" or "Orders" that require a particular class-combo (basically, "prestige classes", more or less). And that's cool...I just wish it was more like 1e's MC where the PC could actually start and continue as a F/M/T. As I said; I just don't like the way 3.x+ MC feels.



> But 1e disallows any choice of focus for multiclass PCs, who remain bound by those class experience tables. It disallows-for demihumans-picking up new skills later. Meanwhile, humans CAN do the latter but CANNOT do the former! Why? Because 1e is _wonky_ that way.




Yes, that is what 1e does. And I like it.  I like that it makes demihumans seem distinctly different from humans. An Elf can be a F/M-U from day one. A Human has to have high stats, start as one class, then switch to the second and stick with it for the rest of their life. I don't see this as "bad", just like I don't see Race/Class restrictions or level-limits as "bad". I'm "old skool" in most of my preferences of RPG's. After this long, I've accepted that and embraced it as just who I am as a DM and Player. So, for me, 1e/2e MC is just a much better solution than the later iterations of the game. YMMV.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 5, 2018)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> 
> Everything Paul wrote - it's right above this so I'm not going to make another long scrolly window. (o)(o) ^^
> ...




I think it's appropriate to chime in and advise that if you were using experience rules as written for 1ed, the least of your problems was figuring out how to split them up.

1. You could gain experience equal to the amount you needed and you still wouldn't level unless the DM allowed you to. 
2. You were to be assigned a ranking based on how well you performed your role and that ranking determined how many weeks of game time your character needed to train with a mentor to level.
3. In many cases you needed to pay a fee to level or each time you leveled (for material suiting your new level or tithing to various entities and colleges)

All from page 86 of the 1e DMG.  Leveling was serious business and you see it in the modern concept of downtime.

Once you got past that sillyness (or awesomeness depending on what side of the bed you wake up on) then you could get into multi-classing issues.

1. Experience was gained from treasure earned and killing things.  Treasure share was not guaranteed because parties would come to some agreement regarding value and share and some would get screwed.

2. Additionally, it was expected that you were gaining experience only when doing things related to your class skills and role.  The DM could dock your share of experience points if you were a priest going off and singing bardic tales or being fighter-y.

3. Last, there was a difference between being multi-classed (demi-human) and having two classes (human).  While the formal opinion of the time was that a character only had one experience total, in practice considering all other rules this turned in to multi-class characters having two or more experience totals specific to their classes and the dual classed character having only one total.*

* because the dual classed character could only advance in one class at a time, and couldn't use features of both classes until the second class exceeded the first classes level and so on.  Each time the human took a new class he'd have to meet all the requirements and only be the new class until he exceeded his ability in the most previous.  

So um, most people didn't do this stuff. (p.33 PHB)

Or, they just didn't do it as written.. which was what annoyed me most at the time I was a player.  Modern equivalent to that is as it was back then, people don't read the rules before playing and do it wrong - then enough people do it wrong and it becomes right.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 5, 2018)

I have a lot of nostalgia for the 1/2e multiclassing, I’m playing a Ftr/M-U in. 2e game right now! 
It’s also why I loved the gestalt rules for 3.5. 

But I hated how dual-classes chars worked so I was glad to see that concept done away with. Also level limits were silly and arbitrary. Basically designed so people would have a reason to play humans (I thought)

It’s not the best, but I like 5e multiclassing works overall. Especially if you multi early, where the xp thresholds are so low, you can pretty quickly get to that story point you write for a character. 

Also, the best way emulate F/M/T in 5e is either Fighter(EK)/Rogue(AT) or Wiz(Bladesinger) with proficiency in stealth and thieves tools (skilled feat) or background. 

The nice thing about 5e is there are many ways to get to a concept and often you don’t even need to multi per se with Feats and Backgrounds. Fighter with Magic Initiate feat and criminal background. Elven Wizard (Bladesinger) with urchin background. Both just as “F/M/T” as the F/M/T was in 1 or 2e. If you really need more then multi to Rogue for the expertise or Cunning action, but you don’t have to.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 5, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> But I hated how dual-classes chars worked so I was glad to see that concept done away with. Also level limits were silly and arbitrary. Basically designed so people would have a reason to play humans (I thought)




You're not wrong.  The system was slanted human due to the underlying fiction that inspired it.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 5, 2018)

pming said:


> In 5e you are never a "F/M/T". The player may conceptualize and have a written background history that tries to explain the whole F/M/T class 'training', but the rules don't support it. Once you get 300 xp you THEN can add one of those classes abilities to your character. After some more xp you can add the third. After more xp you can even add a fourth...which could have nothing to do with your background history. Or you could up one of your F/M/T classes...but only one. And no matter what you do, or how your do it, the player can always choose to just up a single one of those classes.



I'm generally on board with hating a game for any reason whatsoever, but I don't quite follow you here. Under the 3.x multiclassing rules, at any point after third level, you always have the _option_ of keeping your classes as even as possible. You can end up as a level 15 character with 5 levels in each of Fighter/Wizard/Rogue, if you want to. You might end up as 2/1/1 for a while, and then 2/2/1, before you get up to 2/2/2 again. That's not different than AD&D, where a multiclass F/M/T would level up each class at a different time, due to variances in the XP tables and/or earning XP for each class at a different rate.

It would actually be quite difficult to contrive keeping your class levels even, in AD&D, if the DM awarded XP to each class distinctly. If your multiclass character spent a long term as a gladiator, such that an AD&D DM would choose to award more Fighter XP than Thief XP, then you can mimic that same effect by choosing to level your Fighter class at the next level.

I just don't get why it hurts your ability to multiclass evenly, if some other player chooses to multiclass unevenly. If your character maintains an even split between classes, and another character dips a single level into warlock (for whatever reason), then that shouldn't hurt your character identity.

Unless you want to argue from a setting design standpoint, that a world with _only_ even split multiclassing is more interesting than a world where anyone can develop in different ways. Or if you think it makes for a more interesting Game, to play with more limited options. (In either case, I would expect you to also say that dwarves and halflings shouldn't be arcane spellcasters). Those arguments would make sense.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 5, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I'm generally on board with hating a game for any reason whatsoever, but I don't quite follow you here. Under the 3.x multiclassing rules, at any point after third level, you always have the _option_ of keeping your classes as even as possible. You can end up as a level 15 character with 5 levels in each of Fighter/Wizard/Rogue, if you want to. You might end up as 2/1/1 for a while, and then 2/2/1, before you get up to 2/2/2 again. That's not different than AD&D, where a multiclass F/M/T would level up each class at a different time, due to variances in the XP tables and/or earning XP for each class at a different rate.
> 
> It would actually be quite difficult to contrive keeping your class levels even, in AD&D, if the DM awarded XP to each class distinctly. If your multiclass character spent a long term as a gladiator, such that an AD&D DM would choose to award more Fighter XP than Thief XP, then you can mimic that same effect by choosing to level your Fighter class at the next level.
> 
> ...




The only real difference comes from the mandate in 3e that states when you get enough experience you level and the 1e mandate that says you level when you get enough experience, do all the required things and the DM allows you to.

Big difference in tone and depending on how strict your DM is, it can really put the screws to the player.  However, that logic would work in opposition to pmings logic.

KB


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 5, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> The only real difference comes from the mandate in 3e that states when you get enough experience you level and the 1e mandate that says you level when you get enough experience, do all the required things and the DM allows you to.
> 
> Big difference in tone and depending on how strict your DM is, it can really put the screws to the player.  However, that logic would work in opposition to pmings logic.



That part was in the DMG. You can require downtime and/or money to train, before anyone is allowed to gain a level. The only difference is that it wasn't the default option.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 5, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> That part was in the DMG. You can require downtime and/or money to train, before anyone is allowed to gain a level. The only difference is that it wasn't the default option.




Agreed, and that's a big difference because there weren't other options in 1e if you played it RAW as the DM.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 5, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> False. That was only true of 4E. In 5E, as in every other edition, the game mechanics are inextricably tied to the fluff.




Are you saying that _certain elements_ of the fluff are inextricably tied to the game mechanics? Or that _all_ of the fluff is inextricably tied to the game mechanics? The former I can agree with: the Fighter mechanics, for example, are inextricably tied to a weapon-user rather than a spellslinger. But the latter I disagree with completely: nothing about the Barbarian's mechanics requires a member of that class to view "civilization as a form of weakness", even though that's mentioned explicitly in the PHB fluff.



Saelorn said:


> Players do not have the authority to establish facts about how the world works; players can only make decisions for their own character. If a player interprets an Oath (or Pact, or whatever) in a manner contrary to how the DM interprets it, then the player has made an honest mistake, and should work with the DM to resolve the conflict. That could mean playing a different character, or it could mean that this one player character works differently from everyone else in the setting (maybe they really are unique, but people might take notice, and there may be consequences).




Wait, why does a Paladin's Oath say anything about how the world works? If Oaths were instead Knightly Orders, I'd agree that a player can't make up the details of an organization without consulting the DM. But the details of an Oath can be unique to each Paladin, and thus don't necessarily have any impact at all on the setting. Shouldn't character decisions that don't impact the setting be up to the player? (With the usual caveat that the DM can reject characters as unsuitable for a game, or request changes.)


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 5, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> Are you saying that certain elements of the fluff are inextricably tied to the game mechanics? Or that all of the fluff is inextricably tied to the game mechanics? The former I can agree with: the Fighter mechanics, for example, are inextricably tied to a weapon-user rather than a spellslinger. But the latter I disagree with completely: nothing about the Barbarian's mechanics requires a member of that class to view "civilization as a form of weakness", even though that's mentioned explicitly in the PHB fluff.



Why do you believe that there's a difference between your examples? Why do you accept that the fighter mechanics are tied to their skill with a weapon, but not accept that the barbarian's mechanics are tied to their barbarism?


Xetheral said:


> Wait, why does a Paladin's Oath say anything about how the world works? If Oaths were instead Knightly Orders, I'd agree that a player can't make up the details of an organization without consulting the DM. But the details of an Oath can be unique to each Paladin, and thus don't necessarily have any impact at all on the setting. Shouldn't character decisions that don't impact the setting be up to the player? (With the usual caveat that the DM can reject characters as unsuitable for a game, or request changes.)



The paladin's Oath and the warlock's Pact are the sources by which they acquire their powers. By defining the terms of how these works, you're establishing how the world works, when it comes to accessing those powers. If Cthulhu exists, and your Pact with Cthulhu grants you magical powers, then the terms of the Pact define a truth about Cthulhu, which is beyond the purview of the player or their character.

The paladin's Oath is the price which they must pay in order to access their spells and other magical abilities. Letting a player dictate that price would be like letting them dictate the price for plate armor. A world where there's no real cost associated with becoming a paladin is a different world than one where only the few are capable of becoming (or willing to become) a paladin, in much the same way that a world where plate armor is expensive is different from a world where plate armor is cheap.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 5, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Why do you believe that there's a difference between your examples? Why do you accept that the fighter mechanics are tied to their skill with a weapon, but not accept that the barbarian's mechanics are tied to their barbarism?




Consider the Fighter's primary ability, Extra Attack. It works via the Attack Action, which in turn permits one to make Weapon Attacks. If you wanted to refluff the Fighter as a spellslinger, you'd have to either redesign the Attack Action to work with Spell Attacks, or redefine Weapon Attacks to include spells. Considering that either would be a major overhaul of the game's underlying mechanics, I'm comfortable claiming (if somewhat hyperbolically) that the Fighter's mechanics are "inextricably" tied to their use of weapons.

By contrast, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who aspires to have his tribe join civilization rather than shunning it as a form of weakness. For that matter, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who is already part of civilization and has no ties to "barbarism" whatsoever. So I see absolutely no reason that the Barbarian's mechanics are tied (let alone inextricably) to a belief that civilization is a form of weakness.



Saelorn said:


> The paladin's Oath and the warlock's Pact are the sources by which they acquire their powers. By defining the terms of how these works, you're establishing how the world works, when it comes to accessing those powers. If Cthulhu exists, and your Pact with Cthulhu grants you magical powers, then the terms of the Pact define a truth about Cthulhu, which is beyond the purview of the player or their character.
> 
> The paladin's Oath is the price which they must pay in order to access their spells and other magical abilities. Letting a player dictate that price would be like letting them dictate the price for plate armor. A world where there's no real cost associated with becoming a paladin is a different world than one where only the few are capable of becoming (or willing to become) a paladin, in much the same way that a world where plate armor is expensive is different from a world where plate armor is cheap.




I agree with you on the Warlock, because the patron is an NPC and thus a part of the setting. But I disagree with you about the Paladin. I see the nuances of each Paladin's Oath as an idiosyncratic manifestation of the Paladin's underlying conviction, rather than as a setting-specific price that must be paid for power. One could certainly design a campaign world in which an Oath _is_ a price, or each Oath has only a single Knightly Order, just as one could design a campaign setting in which every Wizard was first a formal apprentice to an NPC, or every Barbarian is a member of a fixed list of tribes, or any number of other setting-specific tie-ins. But I don't see the Paladin (unlike the Warlock) as having a setting-specific tie-in by default.


----------



## pming (Sep 5, 2018)

Hiya!



Saelorn said:


> I'm generally on board with hating a game for any reason whatsoever, but I don't quite follow you here.




Ah, a man after my own heart.   Seriously, I'm not hatin' on 5e. I think 5e is the best version of D&D to come along since 1e. Love DM'ing (and now playing!...got to play THREE whole sessions as Wargrim Battlebrew, Dwarven Battlebrewer of Ulaa!). It's just that I don't like the way the MC works. Doesn't feel right to me.



> I just don't get why it hurts your ability to multiclass evenly, if some other player chooses to multiclass unevenly. If your character maintains an even split between classes, and another character dips a single level into warlock (for whatever reason), then that shouldn't hurt your character identity.
> 
> Unless you want to argue from a setting design standpoint, that a world with _only_ even split multiclassing is more interesting than a world where anyone can develop in different ways. Or if you think it makes for a more interesting Game, to play with more limited options. (In either case, I would expect you to also say that dwarves and halflings shouldn't be arcane spellcasters). Those arguments would make sense.




My main "argument" is that a MC character in 5e never feels like a MC character to me. Why? I guess the "problem" I have with it is a DM can't say "Ok, Tracy, here's your characters XP. You get 1200 even. Divide them between your Fighter and Thief classes". ...because there is not difference between the characters classes and their XP's gained. That amalgamation of XP equaling a "total number of levels" simply does not feel..."right"...to me. 

Probably because I'm old. And crotchety. And am in need of my nap.  Or maybe it's because I just don't like the way 5e MC "feels". Or, most likely, all of the above. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 5, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> By contrast, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who aspires to have his tribe join civilization rather than shunning it as a form of weakness. For that matter, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who is already part of civilization and has no ties to "barbarism" whatsoever. So I see absolutely no reason that the Barbarian's mechanics are tied (let alone inextricably) to a belief that civilization is a form of weakness.



Any character who belongs to the Barbarian class has the ability to rage, wherein they gain the ability to shrug off wounds that would kill a lesser person as long as that wound is inflicted while they are raging (among other benefits). If that ability isn't tied to their barbarism, then where does it come from? Why can't anyone else do that whenever they get angry? What is the in-game reality which is associated with a character belonging to that class?


Xetheral said:


> I agree with you on the Warlock, because the patron is an NPC and thus a part of the setting. But I disagree with you about the Paladin. I see the nuances of each Paladin's Oath as an idiosyncratic manifestation of the Paladin's underlying conviction, rather than as a setting-specific price that must be paid for power.



In your understanding of the default D&D setting, where does a Paladin's magic come from? Do they grant it to themselves, based on the strength of their own resolve? And if so, why would there be specific Orders that such convictions must fall into? Why can't anyone gain magic power, regardless of what they believe, as long as they believe it strongly enough?


Xetheral said:


> But I don't see the Paladin (unlike the Warlock) as having a setting-specific tie-in by default.



I guess this is the important part, but I can basically see where you're coming from with your points here. You're presenting a fairly well-reasoned argument. Do you see your positions as being obvious and indisputable? Or do you see how some people might read more into the class descriptions, as I do?

If you can concede that it's possible to have a different interpretation here, then you should also agree that the DM (or setting creator) is the one who says what the truth actually is for that world. If you were the DM, and you told me that Barbarians could be civilized and have different fluff for their rage, and that Paladins granted powers to themselves, then I would have to accept that if I wanted to play at your table.

And that's basically what it comes down to. A player who shows up with their own specific Oath interpretation is the equivalent of telling the DM how Oaths work in that world, and that they're definitely up to the individual rather than coming from one of a few specific divine sources. And if the DM doesn't agree with that, because they interpret the text as saying that the Orders correspond to a few specific divine Powers, then it's the player telling the DM that the DM's interpretation of how the world works is wrong.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 5, 2018)

pming said:


> My main "argument" is that a MC character in 5e never feels like a MC character to me. Why? I guess the "problem" I have with it is a DM can't say "Ok, Tracy, here's your characters XP. You get 1200 even. Divide them between your Fighter and Thief classes". ...because there is not difference between the characters classes and their XP's gained.




Why couldn't you do that in 5e though? Sure it'd be a bit homebrew, but... ok? or you can just only level at even levels and advance two classes at one time! Or ou bring back gestalt concepts or something. You're still limited by the action economy, so there are only so many things you can do in one round!


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 5, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> That sounds great and working as intended.  If the Paladin blatantly goes against this Oath how would you have the benefactor react?
> 
> My theory (and it seems I am in a minority) is that the very being that GRANTS you powers has their own motivations for doing so, and if you go against that beings plans then they would take back the powers they granted to you to accomplish their goals.  It’s seems that is written all over the descriptions for clerics, druids, Paladins and warlocks.  There is no explicitly stated rule that says that, but it’s all over the descriptive text.
> 
> Those powers are controlled by the DM as the PC only controls himself.  There has to be some give and take there, it can’t be the PC tells the DM “No it’s my PC so I control the whole situation between my PC and its power/diety/patron.




I agree with you on most of these points. That is one of the big differentiators between Wizards/Sorcerers/Bards who achieve magic through their own study or force of will and divine casters or people who have the power granted to them on a platter (warlocks). My only confusion is consequences for Warlocks (see my post above). 

Also - I don't know how the DM who brought this spirit into our game would react if the PC went against the oath. he'd probably punish the player by either revoking powers or making him go Oathbreaker (depending on how egregious the violation is/was).


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 5, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> Why couldn't you do that in 5e though? Sure it'd be a bit homebrew, but... ok? or you can just only level at even levels and advance two classes at one time! Or ou bring back gestalt concepts or something. You're still limited by the action economy, so there are only so many things you can do in one round!




One of my house rules for my next campaign is to only level up at two level jumps. 

if we start at 1st or 3rd it will be at odd levels. 2nd or 4th, even ones.

It has nothing to do with MC feel - instead about making leveling even more significant for all and less often with longer periods to explorer new abilities before getting another set.

But it would also help that in a way - for those for whom it matters. 

But, honestly, not a complaint i have ever heard.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 5, 2018)

pming said:


> Er...no? I mean, technically, if the DM always awards XP equally to all a MC characters classes, it may look that way, but it really isn't. I can't remember where (took a quick look in the 1e PHB and DMG in the likely spots) but *I distinctly remember reading* that the DM could/should award a MC characters XP "unequally" if it made more sense (e.g., a F/T who is in a gladatorial pit fighting his way to freedom gets 3000xp; the DM could say that 2k of it goes to Fighter, and only 1k to Thief, for example).




No, I think you imagined that. I suppose it may be an optional rule hidden somewhere, but the actual multiclass rules were that:-

* each (single class) PC has an experience point total gained from various adventuring activities
* if you have 16+ in your class' prime requisite(s) then add 10% to that total
* to find out what level this PC is, cross-reference that XP total on that class' table

How that changed for multiclass PCs:-

* each multiclass PC earns XPs from adventuring activities
* that total is divided by the number of classes in that multiclass (so divide by 2 for a F/M, divide by 3 for a F/M/T)
* for each individual class XP total, if you have 16+ in the prime requisite(s) of that class, add +10%
* to find out the level in each of those classes, cross-reference each individual total with that class' advancement table

For example, let's say that your single class druid had earned 34000 XP through adventuring activity. If you cross-reference this total to find their level on the druid advancement table you will find that this druid is 6th level.

But wait! I just remembered that my Wis is 17 and my Cha is 16. I get +10% XPs. Therefore my total is 34000+3400=37400. Cross-referencing _that_ total on the druid advancement table I find that they are now 7th level. I really hope the DM doesn't use that 'you have to train to level up' rubbish! Of course he doesn't, nobody does. 

(forgive me for any mistakes on specific numbers but I'm working from memory of the druid advancement table when I haven't seen it in 30 years. )

But my multiclass F/M/T friend has been on the same adventures and gained the same number of XPs, which is a bit of a coincidence since the DM usually awarded some bonus XPs for class-specific things, like thieves getting more for money and fighters getting more for killing, etc. Maybe that's what you are (mis-)remembering?

So the F/M/T has the same 34000 XP, including any bonuses from class-specific activity. The player, not the DM, then divides that total by 3 (round down) to get 11333/11333/11333. They then add +10% for each class that has 16+ in that class' prerequisites. This PC has 18/82 Str, 16 Dex and 15 Int, so the F and T totals get +10% but the M total doesn't, getting 12466/11333/12466. Now, cross-reference 12466 on the fighter advancement table to see what fighter level they are, cross-reference 11333 on the mage advancement table to see what mage level they are, and cross-reference 12466 on the thief advancement table to see what level thief they are.

At this point my memory fails as to what total XPs correspond to which levels for those classes and totals. I just remembered 35000=druid 7th because it was unusually high. 

But it would resemble something like 4/4/5. Something like that. If someone has access to those tables, by all means let us know the actual numbers.

My point is that the DM awards XPs, including bonus XPs for class specific stuff, to the player. The player then does the dividing and adding any +10%s. So doing more of thieving and casting and less of fighting during an adventure did not impact the divided XP totals unevenly. The only thing that could make them uneven were the possible +10%s.

Of course, we may have been playing wrong all those years ago, but if so I played in many groups that accidentally did the exact same wrong thing!

As opposed to the things we deliberately did wrong, like requiring training to level up (nobody ever!), or using class level limits for demihumans (variable).


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 5, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> But my multiclass F/M/T friend has been on the same adventures and gained the same number of XPs, which is a bit of a coincidence since the DM usually awarded some bonus XPs for class-specific things, like thieves getting more for money and fighters getting more for killing, etc. Maybe that's what you are (mis-)remembering?
> .




I think you're both circling the difference and neither is entirely accurate.  Arial has the math down pat, PMing has the application down pat but there's a middle that can be found on page 83 of the 1e DMG.

Paraphrased (and you can find my post up thread for clarity) the DM has the ability to rank your character on a four rank scale based on their performance by the class or classes they play.  It's entirely possible for a multi-class character to earn a thousand XP, then split it up by 2 (500 XP per class) then get rated highly on one class and poorly on another and end up with 750 towards one class and 250 towards another.

Note that this ranking system was not considered optional in terms of RAW, but was certainly just as optional as anything else in the rules given how people freely interpreted things or didn't read things at the time.

Be well
KB


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 5, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I think you're both circling the difference and neither is entirely accurate.  Arial has the math down pat, PMing has the application down pat but there's a middle that can be found on page 83 of the 1e DMG.
> 
> Paraphrased (and you can find my post up thread for clarity) the DM has the ability to rank your character on a four rank scale based on their performance by the class or classes they play.  It's entirely possible for a multi-class character to earn a thousand XP, then split it up by 2 (500 XP per class) then get rated highly on one class and poorly on another and end up with 750 towards one class and 250 towards another.
> 
> ...




Just wow!  So many nuggets untouched in this great game!  Gygax was
A damn genius even if you ignored some
Of his rules.  Wish I could have been his friend and gaming buddy!  I give two sh*ts about celebrity...but him?  Always amazed.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 6, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Any character who belongs to the Barbarian class has the ability to rage, wherein they gain the ability to shrug off wounds that would kill a lesser person as long as that wound is inflicted while they are raging (among other benefits). *If that ability isn't tied to their barbarism, then where does it come from?* Why can't anyone else do that whenever they get angry? What is the in-game reality which is associated with a character belonging to that class?




Up to the player.

For example, my current 5e PC is a Bar3/War 6. Conceptually, this PC (soldier background) is completely civilised, never worn a loincloth in his life. It's just that he has....anger management issues! They stem from the circumstances of his birth which (briefly and tastefully) involve him being conceived at the same moment his father transformed into a werewolf for the first time! Think Blade from the comics/films, but instead of being a bit vampire-y he's a bit wolf-ey. When he rages, he seems to manifest some minor wolf-ey features (hair, eyes, what-have-you) and the game mechanics of all that are simply the barbarian's Rage without any game mechanic alteration whatsoever! Exactly the same barbarian class mechanics, fluffed as a super-civilised army officer.

My fluff. It's up to me.

Just like I fluffed my background (soldier-officer) into Captain of the Avant Guard, the best regiment in the army, focusing on scouting and trail-blazing, with a uniform so smart its got a PhD from the best university in the land!

Yeah, I fluffed it, not the DM. I imagined this whole regiment. The DM is okay with it.

Sure, the DM _could_ refuse. If he were a jerk. He _could_ say that he has already created every regiment in every army in the world and there can be no more....but why would he? Just to be a jerk? As if he has already thought of every detail in the world and the players are not allowed to think of anything? What kind of jerk would be like that? DMs are _happy_ to let players think about that kind of thing! It's good that the player is so invested!

But doesn't that mean the player can abuse it by saying he's the king? Well, at that point the player is probably treading on the DM's toes, because the DM probably _will_ have already decided who the king is and even if he hasn't he doesn't want the PC to have that kind of power.

But the player could easily have chosen the Noble background. If the DM has a load of noble families already detailed, what does the DM do? Say that the player doesn't have more money or influence beyond that stated in character creation? Of course, I wouldn't expect anything else. My job as a player is to explain _how_ I've only got this much money/power/influence despite being a noble. I may be a younger son. It may be that all the money and magic and influence that surrounded me as I grew up doesn't actually belong to me but to my family, and when I run away to join the circus/adventuring company I could take only what the book says I have as starting equipment.

I'll think of something, and it will make sense. Happy to collaborate with the DM; in fact, that collaboration with the DM is the 'A' option for both player and DM. But what DM would say, "No! I'm the DM, you don't get to decide about anything except your own PC, therefore you cannot choose your parent's names, or backgrounds, or....anything except your own PC".

Try it! Try to make a background for _every_ PC you will ever play without 'treading on the DM's creative toes' and even mentioning an NPC. Who were your parents? No idea, the DM hasn't informed me yet. What kind of jerk DM works that way?

Does the DM say that I can't be a noble on the grounds that he's already created every noble family and knows how many children each noble family has and you are not one of them? Does he give you a list of acceptable noble families? Or does he allow you to think of your own noble family and work with you to fit it into his world making adjustments as necessary, like a _proper_ DM and not a jerk?

He could say that even though he hasn't thought of everything in the world, I _still_ cannot invent this new regiment. Why? Because it would mess with his world? Because he is so jealous of his authority that no-one except him can contribute?

What if I say my parents were called Janet and John? Would a DM say, "No! It's *my* world, and I decide what the NPCs are called, not you!" Sure, he _could_ say that, but what kind of jerk would actually prevent the player from making up the names of his own PC's parents? 



> In your understanding of the default D&D setting, where does a Paladin's magic come from? Do they grant it to themselves, based on the strength of their own resolve? And if so, why would there be specific Orders that such convictions must fall into? *Why can't anyone gain magic power, regardless of what they believe, as long as they believe it strongly enough?*




They can. Those that do may become paladins



> And that's basically what it comes down to. A player who shows up with their own specific Oath interpretation is the equivalent of telling the DM how Oaths work in that world, and that they're definitely up to the individual rather than coming from one of a few specific divine sources. And if the DM doesn't agree with that, because they interpret the text as saying that the Orders correspond to a few specific divine Powers, then it's the player telling the DM that the DM's interpretation of how the world works is wrong.




The Oaths are like laws: you cannot break them. Imagine a law that says 'No smoking'. If you smoke, you've broken the law. If you don't, you have not broken that law.

Now imagine a law which says 'Be nice to people'. Okay, I do my best to be nice to people. One day, I see a beggar and give him a gold piece. Is that nice? Sure. Have I broken the 'be nice' law? No.

But my DM says that I've lost my paladin powers! WTF? Why? "Because you _could_ have given the beggar 10 gp instead of 1gp, and I'm the DM and what I say goes and how I interpret the text of the law trumps yours!"

_That's_ the kind of DM I'm complaining about!

Meanwhile, there are those who (correctly) see the game mechanics as a metagame rules structure that allows us all to play in our imaginary worlds, but the imagination part is up to us. Just to give you an idea of what we mean, here are three example character ideas for each class, but the fluff is up to you.

Then there are those who (wrongly!) read the exact same words and come to the conclusion that the only _allowed_ PCs are those three examples per class. That the game mechanics of class (barbarian, bard, cleric) are not only the metagame but also the in-world reality. That a 'fighter' is something that the creatures in the game world can know, as opposed to a thief. That the creatures in the game world can get a microscope and tell the difference between a 'fighter' and a 'thief' by looking.

It's rare I say this, but those guys are role-playing wrong.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 6, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I think you're both circling the difference and neither is entirely accurate.  Arial has the math down pat, PMing has the application down pat but there's a middle that can be found on page 83 of the 1e DMG.
> 
> Paraphrased (and you can find my post up thread for clarity) the DM has the ability to rank your character on a four rank scale based on their performance by the class or classes they play.  It's entirely possible for a multi-class character to earn a thousand XP, then split it up by 2 (500 XP per class) then get rated highly on one class and poorly on another and end up with 750 towards one class and 250 towards another.
> 
> ...




Well, I have to admit that I have never heard of anything like that, despite playing 1e with many different groups between 1978 and when 2e came out.

Did 2e have the same or similar rule?


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 6, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Just wow!  So many nuggets untouched in this great game!  Gygax was
> A damn genius even if you ignored some
> Of his rules.  Wish I could have been his friend and gaming buddy!  I give two sh*ts about celebrity...but him?  Always amazed.




I liked and respected GG, but what amazes me most while reading about him and D&D is that he made this game with all its potential for imagining and role-playing in whole worlds and planes of existence....but in practice it was all just background fluff for the _actual_ game which was about mega-dungeons and fiendish killer traps so that he could pit his wits against his players'.


----------



## pming (Sep 6, 2018)

Hiya!



Salthorae said:


> Why couldn't you do that in 5e though? Sure it'd be a bit homebrew, but... ok? or you can just only level at even levels and advance two classes at one time! Or ou bring back gestalt concepts or something. You're still limited by the action economy, so there are only so many things you can do in one round!




Never said I couldn't do that. I did (see below) write up some rules. I have considered it, seriously, but in the end just kind of decided that I didn't really need MC nor did my players. In all the time of playing 5e (and for the first half or more of since we've been playing...Starter Box launch time, whenever that was) we _were_ using MC (and Feats!). Because we wanted to see what was there and what we liked or didn't. Funny thing...with MC, not a _single_ player of mine ever used it. Not one. Over a year of weekly play. Not once. And, in case you didn't know, I'm a very unforgiving DM (one might say "Killer DM", by today's standards). Most PC's would hit 2nd and many 3rd. A few less every level there after up until 7th..the highest PC anyone has managed to get in our 5e games. So they had opportunity to use the MC rules. I think only once do I vaguely remember a player contemplating adding a 2nd class.

When we finally decided to drop MC and Feats from our games, nobody batted an eye. In fact, all of them wanted to see Feats ditched, and about half didn't care one way or the other about MC, the rest, including me, would rather not have the MC rules or change them to be more like what we like (1e/2e/Hackmaster4th).

Anyway, if I *did* want to bring back MC'ing I'd bring it back in the form of a "different name specialty class"...basically a "prestige class" but you would start as it. I did do this, as I mentioned up above. Where it was more of a "pre-planned double-advancement" thing. So you were a new class that was a Fighter (Champion)/Rogue (Thief). You start at Level 2 (so 1st/1st Fighter/Rogue). You then start getting XP. You don't gain ANY levels until you have enough XP to hit 4th level, where you become a 2nd/2nd Fighter (Champion)/Rogue (Thief). Continue ever 2 levels until you hit 10/10. The "special classes" that were made up of three classes, pretty much the same thing, except levels were gained in 3's. With a "triple class MC" class the max level was 18. You never gained the last "two levels".

All said, I'd still rather have 1e/2e MC rules. But it's not really possible due to the universal XP advancement table.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> But it would resemble something like 4/4/5. Something like that. If someone has access to those tables, by all means let us know the actual numbers.
> 
> My point is that the DM awards XPs, including bonus XPs for class specific stuff, to the player. The player then does the dividing and adding any +10%s. So doing more of thieving and casting and less of fighting during an adventure did not impact the divided XP totals unevenly. The only thing that could make them uneven were the possible +10%s.
> 
> Of course, we may have been playing wrong all those years ago, but if so I played in many groups that accidentally did the exact same wrong thing!




2e PHB says XP is divided evenly among all your multi-classes. 

Fighter 4 = 8k - 5 = 16k; Wizard 4 = 10k - 5 = 20k Rogue 5 = 10k - 6 = 20k  SO you are spot on with the 4/4/5 mix. 

I guess what feels so different with 1/2e vs. 3.x/5e MC is the gap between individual class level capabilities vs. single class characters and that you can't start the game with full fledged F/M/T levels. in 3.x+ Two characters who had gained enough XP for a Druid to be 7th would have a 2/2/3 split on the F/M/T character, which means you're more behind the curve in casting power and/or # of attacks per round. Whereas a 1/2e F/M/T got basically the same #' of attacks with their specialized weapons 3 att/2 rds and they had 5 weapon proficiency slots just like any other 4th level warrior, they are on the verge of 3rd level spells, where the 3.x MC is almost to 2nd level spells, and their theiving skills are probably actually better relative to the rest of the 5e system at Rogue 3 (with expertise) than Thief 5 would have been in 1/2e or Rogue 3 in 3.x

I say again though, if you want to get back to that feel, you either need to homebrew some rules to split XP and have multiple classes advancing at the same time, which if the XP table is the same regardless... sounds a lot like gestalt rules! If you split XP though, your MC advancement is slowed vs. single class, which may be a nice way to balance gestalt/MC characters vs. normal PC's, even in 5e. 

So a Character in 5e with 34k XP: single class they just made level 8. Split XP Gestalt/MC they would be 5/5/5 and need another 11k (split 3 ways) to get to 6/6/6; another 27k (split 3 ways to get to 7/7/7). A single class that stared with 34k and added another 38k would be 10th level and something like 40% of the way to 11th. So they maintain basically a 3 level gap on the MC PC through the end of tier 2. 

a 2 class split would be 6/6 when the single class was 8th and if they got another 38k, they'd be 8/8 when the single class is 10th.

it seems like you'd be behind in levels = to the # of extra classes you add on. That keeps through the end of tier 2 anyway.

It's not a bad system since action economy is still your limiting factor. You only ever get an action, bonus action, and move... being Gestalt/MC just gives you more options for using those action types. 

I might try this in my next game I run for my group and see how it pans out.

EDIT: Addendum to the notes above... 

I just did the math/compared the tables to 2e XP for MC all the way to 20th...

2e 20th level mage XP = 3,750,000 - a 2 class Fighter/Mage would be 15/15 with that much xp, and a 3 class Fighter/Mage/Thief would be 13/13/15

5e 20th level XP = 355,000 - a 2 class Anything as described above would be *gasp* 15/15 with that much xp, and a 3 class Anything would be... 12/12/12. 

That's pretty close to the old spreads, though I suppose the 3 class DOES sacrifice a little bit, specifically 7th level spells vs. 1/2e


----------



## pming (Sep 6, 2018)

Hiya!



Arial Black said:


> No, I think you imagined that. I suppose it may be an optional rule hidden somewhere, but the actual multiclass rules were that:...




You could be entierly correct. It could have been a house rule I used back when I started...and like you, that was a LONG time ago. Old grey matter ain't what it used to be!  If I ever find it I'll be sure to make a note in one of my DMG's (or GMG's for Hackmaster 4th).



> But my multiclass F/M/T friend has been on the same adventures and gained the same number of XPs, which is a bit of a coincidence since the DM usually awarded some bonus XPs for class-specific things, like thieves getting more for money and fighters getting more for killing, etc. Maybe that's what you are (mis-)remembering?




I don't _think _so...but anything's possible. The "class specific" bonus XP came about when 2e came out. I remember thinking "Hey, that's kind of a cool idea..." and then looked at the class bonuses for tasks and saw that they weren't exactly..."balanced". Some class abilities were gained all the time by some classes because of use (Fighters), and others only when the opportunity came up (Cleric and Turning Undead, iirc). Like so many things we found 'wrong' about 2e, this was yet another example of "Cool idea...buuuutttt....". Kit's were the same thing.




> My point is that the DM awards XPs, including bonus XPs for class specific stuff, to the player. The player then does the dividing and adding any +10%s. So doing more of thieving and casting and less of fighting during an adventure did not impact the divided XP totals unevenly. The only thing that could make them uneven were the possible +10%s.
> 
> Of course, we may have been playing wrong all those years ago, but if so I played in many groups that accidentally did the exact same wrong thing!
> 
> As opposed to the things we deliberately did wrong, like requiring training to level up (nobody ever!), or using class level limits for demihumans (variable).




Your number-remembering is correct (at least from my memory...hehe...it's like two old farts at a nursing home arguing about something that happened 40 years ago that both remember, but don't remember it the same way... LOL!). As we played 1e (we gave 2e a fair shake, a good two or three years, but went back to 1e), I used Level Limits. This was probably one of the number one factors that edged players towards Human characters, or Thieves, or Races with Unlimited in some class. Not that PC's got much above 10th to 12th level, handful of 'teen levels. Only about...no, exactly 5 PC's got to 18th or higher in the 25 to 30 years of DM'ing 1e ( [yes, creative names by 11 year olds...] "Hawk", "Tron", "Denakhan", "Dargoth", and "The Ranger" who probably had a name but the player played in two campaigns and used the same character in both...remember when that was a thing? It was probably "Aragan" or "Argorn" or something cheezy like that...ahhh...memories...  ).

Anyway, if I ever do find where I read that XP division thing I'll try and remember to PM it to you or something here. But don't hold your breath.  Weather or not it's an actual rule, and option somewhere, or a house rule, it's something I'll keep using because it's what we like. Likewise we won't use things we don't like...and the core 5e MC rules fall into that bucket, unfortunately. YMMV. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Yeah, I fluffed it, not the DM. I imagined this whole regiment. The DM is okay with it.
> 
> Sure, the DM _could_ refuse. If he were a jerk.



And that's the kind of player entitlement which I object to. You are a player, but you are usurping the DM's role as world-builder, and calling him names if he doesn't let you get away with it. The roles of player and DM are very clearly delineated in the rules, and you are over-stepping.

It's fine if your DM wants to share the responsibility, or crowd-source for ideas, in order to increase player investment. There's nothing wrong with them having that option. What's wrong is your expectation that the DM should do so, or your perception that they're doing it wrong by choosing not to.


Arial Black said:


> They can. Those that do may become paladins.



And you're more than welcome to run it that way at your table, and anyone who objects does not have to play with you, because you're the DM and only you know the absolute truth about how your own setting works. No mere player has the authority to overrule the DM on such a matter, and any player who attempts such a thing, is indeed a jerk.


Arial Black said:


> But my DM says that I've lost my paladin powers! WTF? Why? "Because you could have given the beggar 10 gp instead of 1gp, and I'm the DM and what I say goes and how I interpret the text of the law trumps yours!"
> 
> That's the kind of DM I'm complaining about!



I would also complain about such a DM, because regardless of their interpretation of how the Oath works in their world, they failed to properly convey it to the player. It's simply unreasonable to expect a player to know what you're thinking, when given such vague rules to go by. If nothing else, the DM should tell you that the Oath demands you give 10gp, because that's something your character would know if they were a paladin who had taken that Oath. (Not that I would agree with their interpretation, mind, but they are the DM, and it's their world.)


Arial Black said:


> Meanwhile, there are those who (correctly) see the game mechanics as a metagame rules structure that allows us all to play in our imaginary worlds, but the imagination part is up to us. Just to give you an idea of what we mean, here are three example character ideas for each class, but the fluff is up to you.
> 
> Then there are those who (wrongly!) read the exact same words and come to the conclusion that the only _allowed_ PCs are those three examples per class. That the game mechanics of class (barbarian, bard, cleric) are not only the metagame but also the in-world reality. That a 'fighter' is something that the creatures in the game world can know, as opposed to a thief. That the creatures in the game world can get a microscope and tell the difference between a 'fighter' and a 'thief' by looking.
> 
> It's rare I say this, but those guys are role-playing wrong.



The concept of the metagame does not apply here. The game mechanics represent the reality of the game world, and they give some examples of things that might exist within the game world alongside the mechanics which reflect those things, but neither the crunch nor the fluff is more sacrosanct than the other. It is the connection between crunch and fluff which is important, because that defines the language of the game mechanics. Indeed, anyone in the world can tell the difference between a fighter and a thief, because fighters know how to wear heavy armor without looking like an idiot, and thieves are more reliable when they try to pick a lock; they may not assign those names to any given individuals, but the difference is plain for anyone to see, if they know what to look for.

It is not necessarily true that those are the only character types which can exist in the world, of course, just as it is not necessarily true that all of those in the book will exist in every given world. Any given world may or may not have humans, paladins, oni, or shugenja. Of course you can invent new character classes, races, feats, spells, monsters, or anything else. The DMG even has guidelines to help you figure out how to correctly reflect those new things, within the language of the game mechanics.

What you can't do is just unilaterally change the fluff for a thing, without changing the mechanics which represent it, unless those mechanics are truly the best reflection of that reality. This isn't 4E. For all the numerous faults of 5E, the designers at least understand that much.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 6, 2018)

"My fluff. It's up to me.

Just like I fluffed my background (soldier-officer) into Captain of the Avant Guard, the best regiment in the army, focusing on scouting and trail-blazing, with a uniform so smart its got a PhD from the best university in the land!

Yeah, I fluffed it, not the DM. I imagined this whole regiment. The DM is okay with it.

Sure, the DM could refuse. If he were a jerk. "

There are other reasons the gm could object to your fluff as presented and they dont necessitate the gm being a jerk. 

As a gm who asks or encourages or allows players to invent whole worlds in my scifi game and who gives advice number one to what's next/how improv GM of "check PC background/backstory"... where we cross ideas in opposite directions is that very attitude that a gm not allowing your "fluff" somehow gets tossed as a jerk. 

You just linked werewolves and raging and copy of barbarian mechanics into the game. That cannot be seen as "collaboration" of refusing to go along dumps your other collaborators into the "jerk" category.

Your military bit hasn't got enough meat on its bones to really be accepted or denied imo. I would have quite a few questions either way, before I could assess its impact.

But the WW thing... while I personally like it... the attitude of "its mine, take it or be a jerk" does get you auto-refusal, at my table. At my table, we work to play together, not to issue declarations (and denouncements) of that nature whenever we disagree. 

Reasonable people can disagree, with some not getting everything they want without one of them being the victim and the other jerks.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 6, 2018)

"I would also complain about such a DM, because regardless of their interpretation of how the Oath works in their world, they failed to properly convey it to the player. It's simply unreasonable to expect a player to know what you're thinking, when given such vague rules to go by. If nothing else, the DM should tell you that the Oath demands you give 10gp, because that's something your character would know if they were a paladin who had taken that Oath. (Not that I would agree with their interpretation, mind, but they are the DM, and it's their world.)"

Tend to agree.

The issue here is not working from common baselines of understanding. The **character** should have good knowledge of where the boundaries are and the player should also have enough info yo make informed decisions.

Sometimes this seems driven by the expectation of hostility or deception on the GMs part, like the GM is waiting to catch the player and so the GM needs reigning in.

Can a GM do so, sure just like the player can exert the ultimate player agency... feet. 

If the GM is gonna be a jerk, if the GM is gonna work to "get you"... no fluff text enabling entitlement credo is likely gonna be the solution.


----------



## SirGrotius (Sep 6, 2018)

I suppose I'm more of a black & white guy, but when I thought about multi-classing, it always seemed to rub against the classic rubrics which made D&D very epic and meaningful to me. I suppose on another layer, I saw it as almost gaming the system and creating a character to game the system more than for the story or the idea. I realize those thoughts are outdated, so appreciate the broader viewpoint here in and can appreciate the advantages of offering greater flexibility and instilling a sense of creativity amongst players.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 6, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "My fluff. It's up to me.
> 
> Just like I fluffed my background (soldier-officer) into Captain of the Avant Guard, the best regiment in the army, focusing on scouting and trail-blazing, with a uniform so smart its got a PhD from the best university in the land!
> 
> ...




In this medium (Internet, gaming forum, debate) each side tends to exaggerate the other side's transgressions, partly because we are passionate and partly to better illustrate the fault.

In reality, I talk to my DM. He says he's starting a new campaign soon, each of you needs to create an th level PC. We talk as a party so our PCs don't tread on each others' toes, and we talk to the DM about our 'cool idea!' (TM).

In fact, we probably talk more than the DM wants to listen, because we are invested in our idea while the DM cannot be (because he doesn't know what it is yet) and the DM has to take in four or five such ideas while simultaneously readying the campaign.

This means that the DM is, usually, happy for us to do all or most of the work re: fluff. The DM can certainly pipe up and make suggestions to make it even cooler, tell us or talk to us about how our concept could fit into his world, or even say that a particular bit cannot work in his campaign and work with us to make adjustments. Bear in mind that he's already told us about house rules or campaign specific rules. For example, if the campaign is set in Krynn in the years between the fall of Istar and the heroes of the lance the DM will say that there are no clerics. Fair enough, we won't make any clerics; what about druids? And we get to know what the limits are and then create our PCs in that light.

So, at various pre-campaign start moments, each player will go to the DM and say, "Here's my PC". We can tell the story of our characters, how each mechanical ability makes sense for this PC (I'm super-civilised but I've got anger management issues, that's how my Rage ability makes sense for this PC, what with his werewolf-adjacent heritage).

At this point the DM reviews our characters sheets (for crunch). If I were to say that my rogue has the Rage ability even though it's against the rules because I don't have barbarian levels, he would just say no and I know that so I wouldn't present that. If I were to say that my barbarian Rage works differently than it says in the PHB, just because I say so, then I have overstepped my bounds. If that's something I want then I'd have to explain it to him and _ask_, nicely, and take it like a gentleman if he says no.

But if I present him with a character sheet that says 'Barbarian 1', and includes a description of the Rage ability that is copy/pasted from the PHB with no alterations, then he simply has no grounds for complaint! How I fluff my rage for this PC isn't in his purview!

No, I'm not foolish or impolite enough to begin my conversation with, "Here's my PC; it's my way or the highway!", because that would be insane and foolish and I probably wouldn't have a game anymore.

But equally, if the DM finds that my PC is mechanically RAW, he has nothing to object to and I would be stunned if he banned my _fluff_, saying that it's his way or the highway! He wouldn't treat me so badly anymore than I would treat him badly.

Even if he said it politely, I would be absolutely stunned and gobsmacked if he refused to allow my fluff even though my crunch was unimpeachable! It wouldn't make sense to me! What would he care? My civilised, anger management-challenged version of Rage in no way messes with his world. My cool idea doesn't impose anything on the rest of his world! There is nothing to object _to_.

If my DM was that kind of person, one who inexplicably and irrationally messes with my PC like that, then he probably wouldn't be my DM for long. He wouldn't be reasonable at that point.

What actually happened was that the DM thought it was a cool idea too! Everyone is happy.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 6, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "I would also complain about such a DM, because regardless of their interpretation of how the Oath works in their world, they failed to properly convey it to the player. It's simply unreasonable to expect a player to know what you're thinking, when given such vague rules to go by. If nothing else, the DM should tell you that the Oath demands you give 10gp, because that's something your character would know if they were a paladin who had taken that Oath. (Not that I would agree with their interpretation, mind, but they are the DM, and it's their world.)"
> 
> Tend to agree.
> 
> ...




Most players have a story about a DM playing 'gotcha' with a paladin, with fall/fall 'choices' or what-have-you. This is mine:-

I'm the only player in a 2e campaign. I'm playing 3 PCs, and the DM is playing 3 DMPCs, because that's what we always did.

One of my PCs is a paladin. I'm not one of those guys who plays them lawful/stupid, or tries to get away with as much murderhoboing as I can while claiming innocence; I really play a good guy. In fact, I generally play good guys even if I'm not playing a paladin.

So the party is in Sembia. The DM has read the info on this country, and has interpreted that info as this: if the party goes to a restaurant and because we are there some other people dine elsewhere, we get charged for _their_ meals as well as ours. No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but I treat it as just another challenge to negotiate.

One morning one of the maids at the inn said something to my paladin about my dwarven friend's lack of manners (the dwarf was one of the DM's DMPCs), and could I do something about it? Sure, says I, I'll have a word.

Anyway, before my paladin saw the dwarf, baddies turned up and it all hit the fan. We were running and fighting and running, trying to save the (ungrateful) town. We did. Hooray for us? Not so much, the town charged _us_ for all the damage because _obviously_ the town wouldn't have been attacked if we weren't there!

We left town.

After a few days in-game (which was a few weeks later in real life at one session per week) my paladin started to lose his powers, one by one. Why? You don't know.

It kept happening, and the DM kept refusing to tell me why and all my guesses were wrong.

It turned out that I was losing my powers because I had broken my word.

What word? What are you talking about?

You said you would talk to the dwarf on behalf of the maid, and you never did.

I had forgotten all about it. Meaning, as a _player_ I had forgotten, but for me weeks had passed instead of hours between request and my paladin seeing the dwarf (when the fight started and I had more important things to think about). In real life as soon as I saw the dwarf I would've been reminded that I needed to speak with him about the maid, but as a player there is no-one to see, and the thing that's taking my attention is trying to kill me.

So I said that surely my _character_ would've remembered! After all, I didn't mention going to the toilet or shaving either but I didn't explode in a hairy mess! We have to assume that the adventure focuses on the exciting bits and lets the mundane bits happen in the background.

So, that's how my paladin lost his powers. Because his _player_ has a bad memory.

If the DM had said, "this is what happened last week....and you also promised to speak to the dwarf about the maid", I would have done so! And if I knew about it and _chose_ not to speak to the dwarf then, yes, that is not appropriate for a paladin and some form of admonishment (which in 2e could easily mean that his powers stopped working as they should) would be in order. But paladins fall because of bad _choices_, not bad memory! Even worse, it wasn't the paladin's bad memory, but his player's bad memory. And understandably given the disparity between game time and real time, and actually seeing someone reminds you that you need to talk to them.

So I get a knee-jerk reaction whenever paladin powers are taken away. Especially in 5e when that has been deliberately written out of the game! Especially when they are taken away simply because the player wants to multiclass within the rules!


----------



## Sadras (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Most players have a story about a DM playing 'gotcha' with a paladin, with fall/fall 'choices' or what-have-you. This is mine:-
> 
> ...(snip)...
> 
> ...




Okay but let us be serious now...that was a terrible call by the DM and even more importantly *HOW OLD WERE YOU AND THE DM*?

People keep bashing on the 1e-2e character powers being stripped, but the majority of these stories exist when we were teenagers and the college years. To use that excuse now for roleplayers in their 30's, 40's and 50's just doesn't fly anymore IMO.

Furthermore the typical DM 'gotcha' mentality does not only exist for alignment and character power stripping but for whatever the PC does or doesn't specifically say and it is pretty much frowned upon to vehemently opposed, at least from what I have seen on Enworld and my own table (which is the only available _data_ I have).


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 6, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Okay but let us be serious now...that was a terrible call by the DM and even more importantly *HOW OLD WERE YOU AND THE DM*?




Let's see...it was towards the back end of 2e, after we had finished Dragon Mountain...

So I was maybe 35 and the DM was two years older.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Let's see...it was towards the back end of 2e, after we had finished Dragon Mountain...
> 
> So I was maybe 35 and the DM was two years older.




Good grief man, if I had tried anything like that I'd have the players revolt at my table whether it was in the book or not. 

There are plenty other ways to strip powers besides oath-breaking.

Dead zones/worlds, where magic does not work.
Teleporting to a new cosmos, where one's deity has limited or zero access to. i.e. loss of divine powers.
Patron being killed/captured, perhaps resulting in a loss of Warlock powers/progression, depending on how the use of the powers are relayed/learned...etc

Even under all these occurrences including oathbreaking (not the gotcha type example you highlighted), there would be a conversation at the table between the DM and PCs to discuss the possible length of power loss, mitigating power loss, method of reclaiming lost power/ability, playing a NPC in the meantime, pros and cons of new mechanic introduced. 

This is not an example of stripping of class powers but an effect that was introduced into our game when our group found themselves in FR (accidental teleport from Mystara) besides the fact that almost all their spells slots were used for Comprehend Languages and Tongues (which had become the most important spell), the cleric found that his connection to his Immortal felt distant. It took him twice as long to commune/pray in order to access his spell allotment every day, his spell DC's were one lower, while he earned a +1 bonus on saving against native divine magic. 
Our Wild Mage on the other found out early on that due to this world's large latent magical energies there was an increased chance of causing a wild magic surge (additional 5%).
In this instance I didn't strip their powers but introduced/adjusted mechanics.


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> After a few days in-game (which was a few weeks later in real life at one session per week) my paladin started to lose his powers, one by one. Why? You don't know.
> 
> It kept happening, and the DM kept refusing to tell me why and all my guesses were wrong.
> 
> ...




Well, if I was the DM's only player I'd say...see ya!  If you want to be a jerk you can play on your own from now on.  If you want to be a reasonable person that can play well with others and WANT someone to play D&D with...hows about you start changing your tune and get real and stop being a jerk to your ONLY player.

When he complains just tell him...Paladin codes are less restrictive then the DM's code...which is basically don't be a jerk and don't treat your players like trash.  He broke the code, thus unless he atones for it, he's going to lose his powers to be a DM over ANY players period.

Seriously, that was a jerk move on that DM's part.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Well, I have to admit that I have never heard of anything like that, despite playing 1e with many different groups between 1978 and when 2e came out.
> 
> Did 2e have the same or similar rule?




Don't feel badly about not hearing of it.  Not reading core rules fully, discarding things that folks thought were too fiddly or just missing something whole cloth due to bad organization were just as prevalent back then as they are now.  The rule is a two paragraph section at the top of a left hand column of a page in the DMG.  

As far as 2e goes, the punishment/reward system wasn't as defined.  Certainly you could build something similar with the "Fun" rules on page 45 of the DMG and the individual bonus reward optional rules on page 48.  I think that by the time 2e rolled around the experience mechanics were more focused on group and story awards, though the primary methodology for experience earning was the same.

Personal opinion is that 2e did a better job of putting "most" of the rules that affect each other in the same places in books so you don't miss things.  What they didn't do was enlighten folks on what was changed or removed from the game.  Many people think "oh 2e is just 1e cleaned up".. and while true in many places it's not entirely accurate.  

Thanks
KB


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 6, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Don't feel badly about not hearing of it.  Not reading core rules fully, discarding things that folks thought were too fiddly or just missing something whole cloth due to bad organization were just as prevalent back then as they are now.  The rule is a two paragraph section at the top of a left hand column of a page in the DMG.
> 
> As far as 2e goes, the punishment/reward system wasn't as defined.  Certainly you could build something similar with the "Fun" rules on page 45 of the DMG and the individual bonus reward optional rules on page 48.  I think that by the time 2e rolled around the experience mechanics were more focused on group and story awards, though the primary methodology for experience earning was the same.
> 
> ...




We loved and exclusively played AD&D 1e through the early 2000s!  Skipped 2e.  That said, many of us in grad school or technical vocations read very well.  And we skipped over a TON in 1e.  I always would find another nugget not used each time I read the book whether it was armor class vs. weapon tables or the experience rating system.

We often paid for training but sometimes we were in the wilds and the DM said nope!


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 6, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 6, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Just as prevalent? How about much more prevalent?
> 
> I can't speak for everyone, but my experience playing 1e (of which I have far too much) is that tables picked and choose what rules they were using, although there was a "gestalt" of core 1e rules that the majority of tables followed, and it was (in certain, nerdier corners at least) a mark of esteem when you could recite weird Gygaxian rules buried in the PHB or DMG that people weren't generally aware of- not that the table would follow the rule, just that you knew it.




My experiences jive with yours.

In my case, I was the youngest person in my original group of players and looking at where we all ended up, the most driven and opinionated.  So as we embarked on our nerdy corner the only way I could avoid being taken advantage of by the DM (and later on, players) was to know the PHB and DMG well enough to be "that guy" and back it up on the fly.

Actually super helpful for later life, because it wired me for detail driven professions and public speaking.  Of course, doing that put me behind the 8 ball on social skills.  While I'm now comfortably in the "normal" range; I had to learn etiquette programmatically, and not experientially for it to stick.

So I guess my idiot savant skill is rules frameworks of any kind. (D&D, Cyber GRC, Coding languages, Academic programs etc.)


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 6, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 6, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Just as prevalent? How about much more prevalent?
> 
> I can't speak for everyone, but my experience playing 1e (of which I have far too much) is that tables picked and choose what rules they were using, although there was a "gestalt" of core 1e rules that the majority of tables followed, and it was (in certain, nerdier corners at least) a mark of esteem when you could recite weird Gygaxian rules buried in the PHB or DMG that people weren't generally aware of- not that the table would follow the rule, just that you knew it.






Kobold Boots said:


> My experiences jive with yours.
> 
> In my case, I was the youngest person in my original group of players and looking at where we all ended up, the most driven and opinionated.  So as we embarked on our nerdy corner the only way I could avoid being taken advantage of by the DM (and later on, players) was to know the PHB and DMG well enough to be "that guy" and back it up on the fly.
> 
> ...




This is why most people could go from one table to the other and easily transition in AD&D.  The Core assumptions at the table were the same, but there were many miniscule rules from the DMG or elsewhere that were commonly dropped.

On reflection of the time, I think much of that originally was in regards to the original D&D rules.  The core booklets along with Greyhawk and Blackmoor were common ground that were used among the old wargamers that came in with OD&D.  A LOT of the stuff from Strategic review or other sources were very hit and miss.  Thus, the common ground that many would come from would be the three core booklets and the supplements (and normally only the first one or two).

These lacked a LOT of the additional rules that got tossed into AD&D.

In addition, because AD&D didn't get released all at once, people just played with the books that came out using the OD&D rules.  This made it so that OD&D really was the prevalent version of AD&D...but with more classes and more defined monsters.

Later players didn't have this privilege.  My guess, though, is that may of them started with the Red Box and Red Book of Basic (either B/X or BECMI).  After learning the basics of the game, that's what they stuck with.  They moved on from Basic or Basic and Expert right on into AD&D.   The games are similar enough that you can intermix and so they played AD&D with the rules which were the same between Basic and AD&D and skipped most of the rest of the rules which added complexity.  

Thus it was the things that were the very core ideas between OD&D, B/X, BECMI, and AD&D that formed the central core of the all those games and made it easy for people to go from table to table and place to place as everyone was using those core ideas.

Even 2e used those core ideas for the most part and thus that transition was pretty easy.  (plus 2e had a grandfather clause that allowed a group to take any 1e thing and use it in 2e if they so desired...though I think that was more spelled out via other media and NOT found in the core 2e books).


----------



## pming (Sep 6, 2018)

Hiya!

Sorry Arial, I just had to comment on this. DM pride talking here...



Arial Black said:


> Up to the player.
> 
> For example, my current 5e PC is a Bar3/War 6. Conceptually, this PC (soldier background) is completely civilised, never worn a loincloth in his life. It's just that he has....anger management issues! They stem from the circumstances of his birth which (briefly and tastefully) involve him being conceived at the same moment his father transformed into a werewolf for the first time! Think Blade from the comics/films, but instead of being a bit vampire-y he's a bit wolf-ey. When he rages, he seems to manifest some minor wolf-ey features (hair, eyes, what-have-you) and the game mechanics of all that are simply the barbarian's Rage without any game mechanic alteration whatsoever! Exactly the same barbarian class mechanics, fluffed as a super-civilised army officer.
> 
> ...




No, it's not up to the Player for this kind of world-changing "fluff". This kind of fluff, imnsho, it would be the _Player _that is being "the jerk". What "character" does the DM get to play? The world. Yes, he runs the NPC's, Monsters, magical talking doors, etc, but it's the WORLD, the "Campaign Setting" that is the DM's main "character". The DM shapes it and comes up with the "fluff". Not the player. At least not to anywhere near the same degree.

A player who comes to me with this (and I do have one...had, he moved farther south) gets the "groan and stink-eye". I don't like it for multiple reasons. The first of which is that the player is, basically, trying to "over ride" my creative outlet as a DM. The second is that now I have the unhappy task of saying no and the almost unavoidable "compromise" (or argument if it's a hard NO...but I am almost always flexible enough to work something into the world that lets the player get what he envisioned without completely messing up my world).

The specific things in the Barbarian/Warlord that I would have a problem with:

1. It assumes the barbarians Rage is just "He's really angry". Might be fine in some campaigns, but in mine that is a no-go. It's not just "anger"...there is a physical, mental and spiritual change. Supernaturally based. The "spirits of his ancestors take root", or "the Demon of Rage is let into the barbarians soul". Not just "fluff"; this is the basis upon which other world-specific fluff and rulings can be made.

2. It sets up a precedent of were-creatures "infecting" others without needing to bite them. This is in direct opposition to what a players reach should be in the rules from a purely rules point of view.

Now, I may be able to work with the first point. Maybe the character just THINKS he gets 'really mad', when, in fact, he actually IS being connected to the spirits of old. He's civilized and was never told anything different...wherein if he was born in a barbaric society it would have been "obvious" to the shaman what was going on. The second one, however, is going to have to be a hard NO! At least from the simple explanation given in the description. Again, might be able to work with it by assuming the PC is just outright wrong about how he came to be. Maybe his mother/father, step mom/dad, or whomever raised him told him about his circumstances of birth...but that was to keep the horrible truth from him.

Both my "concessions" would work in terms of world-fluff while maintaining the PC's belief of what happened. If the player was willing to go with that...that the PC's background isn't the "whole story" so to speak (or outright wrong)...we're off to the races. But a player that refuses and tries to pull a "It's MY character and MY fluff, so that's the way it is!" is going to be...."dissappointed" with the end result.





> But doesn't that mean the player can abuse it by saying he's the king? Well, at that point the player is probably treading on the DM's toes, because the DM probably _will_ have already decided who the king is and even if he hasn't he doesn't want the PC to have that kind of power.




I'd actually be more accepting of "I'm the King" than "I'm part were-wolf". Because being a king doesn't change anything in my world's core "bedrock". Saying "I'm King" is a problem, sure, but it's less of a problem than deciding how lycanthropy works for the entire campaign world.



> ((snip about Nobility PC's)) Or does he allow you to think of your own noble family and work with you to fit it into his world making adjustments as necessary, like a _proper_ DM and not a jerk?




I know you're trying to just use it as an example, but there has always been a problem with the "Noble PC". I remember debates about this and how a DM should/could handle it going on back in the old print days of The Dragon (I'm sure you do to!). But as I said...a player choosing to say his PC is a noble is something that needs to have the DM's input. Most players know this and understand it, and want the DM's guidance in how to best integrate it to make a cool and playable character for a D&D game. A DM that just says "No, no Nobility past just minor status...like a Sir or maybe 'son of the Lord of the land'"...is not being a jerk. He's setting limits for his game world so that he can run the campaign as he sees it and as he wants to run. 

Now, DM's that try and decide what a Player can/can't choose...after the DM has said "All PHB classes"...that's being a jerk. "Oh, Bill, you can't be a Beastmaster because I don't really want to deal with pets and stuff. Sorry. Make a different guy" after Bill has already created the character; that is being a jerk. Or at the very least, indicative of a DM who doesn't know what he's doing.



> But my DM says that I've lost my paladin powers! WTF? Why? "Because you _could_ have given the beggar 10 gp instead of 1gp, and I'm the DM and what I say goes and how I interpret the text of the law trumps yours!"
> 
> _That's_ the kind of DM I'm complaining about!




And I would be right behind you 100%. However, to me at least, there is a HUGE difference between "You COULD have given him more, so loose your paladin powers" and "No, lycanthropy doesn't work that way in my world".




> Then there are those who (wrongly!) read the exact same words and come to the conclusion that the only _allowed_ PCs are those three examples per class. That the game mechanics of class (barbarian, bard, cleric) are not only the metagame but also the in-world reality. That a 'fighter' is something that the creatures in the game world can know, as opposed to a thief. That the creatures in the game world can get a microscope and tell the difference between a 'fighter' and a 'thief' by looking.
> 
> It's rare I say this, but those guys are role-playing wrong.




I only semi-agree with you here though. This is going to be very much a "style preference" of D&D. I, personally, see a Class as being a lot more than just a set of skills and abilities that one can 'learn easily'. In my mind, a Class is something that the character is actually BORN into. In my games the vast majority of NPC's are just commoners with no capability to be much more than that. They can learn skills, they can even become rulers (to some extent)...but they will never be "destined for greatness". A farm boy who joins the militia, then the kings army, and advances through the ranks is very likely still a "common, 0-level NPC", but with a bonus to hit and damage with some particular weapon. Or maybe he is a 1st or 2nd level Fighter (in 5e here). But that's it. He can fight in wars and participate in killing monsters...but he will never gain any levels past what he has. Ever. Because he wasn't "born" to be a Fighter.

But this is a style thing. Obviously yours is different, which is cool! Helps keep the game interesting, hearing other peoples side of things. From that aspect, I totally get why you would think a DM is being a 'jerk' for over-ruling your PC's background fluff. From my point of view it's the opposite; the Player was the one being a jerk for subsuming the DM's role as world-creator.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> In this medium (Internet, gaming forum, debate) each side tends to exaggerate the other side's transgressions, partly because we are passionate and partly to better illustrate the fault.
> 
> In reality, I talk to my DM. He says he's starting a new campaign soon, each of you needs to create an th level PC. We talk as a party so our PCs don't tread on each others' toes, and we talk to the DM about our 'cool idea!' (TM).
> 
> ...




Again the reasonable pre-amble to the unreasonable aspersion and declarations. 

You remain consistent.

You may feel it is only the GMs place to question your character's mechanics. You may jump directly to it being a sign of an "inexplicable and irrational" type of GM.

That is just your "feeling" on the matter, your expansion of player agency and not by any means any sort of definition that goes beyond that.

that belief would get you out the door at my game, and i suspect many others, even tho i would likely approve every case of fluff you have described. 

But the belief that these are out of bounds for rational Gms and the tendency to jump to that conclusion as soon as it seems even a polite denial occurs... not the type of "tension between player and Gm" i invite to my table to inflict on my players.

Might need to consider adding ""Player Agency" is banned" to my campaign pre-campaign info sheet now that i know this is what it has transformed to. It would give my players a laugh for sure. So it has entertainment value.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Most players have a story about a DM playing 'gotcha' with a paladin, with fall/fall 'choices' or what-have-you. This is mine:-
> 
> I'm the only player in a 2e campaign. I'm playing 3 PCs, and the DM is playing 3 DMPCs, because that's what we always did.
> 
> ...




yes... there are bad gms and gms who make mistakes and Gms who think "gotcha" vs players are the way to go... thats why there are feet, discussions at session zero, and hopefully dialogs between player and Gm about the character and play before the game.

Obviously i think many folks would agree (today) that a paladin should have a good idea that "this is right by my boos and this is not" and get clues along the way. 

But again i say - if your Gm is determined to run "gotchas" your "fluff is mine dictate" wont stop the vast majority of what he can do to "gotcha".

Let me suggest this tho...

Is it perhaps worse for the player - Gm dynamic for the two to adopt a less collaborative viewpoint such as "fluff is mine" as opposed to spending a bit of time going over the "fluff" especially the "fluff" that matters? 

See, when me and my players get together to work out characters' details we come at it from the perspective that the "fluff" matters to all of us - player and GM" and that it is as much an important element to the campaign as the mechanics to each of us. 

Without the presence of a "GM KEEP OUT" sign on the character "fluff" and with full understanding that it will matter to the campaign - we are driven to work out these kinds of details including a broad and strong understanding of what obligations are incurred and of how things have been "seen to work" in the past by the character (assuming the pact or oath had been in place for a while.) Some examples of "skirted the edge" and "results were" are created - mostly by the player but suggestions by the GM. 

By not putting the big flashing neon "GM KEEP OUT" on the fluff, we are driven to work out the necessary details and examples and "how this relationship works" well before it comes up in game. 

*To some that might make us irrational... but for us... it works.
*


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 6, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> What would he care? My civilised, anger management-challenged version of Rage in no way messes with his world. My cool idea doesn't impose anything on the rest of his world! There is nothing to object _to_.



This might be the core of the disagreement. Your character is a part of the greater world, so by declaring a truth about your own character, you are declaring a truth about the whole world. You are saying that the world is configured in such a way as to allow your character to exist. Such is the case, regardless of which truth you declare about your character. If you're playing an elf with green hair, then you're saying that the world is configured in such a way that an elf can have green hair.

In this example, you posit that your civilized "barbarian" can have an anger-management problem, which allows them to strike harder and shrug off mortal wounds as a result of their supernatural heritage. In doing so, you are declaring a truth about the nature of lycanthropy, which was not true before you said it. That is what you are imposing on the rest of the world, and what the DM may well object to.


----------



## pming (Sep 7, 2018)

Hiya!

As a semi-aside...

I had one situation "recently" (in the last decade) where a player had some absolutely nutz-o history and description for his character's background (yes, the same player I said that tries to 'write in' stuff about my campaign world to fit his new PC). He told me the PC's background story and I was just kinda shocked, really. I mean, I've been playing with him for decades, yet every now and then he would come up with something like this.

Anyhoo, I can't remember the specific details, but iirc it had to do with a reasoning of how his PC had pretty much all of the PC's class abilities...which were no where even close to what was established in the campaign world as a whole. Completely "re-writing history", so to speak. After asking a couple questions to clarify just what I was hearing was what I thought I was hearing, and getting "Yup, pretty much" to all of them. There was a long pause at the table as my DM brain whirled about trying to make some kind of in-world sense of this and decide on the spot if there was any way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks I could make it work, the silence was broken when I asked/stated:

"So your PC is crazy? Is that it?"

The player tried to explain again, and I had to cut him off with an ACTUAL explanation of what was/was not going on in my campaign setting. There was just no way this fluffy background was going to 'work' and let me maintain the campaigns internal consistency. I repeated "So, he's crazy then?" a couple times after he tried to "Rationalflufficize" (TM; PMing, 2018  ) each thing. In the end he saw why and where I was coming from and after another "So, he's crazy then?", he responded "Yup. I guess he's nuts". We worked with that. His character was, technically, "Insane" and had all manner of crazy beliefs as to how his abilities worked, where they came from, how he got them, etc. Turned out to be a fairly interesting PC...if short lived (insane PC's don't tend to last long), as his insane belief of how his powers worked, iirc, ended up getting him killed.

I guess there's a lesson in there about getting what you wish for or something. I mean, hey, if a player rationalflufficize's his PC getting his barbarian rage from having bad anger management issues then I have no problem as a DM using that to impose Wisdom Saves to not "fly off in a rage and kill someone" when a drunk d-bag picks a fight with him in the bar over a barmaid. ..."Well, a _normal _barbarian has learned to control his Rage. You have not, as your BG states, which says you have anger-management problems. And people with anger-management problems...especially epic ones like your character if he's a freaking Barbarian Class...typically do stuff they regret; namely put people in the hospital or kill them. So...yeah. I'll give you a Wisdom Save, DC 12 please". 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> As a semi-aside...
> 
> ...



Hah.

My current character - a halfling sorcerer entertainer (singer, dancer, seer of mysteries) - believes dragons sing to her each night and she can tell the future thru her deck of dragons. Admittedly she knows most of the times she does her Seeress Drakania its just for show (and coin) but thats just for fun, not ehen she is serious.

Her sorcery effect fluff is that he spells verbals sound like muliple other voices singing with her - duet for cantrips, trio for 1st level etc and so that plays into her beliefs. 

Sometimes they ask her to do strange things like get her fellow party members to particpate in a ritual - most did. That was 2nd level. At rth when she gets Dragon Song (Inspiring Leader) she will believe/know only those who did the ritual will benefit from that song. 

How much is belief vs reality vs true? Work still in progress and future choices like "does she MC to Warlock or Bard or not" might play into that line between reality and insanity.

As always that line between fluff and IG reality/mechanics - not as distinct as some may believe so very strongly it must be.

But, loads of fun.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 7, 2018)

Yeah, things like this make me very glad for my group.

"Yeah, you can have what you want, but, I'm going to beat you about the head and ears with the DM beatstick until you either give up in frustration or your character dies.  Hey, what?  I didn't kill your character.  Got nothing to do with me.  Nosiree."

If it works for you folks, hey, more power to you.  Me, I'll most often rewrite the campaign setting at the drop of a hat for a player that's actually invested in the character he's creating.  Setting is disposable AFAIC.  It's probably the least important thing at the table.  Certainly far, far behind what the player's want.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 7, 2018)

pming said:


> The specific things in the Barbarian/Warlord that I would have a problem with:
> 
> 1. It assumes the barbarians Rage is just "He's really angry". Might be fine in some campaigns, but in mine that is a no-go. It's not just "anger"...there is a physical, mental and spiritual change. Supernaturally based. The "spirits of his ancestors take root", or "the Demon of Rage is let into the barbarians soul". Not just "fluff"; this is the basis upon which other world-specific fluff and rulings can be made.




Obviously my 'brief but tasteful' explanation wasn't enough. 

The '...with anger management issues' was tongue in cheek. The Rage is fluffed as him 'letting the beast out'. The werewolf-iness threatens to break out when he is weak or angry, but it's not the anger _per se_ that gives him the Rage powers, it's how his werewolf heritage manifests itself. So, a supernatural cause.

The genesis of the idea was the stats I rolled. Before rolling I wanted to try a Hexblade. When I rolled an 18 and two 17s I realised that if I choose vHuman then I could have three 18s. At last! After 40 years of rolling stats I can finally make a 'physically perfect' human with three 18s in the physical stats! Okay, my Intelligence is only 6, but we take the rough with the smooth, right?

Mulling for a few days on the question of _why_ this PC is a perfect specimen (I usually need at least two weeks between rolling stats and a finished character sheet), I was in the state between sleeping and waking and half dreamt/half daydreamed the night of his conception. Daddy, the local squire, was out too late, got bit by a werewolf (who, unbeknownst to my PC, was also in league with a Fiend) but managed to kill it with a silver sword. Later, he recovered enough to go home. Feeling very strange and acting a bit strange, his wife tried to bandage him. He then started to *ahem* _make love_ to his wife, and just at the *ahem* crucial moment the moon came out from behind the clouds and he started to change. The timing of *ahem* _events_ was quite unique, conception/lycanthropic change-wise.

The change in daddy caused him to murder his wife moments later. A tragedy all round.

Meanwhile, the local cleric had been informed about the day's events re: werewolf and bitten squire. Knowing what the consequences would be, the cleric and the villagers rushed to the Big House (I'm imagining pitchforks and torches here) and get there just as the squire has horribly killed his wife. The cleric and villagers slay the squire/werewolf (proper MM werewolf BTW) because the locals have had a lycanthrope problem for ages and know all about silver weapons.

The cleric looks at the tragic mess and does something about it. He uses _remove curse_ and _raise dead_ on them both, making them both not werewolf and not dead.

But, not to put too fine a point on it, the *ahem* _genetic material_ from daddy had just started to transform along with the rest of him, but it had *ahem* _left his body_ before the lycanthropic change was complete, and since it had not fertilised the egg yet then it wasn't a person and certainly was not the target of the _remove curse_. Now, this is not normal! This is not how werewolves are made! But, how can it not have any effect at all!

So that was me basically (accidentally) stealing the same origin as Wesley Snipe's Blade character: not quite vampire, not quite human, but basically human with some vampire-like abilities. For me, my PC is a human _not_ a werewolf, but that unique conception had effects that are represented in game mechanics by the barbarian class and the Rage mechanic. I also supported the concept by choosing Alert as my bonus feat at 1st level to represent the preternatural senses of a werewolf, instead of choosing GWM like I originally wanted.   



> 2. It sets up a precedent of were-creatures "infecting" others without needing to bite them. This is in direct opposition to what a players reach should be in the rules from a purely rules point of view.




So, no, I'm a human not a werewolf, so I'm not changing how proper werewolves are made. What happened was a unique accident, and 'gave me some werewolf-like powers' is not me giving my PC some unearned game mechanic advantages, just me explaining his RAW level of barbarian.

The Flash got his speed powers when a bolt of lightning hit him and some chemicals. Now, this fluff in no way changes how lightning works in the world! The player making his superhero PC is not taking away the DM's control about how lightning works in his world! Wesley Snipes is not changing the way proper vampires work in the DM's world! And I'm not changing how werewolves work in my DM's world!



> Both my "concessions" would work in terms of world-fluff while maintaining the PC's belief of what happened. If the player was willing to go with that...that the PC's background isn't the "whole story" so to speak (or outright wrong)...we're off to the races. But a player that refuses and tries to pull a "It's MY character and MY fluff, so that's the way it is!" is going to be...."dissappointed" with the end result.




I'm totally willing and happy to work with the DM on fitting my PC into his world. It's the best method of character creation when there is some collaboration. In fact, I wish the DM had done more! We are playing the Dragon Drop campaign and the world/countries are not really defined. If they were I'd be happy to work with my DM to fit my regiment into a kingdom or whatever. My character would be richer for it! My DM says that the guys who wrote the campaign are going to publish that world soon, but right now we have to make it up as we go along, and the DM is happy for us to do the heavy lifting re: our backstories.  



> I'd actually be more accepting of "I'm the King" than "I'm part were-wolf". Because being a king doesn't change anything in my world's core "bedrock". Saying "I'm King" is a problem, sure, but it's less of a problem than deciding how lycanthropy works for the entire campaign world.




I'm not changing how lycanthropy works in the DM's world, but the larger point is this: try making a detailed background for your PC *without* saying something about the world! You can't do it! You can't be _expected_ to do it. It is within the game's expectations that you make up your PC's backstory and invent parents, a childhood, a house, some crucial events! The DM *could* veto any part of any backstory, but it's not possible for the DM to veto *every* part of *every* backstory on the grounds that "making stuff up about this world is my job not yours! Player entitlement!"

If a DM were to do that then he is preventing the player from making their own character at all in fluff terms! But it really is the player's _right_ to make up his own character, that's all players have got! Without it, it's just Magic Story Time.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 7, 2018)

Since a lot of this thread has detoured away from the original topic, I just have to say that I have never been a fan of the Barbarian class because to me, Barbarian is a culture, not a class. The class should really be renamed  to Berserker, as that fits what a lot of people seem to want the class to do, and then the Berserker class can have a sub-class/archetype called the Barbarian that is specifically for the nomadic/wilderness tribal types.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

Not sure if this is intentional or just confused.

"The Flash got his speed powers when a bolt of lightning hit him and some chemicals. Now, this fluff in no way changes how lightning works in the world! The player making his superhero PC is not taking away the DM's control about how lightning works in his world! Wesley Snipes is not changing the way proper vampires work in the DM's world! And I'm not changing how werewolves work in my DM's world!"

Both of those DC/Marvel cases obviously created **reproducable** events. They changed their world in terms of certain interactions.

Just as the WW tied to Barbarisn rage does.

Nothing "unique" about the process (tho I confess - not totally certain of all the blade lore.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 7, 2018)

Aerial, a couple of things:

1) Great explanation!

2) Awesome & original origin story!

3) I agree that you didn’t “violate” anything that is outside of player agency with this, and that a DM getting worked up over this would be a jerk move.

But mostly, I just wanted to say...



Arial Black said:


> When I rolled an 18 and two 17s I realised that if I choose vHuman then I could have three 18s. At last! After 40 years of rolling stats I can finally make a 'physically perfect' human with three 18s in the physical stats!




4) Serious congrats!


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 7, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Not sure if this is intentional or just confused.
> 
> "The Flash got his speed powers when a bolt of lightning hit him and some chemicals. Now, this fluff in no way changes how lightning works in the world! The player making his superhero PC is not taking away the DM's control about how lightning works in his world! Wesley Snipes is not changing the way proper vampires work in the DM's world! And I'm not changing how werewolves work in my DM's world!"
> 
> ...




 Actually, I would disagree with this statement. In the current continuity is revealed that the lightning that changed Barry Allen was actually manifested by Barry Allen himself. Further, that lightning was not actually normal lightning, but instead was a manifestation of the Speed Force. So to draw this analogy closer, I would suggest that the lightning in the Flash’s origin did not change the world or the manifestation of lightning in that world - lightning is still lethal in DC comics. Instead, it appears far more like a player created a character with the lightning, and then later created a second character and used the same origin story. So not a singularly unique event, but two unique events that work together within the bounds of the world. Again, I have to agree that this particular origin story is not violating anything on the greater scale, and there is no valid reason for it to be rejected if the DM is not also rejecting origins for half-orcs and half-elves since those origins necessitate “dictating” the world.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Actually, I would disagree with this statement. In the current continuity is revealed that the lightning that changed Barry Allen was actually manifested by Barry Allen himself. Further, that lightning was not actually normal lightning, but instead was a manifestation of the Speed Force. So to draw this analogy closer, I would suggest that the lightning in the Flash’s origin did not change the world or the manifestation of lightning in that world - lightning is still lethal in DC comics. Instead, it appears far more like a player created a character with the lightning, and then later created a second character and used the same origin story. So not a singularly unique event, but two unique events that work together within the bounds of the world. Again, I have to agree that this particular origin story is not violating anything on the greater scale, and there is no valid reason for it to be rejected if the DM is not also rejecting origins for half-orcs and half-elves since those origins necessitate “dictating” the world.



Once you use the words "in the current continuity" you are leaping into "as set in this GMs world" territory.

As i recall in Flashpoint Paradox, for instance Robert Wayne and Barry Allen (i think Robert is right) reproduced the sequence to restore - actually bestow- to Barry Allen his flash powers drawing lightning strikes to Barry. 

That established a different "setting" or "continuity" where lightning can produce these effects - reproducably. 

For that Flashpoint continuity a player handing in a character background redefining the flash origin as you suggest would be problematic to some degree. 

Obviously between now and then, the DC GMs have started a new campaign with a similar but different setting.

Similarly as i recall the basics of the blade origin - not an expert - its not necessarily a unique one as presented on face value. (They may have added lore to make it unique in some  various continuities/campaigns)

Just like on face value this daddy-wolf-sex thing doesnt seem to be a case unbelievable to have ever happened before or after to someone else.

Each case establishs a process that leads to a result that is not limited to the subject and adds that process to the world.

Maybe that fits with the "setting" or "continuity" or maybe it doesnt. Maybe it makes great story or maybe it doesnt.

But the "or be a jerk" attitude backing up as an *or else* to  "accept my definition of your continuity" just doesnt fit with me as a player role stance/belief/tenet i think adds to the play.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Actually, I would disagree with this statement. In the current continuity is revealed that the lightning that changed Barry Allen was actually manifested by Barry Allen himself. Further, that lightning was not actually normal lightning, but instead was a manifestation of the Speed Force. So to draw this analogy closer, I would suggest that the lightning in the Flash’s origin did not change the world or the manifestation of lightning in that world - lightning is still lethal in DC comics. Instead, it appears far more like a player created a character with the lightning, and then later created a second character and used the same origin story. So not a singularly unique event, but two unique events that work together within the bounds of the world. Again, I have to agree that this particular origin story is not violating anything on the greater scale, and there is no valid reason for it to be rejected if the DM is not also rejecting origins for half-orcs and half-elves since those origins necessitate “dictating” the world.



"Again, I have to agree that this particular origin story is not violating anything on the greater scale, and there is no valid reason for it to be rejected if the DM is not also rejecting origins for half-orcs and half-elves since those origins necessitate “dictating” the world."

I see a **massive difference** on the order of the mass of Saturn to the mass of my prostate between these two viewpoints as to player character fluff and the player's viewpoint - expressed or not to the GM:

"My character is a half-elf, a race you allowed and uses the half-elf stats from the book as you indicated"

"My character is a sort of half-werewolf and that gives him barbarian rage even though you have not established these half-wolf thing into your game... You'll be a jerk if you say no." 

Again, i might not have any problem with the particular addition for any given campaign i run. I actually like it. But it needs to be a start of a discussion and negotiation and work towards common aggreement in our games (me and my,players) not a one sided mandated with "or be a jerk" and "its my fluff" hammer being added to the mix.

Your games may vary.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 7, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Meanwhile, the local cleric had been informed about the day's events re: werewolf and bitten squire. Knowing what the consequences would be, the cleric and the villagers rushed to the Big House (I'm imagining pitchforks and torches here) and get there just as the squire has horribly killed his wife. The cleric and villagers slay the squire/werewolf (proper MM werewolf BTW) because the locals have had a lycanthrope problem for ages and know all about silver weapons.
> 
> The cleric looks at the tragic mess and does something about it. He uses _remove curse_ and _raise dead_ on them both, making them both not werewolf and not dead.




So this local cleric of a village is powerful enough to use remove curse and raise dead and had two diamonds each worth 500 gold to consume...how often does he decide to use raise dead? are some people's lives more important than others so some do not qualify for resurrection? who provides him with a steady supply of diamonds?...etc

Are you still insisting this is all just character fluff?


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 7, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Once you use the words "in the current continuity" you are leaping into "as set in this GMs world" territory. ...
> That established a different "setting" or "continuity" where lightning can produce these effects - reproducably.




I'm about to head to a work meeting, so I'll reply quickly and follow up later if I need to...  See, you and I are reading this completely differently. You see it as "player is meddling with DM's world!  Is the badz!"  I see this as an example of a DM saying, "you know what player, ok. But I therefore have the right to pick up that ball and run with it." (For example: I personally would then let the player find out that the Resistance that normal barbarians gain from Rage doesn't work against silver weapons, just because it seems cool.) You see player overreach. I see DM accommodation of a reasonable fluff. 



5ekyu said:


> "My character is a sort of half-werewolf and that gives him barbarian rage even though you have not established these half-wolf thing into your game... You'll be a jerk if you say no."




First, glad to hear of your healthy prostate!  Second: none of what you are saying was actually implied. He was simply giving an explanation about why his anger is empowering vs. "normal" people's anger not being so. He broke no systems, and changed nothing significant about any part of the world. I'd say you are grabbing for straws with this argument, but maybe I'm just missing it too.



Sadras said:


> So this local cleric of a village is powerful enough to use remove curse and raise dead and had two diamonds each worth 500 gold to consume...how often does he decide to use raise dead? are some people's lives more important than others so some do not qualify for resurrection? who provides him with a steady supply of diamonds?...etc
> 
> Are you still insisting this is all just character fluff?




Since it impacts the rest of the DM's campaign or world in no appreciable way, yes, that's just fluff.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 7, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Since it impacts the rest of the DM's campaign or world in no appreciable way, yes, that's just fluff




I suppose that is a fair way to look at it - sure I could come up with a good reason, perhaps a mysterious passer by or noble heard of the incident and donated the materials, perhaps even provided the skilled cleric to perform the ritual, perhaps there is a story to be told there/uncovered about the generous donor....

On the other hand, I prefer the player to work with me on their background and not just assume things about the setting. For some of us consistency is pretty important. If I do not imagine local travelling priests carrying bag full of diamonds for my setting then please provide a character backstory that accommodates my setting or at least be willing work with me to come up with a backstory that satisfies both the DM and player, fluff or otherwise.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> I'm about to head to a work meeting, so I'll reply quickly and follow up later if I need to...  See, you and I are reading this completely differently. *You see it as "player is meddling with DM's world!  Is the badz!"*  I see this as an example of a DM saying, "you know what player, ok. But I therefore have the right to pick up that ball and run with it." (For example: I personally would then let the player find out that the Resistance that normal barbarians gain from Rage doesn't work against silver weapons, just because it seems cool.) You see player overreach. I see DM accommodation of a reasonable fluff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




RE the bold statement NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

i would suggest you read any number of my posts on that subject in this thread but thats pointless. i have repeatedly said that i do and i encourage the Gm to work with the player and the two of them create together and collaborate together on how things interact between fluff and world etc etc etc. I have said more than once i encourage my players to create new things outside of their characters to add to the world "we" use. i repeatedly refer to this in most cases as "our world."

So, as far as i can tell your "You see it as "player is meddling with DM's world!  Is the badz!" is so terrbibly unfounded as to be nonsensical.

You then go on to describe as an alternative or different take a negotiation between Gm and player - just like i have suggested many times as my position. That however runs very much into conflict with the position i objected to - that of "its my fluff" and a Gm who disagrees with it would "be a jerk" etc etc etc.

When that expands to cases of how NPCs bargain with or deal with the PC (again part of the position i objected to) - this moves very very far from the negotiation/discussion i have suggested and use.

But, since what you chose to see or spin of my position is "You see it as "player is meddling with DM's world!  Is the badz!" there is zero point in continuing this with you.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 7, 2018)

I have said this many times and still believe it’s the best way to go:

Session 0 is where the DM and the players sit down and role PC and design them right there to smooth out problems ahead of time and fit everything together.  To me this is essential to alleviate many of the problems in this thread.

You can get all the fluff and stuff integrated right there.  The “it’s my fluff so I control it” never happens, in addition to the DM the other players will say it’s over the top. Backgrounds and skills and tools can be coordinated right there with the DM, and class and MC choices can be put together with the group needs in mind.

At least when 4 of the 5 players show up with hexblade dips ready to go you save time asking for justification and backgrounds for each one individually.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 7, 2018)

Only 1 in 10 player does it, but when a PC builds in a weakness or a MC that doesn’t really fit, the rest of the players notice it.  The DM really notices it, at least I do, and that hooks the PC to the DM.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 7, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, things like this make me very glad for my group.
> 
> "Yeah, you can have what you want, but, I'm going to beat you about the head and ears with the DM beatstick until you either give up in frustration or your character dies.  Hey, what?  I didn't kill your character.  Got nothing to do with me.  Nosiree."
> 
> If it works for you folks, hey, more power to you.  Me, I'll most often rewrite the campaign setting at the drop of a hat for a player that's actually invested in the character he's creating.  Setting is disposable AFAIC.  It's probably the least important thing at the table.  Certainly far, far behind what the player's want.




I agree with you at the altitude you're operating at.

I think it's important to think about where a campaign is, what storylines are in flight and what other players want in contrast to what one player wants.  Personally, when doing backstories two things from my past come to mind when my group was doing our standard pre-campaign world building exercise and character stuff.

For context: We do a round table mad lib with players spending "fate threads" in the form of poker chips to cover things that they want in game.  The DM has his own amount of currency so he can modify certain things that get brought up.  Players as a whole have more currency than the DM but the DM has more currency than any individual player.  The way it works is the player will put down some of his currency and leave an open-ended statement that becomes as "real" as the amount of currency put down.  Going once around the table, any player can add to the open ended statement with the DM closing the thread or adding his own take to it then closing the thread.  Each player has 30 seconds to get their idea out symbolized by a sand timer.

Each person needs to add an amount of their currency to their modification equal to the amount of the original spend.. so if anyone screws with anyone else, it reduces the amount they have to spend on themselves.  It balances nicely and depending on how careful a player is with how he or she states his or her desires it can end up with some really good, and really whacked outcomes.  Nice ice breaker.

Back to point.  These two things come to mind 

Player: There's something about my character that he can't put his finger on, but he believes he's destined for greatness. - 4 chips out of his 10.
DM: Times up, lets go around the table.
Player 2: It's his spleen... 5 chips.  (this player is the table's humor guy.  He's well-liked by everyone including the player he just borked.)
Table: laughter, horrified look on player 1's face.

DM considers intervention but this is player 2 telling everyone that he wants a lighter game than "player one saving the world and grit".  It flies but by the time it matters the point has been significantly abstracted.  (read: it may very well be that the player has a mystical spleen/physiology, but I don't have the evil guys constantly mentioning his spleen.  It's a table joke.)

Next example.

Player:  I have tons of friends in high places, I know many of the nobility and their my close friends. (3 chips out of 10)
DM: Ok, lets go around the table (gives me time to think.)  None of the players add or subtract, because I think they're trying to see if I'm going to break the game or break the collaborative environment by saying no.

DM: (adding to player's point): They're all imaginary friends.
Table: Dies laughing and we break for a few minutes to get food.  Player's face drops.

By the time this matters I had enough time to think through it and the imaginary friends were spectral ancestors of the existing nobility.  It would have given the player a lot of backstory on the nobility and enough information to manipulate things on occasion, but not enough to screw the game over.  

Granted, sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't because you never know how long a game is going to last or if the players are going to be at the table to see it through.  I do think though that if you put a bunch of creative minds together you can make anything work.

KB


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 7, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 7, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, given the thread drift, I thought I'd add my two cents regarding fluff and backstory and character creation.
> 
> In my opinion, and for my campaigns, NO ONE CARES. I really want to emphasize this. I feel like, woah, stop trying to make fetch happen.
> 
> ...




Exactly.

If it doesn't happen at the table it doesn't exist.

I like the inspiration system a lot for this. Each character has 4-5 lines detailing what they are like and what they care about. When they come up in play they have an impact on the story, making them exist.

Tangent to this, I think people often forget that they're creating a character who is part of an ensemble, not the protagonist. Simple, distinct characterizations that can help the other people shine. That's all.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, given the thread drift, I thought I'd add my two cents regarding fluff and backstory and character creation.
> 
> In my opinion, and for my campaigns, NO ONE CARES. I really want to emphasize this. I feel like, woah, stop trying to make fetch happen.
> 
> ...



I often refer to "foregrounded" characters when folks talk about how characters without a lot of backstory are bad or deficient. 

A lot of heroic characters stories start when they begin adventuring and develop forward. 

It's just a different preference and I welcome many types.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 7, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> any number of my posts on that subject in this thread but thats pointless. i have repeatedly said that i do and i encourage the Gm to work with the player and the two of them create together and collaborate together on how things interact between fluff and world etc etc etc. I have said more than once i encourage my players to create new things outside of their characters to add to the world "we" use. i repeatedly refer to this in most cases as "our world."




pming/5ekyu - I read your words here, but your own it seems willful mis-reading's of Aerial's explanation for why a non-nomadic tribal person has rage abilities doesn't jive with your words. He's not trying to create a "half" anything per his backstory. It's a story that gives rationale to his particular character having the ability to rage when he's not empowered by the spirits of a tribe or however you flavor rage in your game. 

He's saying my dad turned into a werewolf when I was conceived, so I have rage and the attendant other barbarian abilities. And I spent my starting feat to gain "animalistic" senses aka Alertness. 

That is a pretty unique set of circumstances that doesn't in anyway affect how normal barbarians work in your world. It could provide you as the DM a set of plot hooks to work with. Maybe his story gets out. Maybe there is an evil lycanthropic cult who hears about it and kidnaps the PC for experiments/torture. Maybe they try to re-create it and make a bunch of children they can raise in their beliefs that aren't tainted by the curse of lycanthropy but who have some bestial traits (rage/alertness). I only see that as making my job as DM easier. Unless you already have a railroad story you want to send the characters down that doesn't fit that. Then ignore any plot hooks this backstory generates. It only effects your game as much as you let it as the DM effect how things in your game work. Maybe it's not ANY different. Rage is an extension of the supernatural in your world, and animal totems are very tied to barbarian classes. Maybe it's the spirit of animals that grant in some small way the rage abilities, and in this case this PC is accessing those spirit animals (wolf) differently, but it's the same spirit and same rage. That is up to you as a DM. But I don't see your reading of Arial's backstory as "trying to work with a player" to integrate their PC/story into the game or world. 

   [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - that is a cool backstory and a great way to think up a "civilized" barbarian. I like that you took Alertness with your variant human feat for the flavor of it. I would absolutely allow that for my games. I would still reserve the right to revoke Divine (read Cleric/Druid/Paladin) abilities if a PC went against their God/Oaths/Nature. Of course I would discuss with player first or drop serious hints, and it wouldn't be for random or light things. But for heavy, continued, willful violation, absolutely.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> 5ekyu - I read your words here, but your own it seems willful mis-reading's of Aerial's explanation for why a non-nomadic tribal person has rage abilities doesn't jive with your words. He's not trying to create a "half" anything per his backstory. It's a story that gives rationale to his particular character having the ability to rage when he's not empowered by the spirits of a tribe or however you flavor rage in your game.
> 
> He's saying my dad turned into a werewolf when I was conceived, so I have rage and the attendant other barbarian abilities. And I spent my starting feat to gain "animalistic" senses aka Alertness.
> 
> ...



If you wanted to you could have noticed the following...

The post i made about half wolf was where i excerpted and quoted for enphasis the portion of a poster who linked the wolf rage thing to a gm allowing half-orcs and hlaf-elf characters.

I was pointing out the difference in his examples between the percieved similarity ot justification of the were rage to half-races that the poster was presenting.

If you choose to transorm that into  me putting that out as a false representation of the AB "wolf rage jerk position" then go right ahead. 

But others may see my using it with that soecific reference setout first and take it another way - as a specific rebut/counter to someone wlse trying to tie it to half-races.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> 5ekyu - I read your words here, but your own it seems willful mis-reading's of Aerial's explanation for why a non-nomadic tribal person has rage abilities doesn't jive with your words. He's not trying to create a "half" anything per his backstory. It's a story that gives rationale to his particular character having the ability to rage when he's not empowered by the spirits of a tribe or however you flavor rage in your game.
> 
> He's saying my dad turned into a werewolf when I was conceived, so I have rage and the attendant other barbarian abilities. And I spent my starting feat to gain "animalistic" senses aka Alertness.
> 
> ...



"That is a pretty unique set of circumstances that doesn't in anyway affect how normal barbarians work in your world. "

I have not once said that backstory affects "regular barbarians" nor that i have any problems with civilizrd barbarians at all.

I have said it creates a process "turning during intercourse" that creates certain effects that is far from unique. That applies changes to the greater world. 

Maybe to you this is the first time you have imagined "baby born out of supernatural coupling has abilities" but its an old trope repackaged time after time. Its not unique. Practically and WoD game used that trope more than once.

So, my position stands... This is not "my fluff or jerk" case and should be instead a GM and player discussion and attempt to reach mutual understanding as opposed to the claims made.

Player who think "or jerk" and "or irrational" if their fluff doesnt get auto-approval even if politely can see the door about an exit while i speak with the players who built an entire world.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 7, 2018)

Fair point. There is a world of difference between a half-elf and a half-were creature, I agree. I conflated your post with those words and a post from pming to which most of my subsequent points were aimed. Consider the majority of my post redirected [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] !

That said, I do think that if someone comes with a were-creature conceived barbarian there is no issue with that. It doesn't try to make a half-werewolf or substantively change anything about the game or the backstory of the world. See my post above.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 7, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> Fair point. There is a world of difference between a half-elf and a half-were creature, I agree. I conflated your post with those words and a post from pming to which most of my subsequent points were aimed. Consider the majority of my post redirected [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] !
> 
> That said, I do think that if someone comes with a were-creature conceived barbarian there is no issue with that. It doesn't try to make a half-werewolf or substantively change anything about the game or the backstory of the world. See my post above.



You can of course edit that post.

But as i said, its not a bacjstory i would have a direct problem with in most any game i had where supernatural beasts were involved. Its a rather tired trope. Its bern done. Whats one more time? 

But it would be a discussion not a dictate.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 7, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> You can't make your character cool or awesome or interesting because you define him as so. You can have all the written backstory of your character being the secret child of werewolves, or the King, or leprechauns, or whatever. Doesn't matter. Because characters are defined through play, not by all the things you can imagine happened before the game began.



I'm almost the opposite of this. I strongly insist to my players that, if there's anything particularly noteworthy to your character concept that you really want to matter, then you should make sure that it's already happened in their past. If you want to play a paladin who falls and then seeks redemption, then you should start as having already fallen and seeking redemption, because there's no way to know how the future will play out.

As far as the characters (and thus players, while role-playing) are concerned, there's no difference between the things you can imagine happened before the game began, and the things we collectively imagine happening after the game begins. It's all equally (not) real.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 7, 2018)

For me, narratives and settings are ultimately fungible.  I'm happy to generate a plot if the party is the classic "we met in a tavern" group, with limited backstory.  Players that come to me with strong concepts and plot desires will be the ones I bend the game world for, though.  If your backstory if "My father is a Duke of Hell, and one day I'm going to take his throne", then the game is absolutely going to involve devils and infernal plots.  

I do some light worldbuilding for fun, because it's rare for a player to come up with a concept that I can't take on, but ultimately the setting always takes its rightful place as a stage for my player's character's actions.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 8, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> Fair point. There is a world of difference between a half-elf and a half-were creature, I agree. I conflated your post with those words and a post from pming to which most of my subsequent points were aimed. Consider the majority of my post redirected [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] !
> 
> That said, I do think that if someone comes with a were-creature conceived barbarian there is no issue with that. It doesn't try to make a half-werewolf or substantively change anything about the game or the backstory of the world. See my post above.




It absolutely changes the tone and theme of the game/world. A side benefit of not using multiclassing, it seems, is that we don't need to deal with disruptive characters like that.



TwoSix said:


> For me, narratives and settings are ultimately fungible.  I'm happy to generate a plot if the party is the classic "we met in a tavern" group, with limited backstory.  Players that come to me with strong concepts and plot desires will be the ones I bend the game world for, though.  If your backstory if "My father is a Duke of Hell, and one day I'm going to take his throne", then the game is absolutely going to involve devils and infernal plots.
> 
> I do some light worldbuilding for fun, because it's rare for a player to come up with a concept that I can't take on, but ultimately the setting always takes its rightful place as a stage for my player's character's actions.




We do the exact opposite. We want characters at the table who are there to be part of an ensemble and further the themes and tropes of the game. 

Not hijack it.

If the player writes their character to be the protagonist then they're being a jerk. Being the squeaky wheel doesn't get you the grease at our table, it gets you replaced.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 8, 2018)

Sadras said:


> I suppose that is a fair way to look at it - sure I could come up with a good reason, perhaps a mysterious passer by or noble heard of the incident and donated the materials, perhaps even provided the skilled cleric to perform the ritual, perhaps there is a story to be told there/uncovered about the generous donor....
> 
> On the other hand, I prefer the player to work with me on their background and not just assume things about the setting. For some of us consistency is pretty important. If I do not imagine local travelling priests carrying bag full of diamonds for my setting then please provide a character backstory that accommodates my setting or at least be willing work with me to come up with a backstory that satisfies both the DM and player, fluff or otherwise.




That's a whole lot of objection to the _raise dead_ thing, especially when the question is asked about the diamonds, the answer is that Daddy is the local squire and already has the diamonds himself. Simples! 

As I've said before, it is simply impossible for a player to create a detailed backstory that doesn't involve parts of the DM's world, whether it be people, locations or events. Therefore it is absurd to ban any backstory purely on the grounds that the player has mentioned NPCs, locations and/or events in the DMs world and 'trodden on his toes'.

It's also absurd to view the player having total control of the DM's world for backstory purposes.

Either extreme is absurd. It's a spectrum between 'total DM control' and 'total player control'. But where on that spectrum _should_ the balance be when a player creates a character for a DM's campaign? Well, YMMV.

But in my opinion and experience, what happens is that the player creates a background consistent (or not _in_consistent) with the information they have on the game world. They, at some point during this process, talk to the DM about the backstory. At this point the DM contributes. They may accept it whole cloth with no changes. They may not care much (do what you like, you start in the same tavern as everyone else!), they may think your idea is so cool that they get great story ideas of their own leading on from what you told them (like my DM did with my part werewolf PC re: the Fiendish patron). And they may say "No way in the Nine Hecks it _that_ going to fly!" But if it's the latter, there should be a coherent reason for the objection, and some conversation should be had to fix what's wrong. It should not simply be "the world is MY domain and you don't have permission to make anything up about it at all!", because as I've mentioned it is simply not possible to write a backstory that does _not_ add some element of people/places/events!

As a further illustrative example of where I think the balance point lies on the spectrum of 'total DM purview' to 'total player purview' re: backstories, my newest PC:-

The DM tells us that although the Dragon Drop campaign intends to take us from 1st to 20th level (we have just reached 9th, I'm Bar 3/War 6 now), so far they have only published adventures up to level 12. They will stop there, take time to write and publish the world in which the Dragon Drop takes place, and then resume writing and publishing adventures from 13th to 20th level after that.

Which means after we play the 12th level adventure there might not be an adventure to play for a while. The solution? "Make a 5th level PC each, set in the same world, and I'll take you to 8th level. By that time the new Dragon Drop adventure should be out".

Great! Another chance to try one of my many ideas! I don't know about you guys, but I usually have many more character ideas than I have campaigns in which to play them!

My new PC is a Noble background Sun elf Rog (swashbuckler) 3/ Wiz (bladesinger) 2. The genesis of this idea is the Bladesong ability, a fighting style...used by wizards? So, my idea is to have a dedicated fencer/duellist who has Bladesong to be a better duellist, _not_ to be a better wizard!

To that end her spellbook will be full of rituals and a few spells that will help her be more effective in melee. No blasting, no _fireballs_, no mind control. Just _mage armour/shield/feather fall/absorb elements/grease/protection from evil and good_, plus rituals for utility. If I hit Wiz 3 I'll take _blur_. Cantrips are _booming blade/green-flame blade/mending/prestidigitation_.

As to the noble background I'm imagining the youngest daughter of a powerful eleven noble. Her _family_ is wealthy and powerful, but _she_ is not! While at home she has servants and Daddy's credit card (or the fantasy equivalent), but when she runs away from home to be an adventurer she does so with nothing but....the starting equipment as per the PHB/DMG for a 5th level PC.

Yes, I'll work with the DM about the noble family. I have a name for them, what they do (magic and combat, hence the family Bladesong tradition), a name for the Bladesong style, and so on and so forth (I told you it takes me two weeks minimum!).

Now, the DM can object to any of the _details_ I've set forth if he wanted to. I'll be entirely happy to work with him to adapt this background as needed to better fit his world, but to be honest I expect him to let it through on the nod; there just isn't an established world to mess up! He cannot legitimately object to my class/race/background/spells etc. because he's already said that we can choose our own. He would have to go back on his word to do so, and why would he?

But, to illustrate the balance point, there _is_ a background idea that I really do need the DM's permission for, and if he says no then I'll be totally okay about it:-

My idea is that her first character level was Rog 1. She met this human swashbuckler/duellist when they were both young (he was 17, she was maybe 60 or 80). She was fascinated with the whole sub-culture, and wanted to be like them. She picked up the skills that would lead her to be a 1st level rogue. But then she was packed off to wizard/Bladesong school for...decades! The decades elves think their children need to learn their skills before they become adults sometime after they hit the century mark.

When she gets back, she will be 117 years old, an adult, and be a Rog 1/Wiz 2 (Bladesinger). Meanwhile, the human friend (boyfriend? Don't tell her Dad!) is now middle-aged and high level; a great mentor (he gets her to Rog 3 Swashbuckler) but not a suitable boyfriend or party member.

All that's in my purview. The DM _could_ object in theory, but I'd be astonished if there was anything there to ban in the fluff. The part that I feel I need his permission for is my idea that her decades of training took place in the Feywild, and that the time differences mean that although the human thought she was gone for 20 years or so, she was actually in the Feywild for 40 to 50 years!

I need permission firstly because the rate of time passing in each plane might not be that ratio, or it might be the other way round so that 1 year in the Feywild takes 10 years on the Prime Material, so that idea won't work. Secondly, the DM mentioned that the adventure he has in mind is set in the Feywild!

Now, the Feywild is a big place! If the DM thinks it would be a good idea for one of the party to know something about the Feywild, or even know some of the principle NPCs, this would help him. If that's not what he wants then the Feywild is a big enough place that I could have spent decades in part of it without coming into contact with any part of the people/places/events of the adventure. But he might very well not want any PC to have any previous Feywild experience at all. If so, I will totally respect that. That *is* in the DM's purview, because it might mess with his adventure, while the other parts of my backstory just don't. If he objects, I'll just have her train for decades elsewhere on the Prime Material and not bother with the time dilation angle.

Can you see the difference?


----------



## FriendBesto (Sep 8, 2018)

Just one point of view among hundreds, but:

The underlying point is just a matter of opinion, and there may be a consensus among the community, but perhaps the biggest part of D&D is the flexibility of the ruleset.  Skyrim versus WoW versus Final Fantasy matters far more because you get the one ruleset and for the most part it only works one way.  D&D on the other hand operates in the theater of the mind and is able to accommodate the full spectrum of preferences.  Attempting to standardize game theory discourages creative flexibility and  is similar to deciding an objective "best" flavor when the best part about flavors is, there are many to choose from.  What's really important is knowing what you like and why so you can find others to enjoy the game with, but as a community we should relish the fact that our one core game system supports such a variety of play.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 8, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> That's a whole lot of objection to the _raise dead_ thing, especially when the question is asked about the diamonds, the answer is that Daddy is the local squire and already has the diamonds himself. Simples!
> 
> As I've said before, it is simply impossible for a player to create a detailed backstory that doesn't involve parts of the DM's world, whether it be people, locations or events. Therefore it is absurd to ban any backstory purely on the grounds that the player has mentioned NPCs, locations and/or events in the DMs world and 'trodden on his toes'.
> 
> ...



The difference is you describe a process where two people gm and player discuss and come to an agreement that does not include one side coming to that with the foundation that if tha other disagrees and says no they are being a jerk or are being irrational or that its theirs alone to decide. 

Sounds like a lot games actually and what a lot of folks here have been describing.

As for the bit about the GM going back on his word, as far as that relates to the MC ban combo or not type discussions, I think most of the time it's been put forth as "I ban warlock pally" etc it has been as "table rule" not as a going back on word case. Not a particular thing I object to, pally-lock, but I have not seen too much here about the sort of untrustworthy gm you want to add to the mix now alongside your jerk gm and irrational gm.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 8, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> We do the exact opposite. We want characters at the table who are there to be part of an ensemble and further the themes and tropes of the game.
> 
> Not hijack it.
> 
> If the player writes their character to be the protagonist then they're being a jerk. Being the squeaky wheel doesn't get you the grease at our table, it gets you replaced.



Different strokes for different folks.  As I've said before, one of the major divergences between different roleplaying games is whether the game is an exploration of the setting or an exploration of the player characters.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Different strokes for different folks.  As I've said before, one of the major divergences between different roleplaying games is whether the game is an exploration of the setting or an exploration of the player characters.




I would also point out that these are not mutually exclusive.  Unless the PCs are all supposed to be from the same town or something along those lines, by and large most of the individual personalizations of a characters background do not impact the ensemble in any negative way. They remain a way to tell the story about that character, but in no way impede the overall ensemble. Personally, I don’t think people should be punished for individual creativity even if they’re in an ensemble game. Particularly when that individual creativity is not impacting anyone else’s character or the world at large in any appreciable way.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 8, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> I would also point out that these are not mutually exclusive.  Unless the PCs are all supposed to be from the same town or something along those lines, by and large most of the individual personalizations of a characters background do not impact the ensemble in any negative way. They remain a way to tell the story about that character, but in no way impede the overall ensemble. Personally, I don’t think people should be punished for individual creativity even if they’re in an ensemble game. Particularly when that individual creativity is not impacting anyone else’s character or the world at large in any appreciable way.



I agree that there's a spectrum there, and the rule system you use can you push you strongly in one direction or the other.  But in general, if there's a conflict between a player's vision of their character and your vision (as a DM) of how the setting works, you need to decide which one takes precedence.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I agree that there's a spectrum there, and the rule system you use can you push you strongly in one direction or the other.  But in general, if there's a conflict between a player's vision of their character and your vision (as a DM) of how the setting works, you need to decide which one takes precedence.




Absolutely. If there is an actual conflict.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 8, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Absolutely. If there is an actual conflict.



In general, lack of conflict has proven pretty easy to handle.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> In general, lack of conflict has proven pretty easy to handle.




Ah, but that is why I included the qualifier "actual". Because in the example of our barbarian, would argue that there is no actual conflict. Much of the supposed conflict seems to be manufactured, to my mind. His fluff did not impact anything outside of his character. Claims that he is overstepping as a player or claiming entitlement very much seem illegitimate to me. Hence the qualifier.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 8, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> The difference is you describe a process where two people gm and player discuss and come to an agreement that does not include one side coming to that with the foundation that if tha other disagrees and says no they are being a jerk or are being irrational or that its theirs alone to decide.




By 'can you see the difference?' I mean the difference between what I see as the player's purview (idea, choice of race/class/background already allowed by the DM, fluff to explain the crunch) and the DM's purview (necessary adjustments to better fit into the DM's campaign, messing with the DM's _actual_ adventure/plots/game world politics), as illustrated by the fact that the only thing I feel I need the DM's permission for is the 'Feywild time dilation' aspect because the adventure will be set in the Feywild?


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 8, 2018)

I have a longstanding group of friends who I play with.  There has NEVER been tension about collaboration and we all take turns as DM over the decades.

Our process is simple.  PC backgrounds are written and described something meds modifying fluff. DM looks it over and thinks about how the character fits in the world.  Someone makes a cleric that prays to an ideal in a weird cult?  Fine.  The other clerics in the world usually serve a temple.  The character is an exception.

The warlock has a strange patron not included in PHB?  Select one of the patron abilities but reflavor.  Warlock has little contact with patron?  DM shrugs.  Again his world does not crumble.  He still runs it as he wishes.

We roll with and have fun.  I don't know why some DMs are so particular as if their world is that fragile.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 8, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I don't know why some DMs are so particular as if their world is that fragile.




Maybe their world is precariously balanced on the back of a turtle.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 8, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> We roll with and have fun.  I don't know why some DMs are so particular as if their world is that fragile.




Well that's insulting. Is this your insult for everyone who doesn't use multiclassing?

Small tangent, I have noticed that a lot of people reference 'DM' instead of 'table'. At our table we all make decisions collectively about the kind of game we want. 

If a player makes a character we don't want to play with then we as the table will veto them. It has nothing to do with 'fragility'. We are there to have fun and while we could put up with many disruptive players and/or characters, we don't want to. Life is too short.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 8, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Well that's insulting. Is this your insult for everyone who doesn't use multiclassing?
> 
> Small tangent, I have noticed that a lot of people reference 'DM' instead of 'table'. At our table we all make decisions collectively about the kind of game we want.
> 
> If a player makes a character we don't want to play with then we as the table will veto them. It has nothing to do with 'fragility'. We are there to have fun and while we could put up with many disruptive players and/or characters, we don't want to. Life is too short.




It is more of a statement about allowing players to create fluff and less about the quality of a person (DM) who chooses to have total control.  If I cared and I really don't, I would say labeling a person a disruptive player is more insulting than pointing out someone's creation won't be destroyed so easily (campaign world specifically) by collaboration.

Whether you want to multiclassing or not is immaterial in that regard.  Those are just optional rules.  I just prefer a freer hand in creating my PC fluff.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 8, 2018)

@_*Arial Black*_, what you described in your post was perfectly cool and reflected upon a collaboration of DM and player which is how we play at our table. The setting may have some hard core limitations (no specific classes or races or specific rules about magic etc) but the background fluff can be worked through. All good.



ad_hoc said:


> Small tangent, I have noticed that a lot of people reference 'DM' instead of 'table'. At our table we all make decisions collectively about the kind of game we want.
> 
> If a player makes a character we don't want to play with then we as the table will veto them. It has nothing to do with 'fragility'. We are there to have fun and while we could put up with many disruptive players and/or characters, we don't want to. Life is too short.




We have a similar house rule. If a player is forced to create a new character due to death or otherwise, any other player may veto the new character created if they believe it clashes with their own.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 8, 2018)

Sadras said:


> We have a similar house rule. If a player is forced to create a new character due to death or otherwise, any other player may veto the new character created if they believe it clashes with their own.



Interesting. Has this veto been used at your table?


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 8, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> By 'can you see the difference?' I mean the difference between what I see as the player's purview (idea, choice of race/class/background already allowed by the DM, fluff to explain the crunch) and the DM's purview (necessary adjustments to better fit into the DM's campaign, messing with the DM's _actual_ adventure/plots/game world politics), as illustrated by the fact that the only thing I feel I need the DM's permission for is the 'Feywild time dilation' aspect because the adventure will be set in the Feywild?




The answer i have to give is "no" not because i do not understand the difference you are wanting to portray as so very distinct and clear but because you yourself have muddied the waters more than a bit.

You have already stated that part of your "character side" would be fluff that establishes a tie between the wolf-sex-thingy and the barbarian rage feature (i do not mean you tie that toe every barbarian, but you establish for this game a link between those two elements as a possibility) and to the extent that it triggers your jerk/irrational and intrusion position. 

To me, that tie is a world setting and while as a Gm i would almost always be fine with it... i do NOT agree at all that adding that is clearly and distinctly a player-side GM has no say purview.

Additionally, when i ready your statement above i see what seem to be "traps" for the broader statement that i would NEVER EVER AGREE TO in a mutal agreement for a collaboration or negotiation.

Look at the player rights section - 
what I see as the player's purview (idea, choice of race/class/background already allowed by the DM, fluff to explain the crunch) 

Thats pretty broad for the player side - only things outside the limit are classes/races/background already forbidden expressly.

Look at the GM right section...

 the DM's purview (*necessary* adjustments to *better *fit into the DM's campaign, *messing *with the DM's actual adventure/plots/game world politics), as illustrated by the fact that the only thing I feel I need the DM's permission for is the 'Feywild time dilation' aspect because the adventure will be set in the Feywild?

See the bolded limits all thru the Gms rights? Any GM side purview must be necessary (not just preferred, but necessary), must be better (not just as good or equally good but better) and (i assume you meant" NOT messing up already planned politics world adventures etc.

You are defining a set of conditions which - very consistently to your previous positions I might add - seem to view the Gm as being the party which needs to be limited, restricted etc and the player to have a wide latitude when it comes to this "fluff".

What **seems clear** is that you still want pretty high degree of carte blanche for the player and very limited ability for the GM and a lot of tools  to push back with (Justify how its really necessary? justify how its better better? justify how it messes with?) and that is a far cry from a collaboration especially when it comes to the ties between your character and the world.

Thats not a collaboration or chargen campaign  process i would sign myself up for as Gm and frankly, as player because it really seems to set an adversarial tone towards the Gm. it really screams "we do not trust you as our GM" to me. First rule of my games is "this game will run very well if we trust each other. and play together."

I know some Gms are of the "its my game and you can play in it" variety. I know i am more of an "its our game lets play together" variety but this seems to be moving very heavily towards "its the players game and if you are nice we will let you Gm it - with restrictions and a probationary period."

not my thing.

YFMV


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 8, 2018)

Sadras said:


> @_*Arial Black*_, what you described in your post was perfectly cool and reflected upon a collaboration of DM and player which is how we play at our table. The setting may have some hard core limitations (no specific classes or races or specific rules about magic etc) but the background fluff can be worked through. All good.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a similar house rule. If a player is forced to create a new character due to death or otherwise, any other player may veto the new character created if they believe it clashes with their own.




As a fairly standard practice - there are more restrictions understood on "replacement characters" than original characters" and this is one of those reasons. We haven't needed a veto to be actually used because we all know new guy trumps existing character just wont be allowed. So, when new guy is created, it is often very different from the existing ones as far as "what it does".

Our house rule "ties" (quick one liner "hey dont i know you from..." written by players at the start of the game, some used then among PCs but some held back for later) helps bring the new guy in, even with significant differences between the characters.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 8, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I have a longstanding group of friends who I play with.  There has NEVER been tension about collaboration and we all take turns as DM over the decades.
> 
> Our process is simple.  PC backgrounds are written and described something meds modifying fluff. DM looks it over and thinks about how the character fits in the world.  Someone makes a cleric that prays to an ideal in a weird cult?  Fine.  The other clerics in the world usually serve a temple.  The character is an exception.
> 
> ...




just like i dont know why some feel the need to keep throwing in some way to hang weakness or inadequacy onto those who feel differently in how they play.

A game doesn't have to be lesser than another or more fragile to have different tolerances.

At least, thats how i see it.

Your fun may vary.


----------



## MoonSong (Sep 9, 2018)

SolidPlatonic said:


> c) No coffeelocks






SolidPlatonic said:


> I've played a paladin warlock and a paladin bard, and I've played with several paladin warlocks and one paladin sorcerer.  What I meant by "abuses I've seen on the boards," was an imprecise way of saying all of the "abuses" that are possible with CHA-based multiclassing, seen from firsthand knowledge, reading other peoples' experience, and doing the research myself.
> 
> I haven't had anyone play or ask to play a coffeelock, yet.  That's probably because that is just the most egregious, eye-rolling abuse of a poorly-designed rule.
> 
> It basically comes down to (one of the few) very sloppy design elements in 5e that can pretty easily be avoided.  A talk with players to say, "hey, don't abuse MC rules" also works in most cases, but the internet shorthand is to just to state that MCing CHA-based classes is uncool and should be avoided.




Please, forgive me if I quote you over something old. I can't claim I was the one to invent the coffeelock, but I described the basic idea very early on in the edition. I couldn't really get behind the actual fluff required at the time -given the only choices back the were amoral patrons at best- so I never tried playing something like that, but now that we have both Celestial Warlock and Divine Soul, I'm starting to feel like trying a Sorceress 3/Warlock 3, it sounds like it might be fun. (Note that I'm disinterested on blasting, so no Twin eldritch blast shenanigans. And with an easily renewable source of magic, there would be less pressure to conserve resources so probably no Twin/Quick spell stuff) 

Would you be ok with something like that? 





Kobold Boots said:


> Last point I think I'll make based on personal experiences..
> 
> Player: May I multi-class?
> DM: Sure.  May I make villains that multi-class?
> ...




I don't know, maybe I wouldn't get angry, but I wouldn't be exactly happy under these circumstances either. I barely ever feel the need to try something I know is overpowered -my average fantasy isn't really a power fantasy by the normal usage of the phrase- if I ever decide I want to try it, then I don't want things to be hard, I don't want to be challenged, and certainly I don't want it to end on a TPK. If I decide I want to try something that is "powerful" -and again I barely ever feel like it-, is because I want to feel the thrill of the experience and for things to go my way. 

And well, I prefer to have multiclassing and feats available, but mostly for the following reasons:
*I loathe standard human, it is nothing but a bunch of bland +1s -and I tend to find the resulting characters unrelatable-, at the same time I really like to play humans -because I have an easier time finding them relatable-. Without feats there's no variant human and I'm stuck with a character I find less relatable than ideal. 
*I like to have the door open to shifting paths if needed. Knowing that my character isn't set in stone helps me relate to it. The opposite makes them feel more like an artificial construct than a living person.
*Feats help me fill gaps in my character. I prefer playing sorcerers -I like bards and clerics too, but they tend to be quite busy- but I'm not really a fan of blasting, the extra feat from variant human normally goes to gain proficiency with the fabled spears -they are an iconic sorcerer weapon- and other things like bows and glaives. Or to get a third spell known, the more spells known the least I'm pressured to blast.  
*In core-only games, it helps me compensate for the lack of a healing witch. By mixing bard and sorcerer I can approximate a poor-mans favored/divine soul  

None of them are powergaming reasons, if anything, going by these forums, they are things that actually undermine a character's power. 



Kobold Boots said:


> I agree with you at the altitude you're operating at.
> 
> I think it's important to think about where a campaign is, what storylines are in flight and what other players want in contrast to what one player wants.  Personally, when doing backstories two things from my past come to mind when my group was doing our standard pre-campaign world building exercise and character stuff.
> 
> ...




More power to you I guess, I wouldn't really want to be in a position to play with this system. Having a way to "buy" fictional space is very cool, but both your examples don't sound very fun to me. What would you do if I was an hypothetical player at your table and I put something like "My character is a princess" and put all of my chips on it?


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 9, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> It absolutely changes the tone and theme of the game/world. A side benefit of not using multiclassing, it seems, is that we don't need to deal with disruptive characters like that.
> 
> We do the exact opposite. We want characters at the table who are there to be part of an ensemble and further the themes and tropes of the game.
> 
> ...




1. How can a single characters backstory change the theme and tone of a whole world?
2. The backstory has 0 to do with the multiclass part of the PC, but either way why do you think this character is “disruptive”?

Isn’t every PC a protagonist? How does this backstory make this PC more spotlighted than any others, and thus classify it as a squeaky wheel? Likely none of the other characters even KNOW this PC’s backstory... so how does it matter?


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 9, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> We left town.
> 
> After a few days in-game (which was a few weeks later in real life at one session per week) my paladin started to lose his powers, one by one. Why? You don't know.
> 
> ...




That's a frustrating story, I completely agree with you

... but it's still in the game.  In the DMG, the oathbreaker.  Several people have pointed it out.


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 9, 2018)

To get back on topic, I will say this:  multiclassing in 5e is less "necessary" than in previous editions. 

 [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] noted how he like the fighter-mage-thief.   And yes, its a cool concept... and it can be done in 5e without multi-classing.

1:  Eldritch Knight with criminal background

Want more "mage"?

2:  Hexblade with criminal background

or

3:  Wizard bladesigner with criminal background

want more "rogue"?

4:  Arcane trickster with soldier background  (maybe take dwarf for the armor/weaponry).  

I'm sure there are several other ways of doing the same. 

This might not be the same as 2e multiclassing.  But the first time we can do this much without multiclassing.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 9, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> You have already stated that part of your "character side" would be fluff that establishes a tie between the wolf-sex-thingy and the barbarian rage feature (i do not mean you tie that toe every barbarian, but you establish for this game a link between those two elements as a possibility) and to the extent that it triggers your jerk/irrational and intrusion position.
> 
> To me, that tie is a world setting and while as a Gm i would almost always be fine with it... i do NOT agree at all that adding that is clearly and distinctly a player-side GM has no say purview.




The situation is that at the precise moment when the *ahem* _genetic material_ left daddy's, erm, _body_, daddy had *started* to change into a werewolf for the very first time, but the change was not complete.

Therefore, the cause of my PC's abilities was the genetic material that was _half-way_ between human and werewolf; a unique situation. This is different from a 'father' who has already completely turned into a werewolf, because at that point the genetic material would not create something like my PC, it would create....whatever it usually creates in the DM's world! A normal human baby? A natural lycanthrope? An afflicted lycanthrope? I don't know; it's not up to me, it's up to the DM. _That_ is why my PC's unique origin simply does not tread on the DM's toes re: the results of werewolf mating.

In order for my PC's origin to set a precedent, another 'father' would have to be releasing his genetic material at the exact same moment as he was changing into a werewolf for the very first time. Even then, the mother must somehow survive what would almost certainly be a fatal experience. And if those exact same things happened and the DM didn't _want_ another PC like mine, all the DM has to do is say that it didn't work this time! Maybe it only worked like that the first time because The Fiend made it happen like that as part of The Fiend's long game, because he wanted an agent like my PC.

In short, accepting my fluff in no way paints the DM into a corner re: werewolf mating results, therefore it is not a valid objection to my fluff.



> Look at the player rights section -
> what I see as the player's purview (idea, choice of race/class/background already allowed by the DM, fluff to explain the crunch)
> 
> Thats pretty broad for the player side - only things outside the limit are classes/races/background already forbidden expressly.
> ...




Yes, that sums it up nicely. The DM controls EVERYTHING in his world....*except* the PCs. The ONLY thing the players have is their own PC, and it is wrong for the DM to assume control of the PC (including the PC's backstory) without the player's consent, just as it would be wrong for the player to assume control of the DM's world when play begins without the DM's consent.

Lines of demarcation. The players get their PCs, the DM gets literally EVERYTHING ELSE. What, you want my PC too? Hands off!



> Thats not a collaboration or chargen campaign  process i would sign myself up for as Gm and frankly, as player because it really seems to set an adversarial tone towards the Gm. it really screams "we do not trust you as our GM" to me. First rule of my games is "this game will run very well if we trust each other. and play together."




The forum makes us all seem a lot more adversarial than we are in real life, because we are supporting our positions in a debate here, but in real life it doesn't work like that.

The forum makes it seem as though the very first thing I say to the DM is, "It's my way or the highway!", and it seems as though this is also the first thing the DM says to me.

But that is not what happens in real life. In reality, our _expectations_ are that the DM/player will *not* be a jerk! Those lines don't get drawn in some argument, because there is (usually) no disagreement. Usually, the DM recognises the players right to make up their own backstory, and the players recognise the DM's right to make *necessary* adjustments.

Disagreement does sometimes happen though. I remember one time one of our group's players wanted to try his hand at DMing. He told us all to make 1st level PCs and told us a bit about the world, told us which books we were allowed to use (3.5e; there were a _lot_ of books by this stage). So, I decided to play a warlock. He already said we could. In the previous campaign in which both he and I were players, I also played a warlock, and we were all high level. I wanted to play a low level one.

But he didn't like my previous character. So, _after_ I made the warlock, he banned it. He just decided that there were no warlocks in his world.

So that wasn't a good start. I floated several ideas for different PCs and he shot them all down. Later, he allowed another player to use one of these ideas for their PC _after_ he had already said that I wasn't allowed to use it!

That ticked me off no end! I decided that if his objections were that all my ideas were too powerful (1st level PC's, remember?) then I'd make a PC that _only_ used info from the PHB, a source that he allowed in toto. I made a 1st level bard based on Joxer The Mighty from the Xena TV show. He didn't know he was a bard, he thought he was a great fighter destined to be a hero, but in reality he was a buffoon.

In 3.5e, a bard has to choose what kind of performance he uses to get the pseudo-magical effects (like Inspire Courage which gives combat bonuses to the bard's allies). Usual choices are singing or playing an instrument, but there is actually quite a long list to choose from, including things like 'oratory'. One of those was 'comedy', and one of the example types of comedy was 'buffoonery'; basically, pratfalls and being useless for comic effect and so on. The way I'd Inspire Courage was to 'strike a heroic pose and cow the villains into submission' (read: try to act tough and have my helmet fall off and trip over my own cloak, and pretend that no-one else noticed). My party got the Inspire Courage bonuses from my bardic performance of 'buffoonery' because they were thinking, "Oh, gods, here we go again! We're going to have to pull out all the stops to get us out of this situation in one piece!"

So, I thought it was brilliant! So did the players! I was playing a weak PC so he couldn't object on those grounds (we didn't roll or use point-buy for stats, we just chose the stats we wanted. I gave him an 8 in wisdom; no-one had done that before), I was only using the PHB as my source (so he couldn't object on the grounds that I was using some obscure, broken splatbook), and I was using the rules as written, without asking for any special consideration, so he couldn't object on that score either.

He hated it. He tried to impose a Will save in order to choose my own actions in combat, but I told him that my _PC_ may be deluded about his combat prowess, but his _player_ knew exactly what he was doing, thank-you-very-much, and I'll make my own decisions for my own character!

That campaign didn't last very long. Why? Well, he wasn't a good DM, he was far too much into the railroad, and to be fair he lost enthusiasm for the whole thing and I suppose I'm at fault for some of that. But if he had imposed that Will save to allow me to choose the actions of my own PC I would have walked, friend or no, because controlling our own PCs is the ONLY thing players have got, and taking that agency away is the biggest sin a DM can commit.

Earlier, someone commented that they liked my werewolf-flavoured barbarian, and if they were DM they might consider letting silver weapons bypass my Rage damage resistance. Well, that's a clear nerf, but if the DM and I had a conversation about it and the DM gave an advantage to make up for the nerf that we both liked and agreed on, fair enough. But just nerfing my by-the-book crunch-wise barbarian, that's not okay. I'd play a totally different character first.   



> I know some Gms are of the "its my game and you can play in it" variety. I know i am more of an "its our game lets play together" variety but this seems to be moving very heavily towards "its the players game and if you are nice we will let you Gm it - with restrictions and a probationary period."




No, I see it as 'lines of demarcation', with the players getting their PC and the DM getting *everything else.* Do you really think that this is unfair to the _DM?_ Do you think he should control the PCs too?


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 9, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> That's a frustrating story, I completely agree with you
> 
> ... but it's still in the game.  In the DMG, the oathbreaker.  Several people have pointed it out.




Yeah, they have. Just like I pointed out that in 5e you lose one Oath but it is instantly replaced by another Oath (the Oathbreaker Oath!), not just have your powers stripped without being replaced with anything, because the latter does not exist in 5e.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 9, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Well that's insulting. Is this your insult for everyone who doesn't use multiclassing?
> 
> Small tangent, I have noticed that a lot of people reference 'DM' instead of 'table'. At our table we all make decisions collectively about the kind of game we want.
> 
> If a player makes a character we don't want to play with then we as the table will veto them. It has nothing to do with 'fragility'. We are there to have fun and while we could put up with many disruptive players and/or characters, we don't want to. Life is too short.




That’s why I suggested (and enforce with my groups) that session 1 is a PC building session where everyone rolls up their PC and builds it right there.  Of course people know this going in so they prepare with a few PC ideas ready to go, which probably everyone here would do also.  Since it’s group driven whack ideas get called out if they are unworkable.  


Arial Black stated he made a PC with an 8 score since players choose scores and no one ever did that before and that was a problem.  Well thats different in many ways to me and sort of the root of the problem:

First off, I wouldn’t let players choose scores because you get that situation, %99 will never choose a bad score even if it makes sense PC build wise.  It leads itself to power gaming and doesn’t force the players to make choices and be creative, although you choosing the 8 is creative it is also the first time your group did it.  

Second, the DM shouldn’t impose a penalty on the PC for having a low score as long as the player plays the PC according to that low score.  If you have an 8 WIS and sit around the table metagaming everything and proposing complex strategic advice, that’s not 8 wisdom.  If you are a barbarian with 8 wisdom and charge into a room because the rest of the players are taking to long to discuss a strategy, well that’s 8 wisdom and worthy of giving you inspiration right there.

Third, since you were the first to take an 8 in a score as DM not only would I not interfere but I would “protect” you somewhat as a recurring theme, God protects fools sort of thing.  If I could push the consequences of your 8 wisdom in some minor way onto the other players it would be great for the team, the “he might be a fool but he is our fool” type of thing.  The King sees right through your Bards persuasion attempt but is so humored and disarmed by your carefree personality that agrees to help the group anyway.  People speak freely around you thinking you are such fool no one would believe you anyway.  Maybe the Mind Flayer knows your unwise  brain is nothing special so ignores you to get the other tastier ones, attacking them in preference to you but allowing you to “save the day” with some move som unwise that the mind flayer never thought anyone would do it.  A low score can be the basis for an entire PC life, I suggest everyone try it and try it even lower than an 8.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 9, 2018)

> More power to you I guess, I wouldn't really want to be in a position to play with this system. Having a way to "buy" fictional space is very cool, but both your examples don't sound very fun to me. What would you do if I was an hypothetical player at your table and I put something like "My character is a princess" and put all of my chips on it?




Depends on the nature of you as a player, the group as a whole and the vibe at the moment.

At first blush, sounds like you'd be a princess of solid repute and I'd have to roll with the consequences, as would the rest of the group.  No one would ante up to modify it and I'd likely throw in some color in the form of a negative relationship you'd have to manage.

KB

Edit: adding [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] to thread for the mention as I think I broke the quote.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 9, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The situation is that at the precise moment when the *ahem* _genetic material_ left daddy's, erm, _body_, daddy had *started* to change into a werewolf for the very first time, but the change was not complete.
> 
> Therefore, the cause of my PC's abilities was the genetic material that was _half-way_ between human and werewolf; a unique situation. This is different from a 'father' who has already completely turned into a werewolf, because at that point the genetic material would not create something like my PC, it would create....whatever it usually creates in the DM's world! A normal human baby? A natural lycanthrope? An afflicted lycanthrope? I don't know; it's not up to me, it's up to the DM. _That_ is why my PC's unique origin simply does not tread on the DM's toes re: the results of werewolf mating.
> 
> ...




just a few points...

"unique" is binary. Something is unique or it isn't. You seem to be saying there is some third case?

if you the player under your "my fluff- jerk- irrational" rule gets to declare "unique" to a process in your backstory - then you have defined an element of the broader world - it does not or has not ever happened before. There are no other examples of this. not one, not ever Gm go suck it. M<y fluff and i get to call dibs and unique on this.

At my table - theres the door if this is deemeed by your to be out of bounds for the Gm..

If you get to say under your "my fluff jerk irrational" rule this process exists in your world cuz it happened to me and its not unique - then again you have made a definitive statement about the broader world and established a tie between these events and the barbarian rage feature. 

At my table - theres the door again.

Now you can keep trying to redefine down the process key elements making ti more and more convoluted - first change, exact moment, under a full moon, within 60' of the seashore, both wearing purple, downwind from an orc fart etc etc etc until you get so silly in search for a third way to get near to but not quite at uniwue all you want but well before then you have crossed into the realm of construing background to fit your rule - which is funny thing often what some use to complain about minmaxers.

Second point of discord...

*"DM to assume control of the PC (including the PC's backstory) without the player's consent, "
*
Again a strawman. Take the usual Xp for defeating strawmen.

What part of "discussion between Gm and player to reach agreement" and the other various ways it has been stated by me and by others leads you to see this statement as a summary or a counter position at all?

Two people working together to reach an agreement is not taking control or without consent. One side refusing to accept another's proposal is not taking control... without consent. 

The part that seems to be being insisted on "without consent" is that you get to decide what is YOUR FLUFF and you get to decide whether or not the GM can touch it or not. 

Third point
"The forum makes us all seem a lot more adversarial than we are in real life, because we are supporting our positions in a debate here, but in real life it doesn't work like that."

The forum doesn't choose your words for you without your consent. The forum doesn't take control of your keyboard. The forum did not make you choose to use jerk and irrational and insert without consent etc etc etc.

just like the forum did not make me say repeatedly things about both sides working together to reach an accord but that this accord must not start with jerk, irrational and so on.

And of course, there is a HUGE difference in taking control" pf PC choices in play during the game (outside the normal rules for such as in Dominate and fear and the like) and not accepting a backstory/fluff as unique hands-off at chargen. (Especially for one so very derivative of a pretty normal trope.)


Finally...

"No, I see it as 'lines of demarcation', with the players getting their PC and the DM getting everything else. Do you really think that this is unfair to the DM? *Do you think he should control the PCs too?*"

i was trying to give the benefit of the doubt but you make it hard...

in this post you used "take control of the character", "without consent" gave a long example which spotlighted at its end down to saves to make choices in play for your character and keep harping back and then this final statement again with your overly broad use of terminology.

It really seems like you see Gm having influence or veto on backstory/background/fluff for a PC coming into or starting a game in the same light or maybe even equivalent to a Gm taking away during play the player's ability to make decisions for his character.  If that is not your position then you sure seem to kep putting those two concepts side by side and then using overly broad statements that could apply to either and that makes it seem like you are leading towards that but covering your posterior by not explicitly stating it. (Some could view that as a intentional form of misleading - painting one with the other without drawing the direct link. Some Tv talking heads are absolute masters of it.)

But maybe in your case its not intentional and just another case of "The forum made me do it!" in true Flip Wilson style. 

i do appreciate your discussion BTW... tho i think there is not much more meat left on these bones. You have helped me greatly as far as any uncertainty i had at all regarding the current or modern varieties of what passes for "player agency" and their value to my games or maybe RPGs in general.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 9, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Now you can keep trying to redefine down the process key elements making ti more and more convoluted - first change, exact moment, under a full moon, within 60' of the seashore, both wearing purple, downwind from an orc fart etc etc etc until you get so silly in search for a third way to get near to but not quite at uniwue all you want but well before then you have crossed into the realm of construing background to fit your rule - which is funny thing often what some use to complain about minmaxers.




The details were always there. They didn't evolve here in this forum. And you have yet to show how this fluff takes agency away from the DM.



> What part of "discussion between Gm and player to reach agreement" and the other various ways it has been stated by me and by others leads you to see this statement as a summary or a counter position at all?




We have both expressed the same ideas about DM/player collaboration and agreement; we don't disagree about that part.

Where we disagree is where the line of demarcation lies regarding PC backstory, so that is the part I'm discussing. There's no point posting about the parts on which we agree, that wouldn't be an interesting debate. 



> The part that seems to be being insisted on "without consent" is that you get to decide what is YOUR FLUFF and you get to decide whether or not the GM can touch it or not.




Correct.



> It really seems like you see Gm having influence or veto on backstory/background/fluff for a PC coming into or starting a game in the same light or maybe even equivalent to a Gm taking away during play the player's ability to make decisions for his character.




Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.



> If that is not your position then you sure seem to kep putting those two concepts side by side and then using overly broad statements that could apply to either and that makes it seem like you are leading towards that but covering your posterior by not explicitly stating it. (Some could view that as a intentional form of misleading - painting one with the other without drawing the direct link. Some Tv talking heads are absolute masters of it.)




No, that _is_ my position. I'm not trying to deny my own position. No misleading involved, I'm straight out saying it. Consistently, as you point out. Why do you imagine that I'm trying to mislead? Is it because I acknowledge that collaboration is better than no collaboration? 



> But maybe in your case its not intentional and just another case of "The forum made me do it!" in true Flip Wilson style.




No, it really is intentional. It really is my position that the player makes the choices for their own PC, backstory included (within the range allowed by the DM, so no Star Trek crew as PCs in Middle Earth!), and the DM controls EVERYTHING ELSE! 



> i do appreciate your discussion BTW... tho i think there is not much more meat left on these bones. You have helped me greatly as far as any uncertainty i had at all regarding the current or modern varieties of what passes for "player agency" and their value to my games or maybe RPGs in general.




It's not new. Player agency has been crucial to RPGs since the start of the hobby. I'm surprised it's new to you. Have you really played all these years where the DM controls all the player's choices?


----------



## Sadras (Sep 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Interesting. Has this veto been used at your table?




No. It is a new rule we had implemented some months ago, when we had one player who quickly retired two characters, one after the other and it was starting to annoy the group who had already made characters melee or range based and his new characters were messing with the tactical dynamic that had already been established. He even infringed on concepts.
After implementation of this rule, he has since stuck to his character.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 9, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The details were always there. They didn't evolve here in this forum. And you have yet to show how this fluff takes agency away from the DM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Re the idea that you *are* equating GM vetoing or influencing PC backstory and Gm taking control of character choices in game.

The reason i was not wanting to expressly put those two toghether as your position was that it wasn't completely tied together *and* those are so very radically different things to me (and to my experience others) that it seemed out of line to put on you that extreme a viewpoint until you made it expressly clear.

i have never once met a player who would view " no, bob, i do not allow you to take the soldier on the run for a murder you didn't commit" backstory for this character into this game at all in anyway like "no, bob, Charlie your PC cannot choose to leave the room. Your character wouldn't do that." (assumes no compulsion or other form of "lose control" character trait involved.)

those are extremely different levels of Gm authority - to me and perhaps to many others - i think to literally every player i have encountered and have any significantly informed experience with.

RE the cute obtusy bit about player agency and me controlling every PC decision blah blah at the end - again you highlight a difference in our approaches. I dont need to portray those who disagree negatively in this case. I dont see jerk, irrational and the leap to "control all the PC choices" etc etc etc. 

you choose to, well, likely another "The forum made me do it" Flip Wilson moment i suppose.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 9, 2018)

Sadras said:


> No. It is a new rule we had implemented some months ago, when we had one player who quickly retired two characters, one after the other and it was starting to annoy the group who had already made characters melee or range based and his new characters were messing with the tactical dynamic that had already been established. He even infringed on concepts.
> After implementation of this rule, he has since stuck to his character.




The worst case of this i had many yarns ago...

was a supers game with a tigerman alien, martial arts mystic, sorcerer, sciencey guy armor suit etc and an agent secret spy black widow type.

game started with the launching of several storylines one of which they took to pursue was mystic themed.

spy player began to make noises and came up with muystic character to replace his spy with... i said Ok and that character came in at the end of the first story arc... so now we had two somewhat distinct magical types.

second arc they picked up on was the techno guy one and as it moved along guess what - the spy-now-magic pc player started designing a replacement cuz this new guy just wasnt as fun as he hoped and three guesses what his new character would be... yup - at the end of that arc he brought in his new techno-knight character just as a plot line highlighting the martial arts guy was... and guess....

yeah once i told him "you need to stick with this character or one of the ones you have had" the player dropped two weeks later griping how none of the stuff applied to his characters (none of which were active for more than about a month of sessions before swapping out.) 

game continued with arc after arc spotlighting character after character's backstories and ties and eventually the team's backstory and ties and everything seemed just fine.

never was able to get across - carve your own place - dont jump on the coattails of someone else's current one - to that player.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 9, 2018)

Hi - 

I think there's a piece of this that should be brought up logically.  It's what agency means to a specific player.  I'm not seeing a group discussion on agency.

Agency such that a single player is satisfied is fine if the player is choosing his or her own adventure.
Agency such that a single DM is satisfied is fine if the DM is writing a story and has no players.

In my opinion there's no such thing as either of these two examples when you have a group of players around a table.  Agency for any player has to be influenced by all other folks at the table for everyone to be happy.  

While this may result in individual sacrifices that may not suit any given player at any time, if everyone wants a long standing game it's the only way you're going to make it happen.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 9, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Hi -
> 
> I think there's a piece of this that should be brought up logically.  It's what agency means to a specific player.  I'm not seeing a group discussion on agency.
> 
> ...



Agree. 

As I tend to say it "it's our game".


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 9, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I know we fiercely debated what a LG paladin would/could do like many other groups.  We did not challenge their LG status.  But in my estimation both ranger and paladin had alignment and code restrictions to balance their considerable power (of course specialization attempted to change things as did 'cavalier' paladins...not sure what to say about all of that).




Just as an aside, but there has never been an edition of D&D that did not have paladins of alignments other than LG.  1e relegated them to NPC status, though the DM could allow them as PCs if he wanted.  2e had specialty priests of I want to say Horus that were CG paladins.  3e had paladins of freedom, tyranny and slaughter.  4e just allowed whatever alignment you wanted to play.  5e only requires lawful at this point.

There's no need to challenge LG status when that status wasn't absolute by RAW.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 9, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Just as an aside, but there has never been an edition of D&D that did not have paladins of alignments other than LG.  1e relegated them to NPC status, though the DM could allow them as PCs if he wanted.  2e had specialty priests of I want to say Horus that were CG paladins.  3e had paladins of freedom, tyranny and slaughter.  4e just allowed whatever alignment you wanted to play.  *5e only requires lawful at this point.*
> 
> There's no need to challenge LG status when that status wasn't absolute by RAW.



I don't remember ever seeeing that requirement.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 9, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, given the thread drift, I thought I'd add my two cents regarding fluff and backstory and character creation.
> 
> In my opinion, and for my campaigns, NO ONE CARES. I really want to emphasize this. I feel like, woah, stop trying to make fetch happen.
> 
> ...




It also helps with contacts.  Going back to the wizard you met when you were 12 for information.  And informing you about what the PC might know.  I was raised near the wraith bog, so even though I have no applicable skills, I probably know more about wraiths than most people.  And so on.  I don't think a 12 page dissertation about the youth of your PC is needed, but I do like a background that is a half a page to 2 pages, depending on writing/type size and content.  The players write it on their own time anyway, so it doesn't take away from game play.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I don't remember ever seeeing that requirement.




I was going by memory and I got confused between the playtest and current paladins. I don't think the PHB version requires anything, really.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I don't remember ever seeeing that requirement.




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.


----------



## MoonSong (Sep 9, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Hi -
> 
> I think there's a piece of this that should be brought up logically.  It's what agency means to a specific player.  I'm not seeing a group discussion on agency.
> 
> ...




I would amend what you are saying to compromises instead of sacrifices. As long as they are trade-offs the social contract can be upheld. Because if these are indeed sacrifices, someone is chronically on the losing side every time. Or less extremely, the give-ins are too front loaded for one person and things don't last enough for the compensations to be gained. 

Sorry if I'm babbling, but let's go back to your previous examples of your system. The first one is more of a compromise "You are not the chosen one, but you are still special in a way", fine. The second one is closer to a sacrifice, "You are not the well connected socialite that has friends everywhere, instead you are creepy, socially awkward, and deluded". The former is a concept getting adapted to the group's needs and wants -albeit by a shared public laugh at the player's expense-, the latter is a completely different character concept altogether, a total corruption of the original intent of the player -and with an even bigger laugh at the player's expense, more so because it comes from the figure of authority-, and the player has to go with it because that is the cost of playing in the group, which is desirable on itself, but still a net loss overall.   

Perhaps it becomes a compromise in the long run, the player uses the knowledge imparted by the ghosts to actually get to befriend a couple of important people, or in a later campaign the DM compensates the player by being more permissive on something that is more acceptable, but only if the campaign/group lasts that long and the same player doesn't keep getting the short end of the stick consistently. In which case we are talking of a sacrifice.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> /snip
> 
> First off, I wouldn’t let players choose scores because you get that situation, %99 will never choose a bad score even if it makes sense PC build wise.  It leads itself to power gaming and doesn’t force the players to make choices and be creative, although you choosing the 8 is creative it is also the first time your group did it.
> 
> /snip.




This is why I have such a problem with the whole "trust your DM" line that gets thrown about.  Here we have a DM who is presuming that players will always act in bad faith and never choose a bad score.  Players need to be "forced" to make choices and be creative.  

Trust is absolutely a two way street.  Why one earth would I trust you to run your game if you cannot trust me to run my character?  If you feel that I need to be forced to be creative, why shouldn't I feel that you need to be forced to keep your hands off my character?  

IOW, this is a very adversarial approach to DMing.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 10, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I would amend what you are saying to compromises instead of sacrifices. As long as they are trade-offs the social contract can be upheld. Because if these are indeed sacrifices, someone is chronically on the losing side every time. Or less extremely, the give-ins are too front loaded for one person and things don't last enough for the compensations to be gained.
> 
> Sorry if I'm babbling, but let's go back to your previous examples of your system. The first one is more of a compromise "You are not the chosen one, but you are still special in a way", fine. The second one is closer to a sacrifice, "You are not the well connected socialite that has friends everywhere, instead you are creepy, socially awkward, and deluded". The former is a concept getting adapted to the group's needs and wants -albeit by a shared public laugh at the player's expense-, the latter is a completely different character concept altogether, a total corruption of the original intent of the player -and with an even bigger laugh at the player's expense, more so because it comes from the figure of authority-, and the player has to go with it because that is the cost of playing in the group, which is desirable on itself, but still a net loss overall.
> 
> Perhaps it becomes a compromise in the long run, the player uses the knowledge imparted by the ghosts to actually get to befriend a couple of important people, or in a later campaign the DM compensates the player by being more permissive on something that is more acceptable, but only if the campaign/group lasts that long and the same player doesn't keep getting the short end of the stick consistently. In which case we are talking of a sacrifice.




I think that the words we use to explain things and connect with each other are very powerful tools that are often thwarted by the lens we read them through.  

I think it's important to note that nothing in my original post would directly mean that the first player's character wasn't the chosen one, or the second was creepy, socially awkward, or deluded.  It can be inferred if desired, but that has everything to do with the point you're trying to make from whatever point of view your experiences lend.  Also, you're not babbling.  I enjoy your posts.

That all said, you're largely right about the differences between sacrifice and compromise.  Here's my take.  If I see two players working back and forth on something then I label it compromise.  If I have to enforce something it's likely a sacrifice.  Now in the case of a sacrifice, I need to work to deliver value back to that player.  In the case of a compromise, chances are those players are delivering their own value.  

However, whether a player is deluded or not, has a lot to do with how the he or she plays the character and how the spirits come to him or her.  Likewise, the guy with the magical spleen is only going to care about it if I as a DM constantly allow it to be a focus.  The goal is to give everyone the chance to hang with friends, create part of the story and have their character be cool when they can be.  Not to be malicious.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 10, 2018)

Hussar said:


> This is why I have such a problem with the whole "trust your DM" line that gets thrown about.  Here we have a DM who is presuming that players will always act in bad faith and never choose a bad score.  Players need to be "forced" to make choices and be creative.
> 
> Trust is absolutely a two way street.  Why one earth would I trust you to run your game if you cannot trust me to run my character?  If you feel that I need to be forced to be creative, why shouldn't I feel that you need to be forced to keep your hands off my character?
> 
> IOW, this is a very adversarial approach to DMing.




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.


----------



## ScuroNotte (Sep 10, 2018)

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. The true purpose of playing is to have friends get together or make new friends and have an adventure. To have fun and make memories. Isn't that the real reason we play?


----------



## Erechel (Sep 10, 2018)

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._


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2018)

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.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 10, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Just as an aside, but there has never been an edition of D&D that did not have paladins of alignments other than LG.  1e relegated them to NPC status, though the DM could allow them as PCs if he wanted.  2e had specialty priests of I want to say Horus that were CG paladins.  3e had paladins of freedom, tyranny and slaughter.  4e just allowed whatever alignment you wanted to play.  5e only requires lawful at this point.
> 
> There's no need to challenge LG status when that status wasn't absolute by RAW.




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


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 10, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2018)

ScuroNotte said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2018)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2018)

Erechel said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Sep 10, 2018)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Erechel (Sep 10, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


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



There is no book that I remember that changed that rule whatsoever. We play with every official book, and that hasn't come up a single time. We don't tend to use a lot of Sage Advice. 



smbakeresq said:


> 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.
> ...




He is an Elemental monk. But yes, he is amazing. We tend to be on par, although I have a lot more resistance. We tend to move a lot, though. But remember that maneuvers aren't damage only. I use Lunging Attack, Precision Strike and, mostly, Menacing Attack, that frightens my foe if it doesn't succeed on a DC 15 WST. That maneuver is simply amazing.



smbakeresq said:


> 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.



Remember that Battlemasters also double the SD with a crit, and also you decide when to use your resources. it is not unusual that I end making 2d12+2d8+6 damage.



> 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.



I'm not flying with my mount. In fact, that's why I'm complaining. If the Bardlock would be a Warlock or Bard, I _could _ be flying on horseback . And yes, there are places where my horse can't be used effectively. But, if a troll enters in a dungeon, a horse too. And yes, the horses tend to die a lot. That's why I have 4 horses and one of my (many) skills is Animal Handling, and I'm trying to forge a barding (until now, I have only strapped 3 small shields on the horses). But remember that a lance has reach. Many people forget how useful a lance is. And a warhorse has 60 feet of movement, and can only take the Dash, Disengage and Dodge actions. With a lance, I never enter in a position where my horse receives an opportunity attack, and retire hastily. 

If the enemy isn't prone (disadvantage on its attacks) or dead, it has to take the Dash action only to come at 10 feet of me. 

And yes, we fight as a group (I'm the combat leader of the party), but the bardlock mostly falls behind us. He usually Hex my enemies so I have advantage on the Athletics checks. 

As a side note, I'm eager to use my tinker and smith tools to create a flamethrower with alchemic fire (the byzantines had flamethrowers, after all). Overall, I'm a money sink, but very effective. 

Think of my character as a Mount&Blade chevallier.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 10, 2018)

Maxperson said:


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



Remind me to get that article printed, framed, and then sent to [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION].


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 10, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





I try to not get too involved in telling others how to "properly play their PC" or whether or not an 8 in their world is "noticably weak" or "commoner average" compared to a 10 being "normal" or "adventurewr normal" since i have seen a lot of games systems over the years run that differently for different paradigms. 

i also try and avoid telling people that strength *should* be seen on some bell curve exponential vs a linear especially when the modifiers are strictly linear and the Dcs often seem to be too. hard to say "you are bell curve weak" when the weight you carry, the difficulty of the climb  and the distance you jump is linearly mapped to those scores.  

As for the Gm deciding who can and cannot speak up in character... well i guess that fits some groups. I tend to prefer to let the players and their characters choose when they *can* speak and focus more on my end on the NPCs and their actions and reactions.

For instance, maybe the CHA 8  half-orc simply dives right in, cutting off the GM-designated bard/face and starts an amazingly bad blunderous attempt at small talk destined to piss people off but very much in keeping with his 8 cha "rush in before thinking thru" nature.

To me me telling him"sorry, you are not allowed to talk yet by Gm ruling the bard is the one to go first. Wait until i tell you your character can do stuff."

But again, to each his own.

There are certainly, absolutely, wonderfully great things a player can do and maybe enjoy with a lower than 10 or lower than bonus stat on a character. i think its darn tootin' shucks darn wonderful when those stats and those players who like them are put together and blow the doors off that role playing stuff.

Like i said, they enjoy it, they roleplay it that way, its fun - great for them.

But i am pretty sure they could also roleplay the doors off a guy with a bonus stat too. 

there is nothing magical to roleplaying about a negative bonus stat. its just another element you can work with.

But players do not have to be forced into it in order to roleplay and not doing it doesn't force them to not rolweplay or deny them the chance to roleplay and all that jazz.

I just think its not wise at all to jump to assumptions about someone's roleplaying based on whether they are now playing a MC character or a single class character or a character with high stats or a character with low stats etc etc etc and just judge their roleplaying on its own - if one really truly needs to scratch an itch to be a "judge" over someone else's roleplaying and fun. 

To me, each player comes to the table with their own preferences - and where i can as Gm i scratch their itches as much as possible within the game. if that means Bob focuses more on running a pretty vanilla stoic dwarf who doesn't get into so much all that drama and roleplay (but Bob really likes character design and gameplay and combat/non-combat challenges.), Barry plays a rogue trickster with a nose for heists and puzzles and contacts and networking his own business (economy building) and Jim plays a halfling sorceress entertainer/mystic who really does a lot of the roleplaying things - I really see myself better able to Gm if i do not judge which of them is being run "properly" and instead focus on meshing together those interests within the games and events of the world they are in.

I can even let them decide who gets to talk first without me allowing it.


----------



## ScuroNotte (Sep 10, 2018)

Sadras said:


> 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?




Disagreements and frustration can happen even when its actually part of the game as intended and written. Nothing is perfect. Much is talked about prior to game and we then see how it plays out. 

Like anything, if a person is already pessimistic, then problems will arise regardless.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 10, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> 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.



Makes sense. Indeed, I had been wondering if it was the implied lawfulness of an oath that had led you to say paladins had to be lawful in 5e. 

And certainly, if 5e had imposed alignment restrictions on classes there's no way paladins would have avoided Lawful handcuffs.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 10, 2018)

Maxperson said:


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




Some people may have had non-LG  NPC paladins (or even PC paladins) games in their 1e games, but they never had it officially as the content of the article were not official rules!


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 10, 2018)

Erechel said:


> Menacing Attack, that frightens my foe if it doesn't succeed on a DC 15 WST. That maneuver is simply amazing.



My 3rd level battlemaster felt like Gandalf when I used Menacing Attack against a balrog. "Thou shall not pass!"

Or even approach.  



(It was actually an ogre. But still! Awesome.)


----------



## Greg K (Sep 10, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> 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.




Just to add to the above, when talking about Dragon Magazine during 1e, little of that material was ever under consideration to become official let alone being official.  Yes, some stuff became official such as Roger Moore's non-human deity articles or Ed Greenwood's material for the Realms, but this was rare outside of Gygax's work. And even Gary's own work in Dragon, according to him, was not to be considered official until it appeared in an official AD&D supplement 1e unless specified otherwise (not that the people with whom I played or even I always remembered this when it came to his Dragon material)..


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 10, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 10, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Again, I am sure that there were some tables, somewhere, playing "by the rules" but I'd be hard pressed to remember them.



Those poor tables playing 1e "by the rules." Seems like that'd be the sort of ironic punishment handed out to 3e rules lawyers in Hell.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 10, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Finally, Dragon Magazine was super common, as well as 3rd Party Supplements (the Compleat Alchemist! for example). So you often had tables incorporating these flourishes.
> 
> ...and that's before homebrew. Again, I am sure that there were some tables, somewhere, playing "by the rules" but I'd be hard pressed to remember them.




Oh, most definitely.  When I ran,  in addition to house rules, I had included some material from Dragon Magazine and some third party stuff from Mayfair games.  If I had been aware of the Compleat books from Bard Games back in the day, I would have included plenty of material from those too.  However, I always recognized that I was not playing using only official rules and would be upfront with potential players regarding this, because I knew a few people whom would only use official material.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 10, 2018)

Don't forget the frequency of using Arms Law from Rolemaster as critical hit tables! Always an interesting amalgam there...


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 10, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Don't forget the frequency of using Arms Law from Rolemaster as critical hit tables! Always an interesting amalgam there...




Especially once RM actually came together as its own system.  I still prefer it to D&D to this day, but player availability in my area is almost nil.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 10, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Don't forget the frequency of using Arms Law from Rolemaster as critical hit tables! Always an interesting amalgam there...




Oh, yeah. I did that too!


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 10, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The details were always there. They didn't evolve here in this forum. And you have yet to show how this fluff takes agency away from the DM.



When I create a new setting, one of the very first questions that I answer involves the fundamental nature of magic. And one of my typical rules for magic is that it can only be meaningfully directed by an intelligent force. If lycanthropy is a thing in such a world (which is a decision that comes up much later in the process), then it's the result of a directed curse with a very specific intent. The idea that such a curse could be diluted through normal biological processes might be hard to reconcile with that. It would be like trying to copy a computer program that was still in the process of downloading; instead of getting a partially-functional program, it's simply not going to compile.

And the thing is, I've been working on my campaign setting for at least a month, before I even think about advertising to find some players. If one of those players insists on playing a character that would force me to go back to the start and re-evaluate the fundamental nature of magic, then kicking out that player is a better solution for the entire group than putting the campaign on hold for a week while I re-evaluate the whole chain of causality - especially since the result would be a setting that I'm not terribly excited about running.

(Alternatively, I may have decided that magic is a chaotic and unpredictable force of nature, so unique cases happen all the time. In that case, the character would fit right in.)


Arial Black said:


> Lines of demarcation. The players get their  PCs, the DM gets literally EVERYTHING ELSE. What, you want my PC too?  Hands off!



As the DM, I have created an entire world for you to play in. There are literally an infinite number of characters that you could make, who would fit into that world. Why would you then insist on playing something outside of that? Why, when I tell you that the setting is pseudo-Medieval Europe, would you insist on playing a displaced cyber-ninja?


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 10, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> As the DM, I have created an entire world for you to play in. There are literally an infinite number of characters that you could make, who would fit into that world. Why would you then insist on playing something outside of that? Why, when I tell you that the setting is pseudo-Medieval Europe, would you insist on playing a displaced cyber-ninja?




Yes to this.

This seems just like the base expectation for any campaign.  DM - with some player input ideally - sets the parameters at session 0 for the campaign before the players even think about their initial characters.  That's not the DM messing with PCs or stepping over the line.  That's the DM setting some ground rules.

I've been keeping it crystal clear at our tables by saying Classes and Races need to be picked from official WotC books.  That's plenty for a player to work with.  If a DM wanted to exclude elves or warlocks or SCAG or whatever for the campaign, that's fine, too.  That's how the campaign is going to roll/role.  If a player REALLY REALLY wants that cyber-ninja, I'm sure there's another table out there where it would work.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 10, 2018)

DM Dave1 said:


> I've been keeping it crystal clear at our tables by saying Classes and Races need to be picked from official WotC books.  That's plenty for a player to work with.  If a DM wanted to exclude elves or warlocks or SCAG or whatever for the campaign, that's fine, too.  That's how the campaign is going to roll/role.  If a player REALLY REALLY wants that cyber-ninja, I'm sure there's another table out there where it would work.




Ok, so how would you handle [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]'s "civilized" barbarian? Using a Soldier and Barbarian class at 1st level from the PHB? But he's saying his Barbarian has rage not because of some uncivilized/untamed ties with nature or spirits or totems, but that because his noble father werewolved mid-conception? 

Totally core PHB class and background. Not a "cyber-ninja". 

Just curious!


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 10, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> Ok, so how would you handle @_*Arial Black*_'s "civilized" barbarian? Using a Soldier and Barbarian class at 1st level from the PHB? But he's saying his Barbarian has rage not because of some uncivilized/untamed ties with nature or spirits or totems, but that because his noble father werewolved mid-conception?
> 
> Totally core PHB class and background. Not a "cyber-ninja".
> 
> Just curious!



That's not a Barbarian. That's a unique character quirk, which just happens to have the same mechanical features as the barbarian class.

Likewise, a cyber-ninja wouldn't fit the setting, even if it used the same mechanics as the Bard. The objection was never about the mechanics; it was always about the fluff, and too extreme of liberties being taken with assigning fluff to the mechanics.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 10, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> That's not a Barbarian. That's a unique character quirk, which just happens to have the same mechanical features as the barbarian class.
> 
> Likewise, a cyber-ninja wouldn't fit the setting, even if it used the same mechanics as the Bard. The objection was never about the mechanics; it was always about the fluff, and too extreme of liberties being taken with assigning fluff to the mechanics.




We are well aware of your view of Arial Black's character concept, you have repeated them consistently and often through this whole thread. I was asking a newer arrival to the discussion  [MENTION=6921763]DM Dave1[/MENTION] their view. 

As to your post. A "cyber-ninja" has no mechanical analogy in D&D 5e rules because there is no "cyber", so it's kind of a straw-man, vs. "I want a character who does more damage and takes less damage when they are enraged in combat" which is very clearly a barbarian mechanical set. Yes, it's not a "Barbarian tribes person from the tundra", but it is a "barbarian" mechanically...which is a core class and so should be allowed in any game that wholly allows the core books as stated by DM Dave1 in their post.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 11, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> We are well aware of your view of Arial Black's character concept, you have repeated them consistently and often through this whole thread. I was asking a newer arrival to the discussion  @_*DM Dave1*_ their view.
> 
> As to your post. A "cyber-ninja" has no mechanical analogy in D&D 5e rules because there is no "cyber", so it's kind of a straw-man, vs. "I want a character who does more damage and takes less damage when they are enraged in combat" which is very clearly a barbarian mechanical set. Yes, it's not a "Barbarian tribes person from the tundra", but it is a "barbarian" mechanically...which is a core class and so should be allowed in any game that wholly allows the core books as stated by DM Dave1 in their post.




I’d allow the “refluffed” Barbarian if that is going to be fun for the player.  As long as it follows the mechanics outlined in the official books and the story makes some semblance of sense in a fantasy setting, why not?   If they think it will get them some Lycanthrope abilities later, however, they might be somewhat disappointed.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> 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.




Even if we go with that, from 2e on that hasn't been the case.  I had to make up no fluff or optional rules to play a non-LG paladin in 2e, 4e and 5e, the majority of editions.  In 3e there were official variants, and I only had to ask to play one of the Dragon non-LG paladins in 1e.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> If lycanthropy is a thing in such a world (which is a decision that comes up much later in the process), then it's the result of a directed curse with a very specific intent. The idea that such a curse could be diluted through normal biological processes might be hard to reconcile with that. It would be like trying to copy a computer program that was still in the process of downloading; instead of getting a partially-functional program, it's simply not going to compile.
> ?



Yeah, if I am running a campaign, Arial's reasoning for his character's rage would be completely contrary to how lycanthropy would work in any campaign that I run. Whether it is a racial thing, a magical disease, and/or a curse. the form of the parent during reproduction would be irrelevant on the genetic material and I would reject his refluffing of the  barbarian based upon that.

(Note: if he wanted his character to be a civilized  barbarian, because he was a warrior that grew up in a civilized area whether as a noble, a child of the street, or something similar and the character fell into fits of deadly rage rather than relying on formal training in a variety of fancy techniques? That could be sometihing that I could work with in nearly any campaign. I would even be willing to make some minor class adjustments (if necessary)).


----------



## Greg K (Sep 11, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Even if we go with that, from 2e on that hasn't been the case.  I had to make up no fluff or optional rules to play a non-LG paladin in 2e, 4e and 5e, the majority of editions.  In 3e there were official variants, and I only had to ask to play one of the Dragon non-LG paladins in 1e.




Maxperson, can you direct me to an official supplement with non-LG Paladins as a PC class for 2e?  I am honestly curious, because I only bought the three core books, a few of the class books, PO: Combat & Tactics, PO: Spells and Magic and a few of the 2e setting boxed sets.  I also had several 2e Dragon magaziner (however, as with 1e, most Dragon articles were not official (or even semi-official)).


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 11, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> Ok, so how would you handle [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]'s "civilized" barbarian? Using a Soldier and Barbarian class at 1st level from the PHB? But he's saying his Barbarian has rage not because of some uncivilized/untamed ties with nature or spirits or totems, but that because his noble father werewolved mid-conception?
> 
> Totally core PHB class and background. Not a "cyber-ninja".
> 
> Just curious!



My answer would be "we have a conversation." 

While the rage gets the media hype my question first would be where does the unarmored defense come from? It's not really a feature of either parent nor is it soldier.where does the d12 HD come from? Not feature of either parent.


The barbarian class has various feature not just rage. We would have to work all of those out. But as a rule I dont see this as a huge thing - we work it out player to gm in my games all the time. Things usually get added or deleted both sides - world and character - which is made possible when you work together without unique, absolutism, jerk, rigid line of demarkations etc.

I wouldn't have trouble with civie barbs without the wolf sex angle.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 11, 2018)

Greg K said:


> Maxperson, can you direct me to an official supplement with non-LG Paladins as a PC class for 2e?  I am honestly curious, because I only bought the three core books, a few of the class books, PO: Combat & Tactics, PO: Spells and Magic and a few of the 2e setting boxed sets.  I also had several 2e Dragon magaziner (however, as with 1e, most Dragon articles were not official (or even semi-official)).




Legends and Lore.  The specialty priests of Horus were actually CG Paladins.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 11, 2018)

I know that for the barbarian, I don't need there to be a special reason why a civilised character has the barbarian class. Plenty of meat-heads around that could fit the barbarian mould and just as not every barbarian tribe member has levels in the barbarian class, not everyone in the barbarian class needs to be from a barbaric/tribal background.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 11, 2018)

Greg K said:


> I would even be willing to make some minor class adjustments (if necessary).



I would be more inclined to allow major class adjustments. Writing an all new class, or even just an archetype, makes a lot more sense to me than trying to change the fluff associated with the existing mechanics. (Assuming the character concept made sense for the world, I mean.)

The Barbarian class only has those mechanics because that is how you represent the fluff associated with the class, within the mechanical language of the game. If you have a different fluff, then it wouldn't make sense to use those mechanics, because those mechanics aren't derived from your alternate fluff. In order to get the same degree of authenticity, you should use the existing classes as guidelines for how the translations work, and then do your best to translate that new fluff into its mechanical representation.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 11, 2018)

Erechel said:


> 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)
> ...




So in all your combats you ride a horse all the time and have room to keep them 10’ away?   

If you prone the creature it’s 5’ away from you and a lance attacks with disadvantage at 5’, so it would cancel out.  If you use it off a horse it’s a 2 handed weapon, so dueling would not apply.  To get advantage on a prone creature it must be within 5’, and a lance has disadvantage within 5’, so a lance can’t get advantage attacking a prone creature, in fact it would attack with disadvantage as it is greater than 5’ away, see the prone condition.

Mounted combat doesn’t help either, the lance still has disadvantage if within 5’, you need to switch to another weapon.  A troll is the same size as your mount also, so mounted doesn’t help in that case.  It does help against targets medium or smaller at 10’ when you use your lance to gain advantage.

You said you “average” that, that seems like a lot of pieces falling into place and you are presenting a base case scenario.  I can’t imagine %100 of your combats are mounted...

Remember they changed shield master so it happens after your attack action is completed.  I would still use it the old way however.

I am not sure I would let a lance use dueling, it’s actually a 2 handed weapon with a condition that lets you use it one handed.  It’s technically allowed by the rules though, it’s written poorly.  It really should be two-handed weapon that if you are on a horse let’s you use it one handed, but then people would try to use GW stuff on it.

Your mount is a horse, so “it moves as you direct it.”  It doesn’t have independent actions, so it can’t ready its own action, you have to ready an action to dash as you control it.  

The build idea is sound but needs a lot of things to go right.  The problem with regular mounts in combat without the Mounted Combat feat is they die to easy.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I try to not get too involved in telling others how to "properly play their PC" or whether or not an 8 in their world is "noticably weak" or "commoner average" compared to a 10 being "normal" or "adventurewr normal" since i have seen a lot of games systems over the years run that differently for different paradigms.
> 
> i also try and avoid telling people that strength *should* be seen on some bell curve exponential vs a linear especially when the modifiers are strictly linear and the Dcs often seem to be too. hard to say "you are bell curve weak" when the weight you carry, the difficulty of the climb  and the distance you jump is linearly mapped to those scores.
> 
> ...




I get what your saying but allowing too much table talk makes Message and Rarys Telepathy useless or much weaker.

Table talk is also situational, if at the Kings ball and the PC are all over the room they are each on their own, unless of course the above spells are in use.  Or a PC that is unconscious or dying or in a silence spell certainly can’t talk.  

What I am trying to say is the DM is partially responsible for a PC role play, as they are always on the other end of the phone.  If you encourage it happens and keeps the table moving and involved.


I actually put a similar thread out about playing PC well in general, not class specific, with tactical and meta game advice (like showing up on time and ready to play.)

What I do find funny is that over the years through different players how much the same personality types gravitate towards the same PC types.  People who like animals seem to always have a pet in game, the biggest people seem to gravitate towards small races and stabby-stabby classes, etc.  That’s certainly good for the game.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 11, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I get what your saying but allowing too much table talk makes Message and Rarys Telepathy useless or much weaker.
> 
> Table talk is also situational, if at the Kings ball and the PC are all over the room they are each on their own, unless of course the above spells are in use.  Or a PC that is unconscious or dying or in a silence spell certainly can’t talk.
> 
> ...



Clearly we are crossing streams as far as what we are discussing.

Generally we define "table talk" as player to,player out of character discussion. 

We dont usually treat table talk as a role playing issue, an issue that would in anyway be linked to "are you playing the high cha bard face" etc.  Those are in character comm issues.

Similarly, in character and out of character knowledge we treat differently.

Message gets plenty of use for its secret comm in character. 

So, best i can guess is if you are talking table talk tied to the character charisma i havent a clue what you mean by it.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Re the idea that you *are* equating GM vetoing or influencing PC backstory and Gm taking control of character choices in game.
> 
> The reason i was not wanting to expressly put those two toghether as your position was that it wasn't completely tied together *and* those are so very radically different things to me (and to my experience others) that it seemed out of line to put on you that extreme a viewpoint until you made it expressly clear.
> 
> ...




We both know that the game is cooperative by its nature. It cannot be that EITHER DM OR player controls everything; if the DM controls everything then there is no point to the player even showing up to Magic Story Time, and if the player controlled everything then why would a DM turn up just to watch a player play his own 'choose your adventure' book?

Given that neither can control everything, then it must be that the DM controls some things and the player controls other things.

Also, since we know cooperation exists and is better than non-cooperation, but we also know that disagreements will always crop up, then the above statement can be modified to this: it must be that the DM has the last word on some things, and the player has the last word on other things, when disagreement rears its ugly head.

For the entire history of the hobby, the consensus about who has the final word on what, the line of demarcation, is that the player has the final word on their own PC and the DM has the final word on everything else.

But the DM can always say 'no', right? True, but there has to be an explanation as to why the DM is treading on the player's toes. There are plenty of valid reasons to say 'no', but also plenty of invalid ones. Last night I asked my DM if my idea of training in the Feywild for 40 years while only 20 years passed on the Prime Material would be okay. He said 'no'. Why? Because although the rate time elapses in each plane is variable, it always goes faster in the Feywild. If you spend 40 years in the Feywild, you don't know _exactly_ how many years would elapse on the Prime Material, but it cannot be _less_ than 40 years, and it would be likely hundreds or even thousands of years. Given that, my idea would not work. What the DM said makes sense, the rate time passes in the world(s) is in his purview, and I don't think he's impinged on my agency one iota.

But what if he had a different objection to my PC? What if he didn't have a valid explanation? What if, for example, his objection was that my PC is female? What could his reason be? Are elves a single gender race? No, not even on his world. He doesn't like playing PC of the opposite gender? Well, first of all he can choose whatever he wants for his own characters, but my character, my choice. Second, he is playing every NPC in the world; are none of them female? Does he acknowledge that females exist but he makes sure that none of them turn up in the entire campaign just so he doesn't have to play one? Of course not! So it's not true that he doesn't play female characters.

He doesn't like it when other people play characters of the opposite gender? He doesn't think that a man can possibly realistically play a girl, so he disallows it? What, are the role-playing police going to kick down the door and arrest me for not playing my own PC with enough realism? We would _all_ be in jail! Meanwhile, you're totally okay with players playing elf/dwarf/dragonborn? No, that's not a valid reason and I'll choose my own PC's gender, thank-you-very-much!

Not that my DM would ever have that attitude, I'm just making an extreme example to illustrate the point.

So that's why your objection to my fluff is not valid. It _would_ be valid if my fluff choice changed the way lycanthropy worked in his game world for any _other_ creature, but my circumstance is unique. Even if the same set of circumstances occurred with another human mating as they turned for the first time, it doesn't force it to happen again, there are too many variables. Plus, the fiend that's secretly directing all this behind the scenes is not forced to do the same for every similarly tragic couple! You're trying to pretend the DM is somehow hampered by my fluff, just so you have something to complain about.     



> you choose to, well, likely another "The forum made me do it" Flip Wilson moment i suppose.




Maybe I could post a coherent response to that line if I knew who Flip Wilson was.

But, yeah, we are arguing extremes here. The vast majority of the time player and DM will work together, adjusting to take account of each others' ideas and concerns. But, when it comes right down to it, the player has the final word on his own creation, and the DM has the final word on everything else.

Of course, all this is in the light of the player creating a PC within the pre-set parameters given by the game itself and the DM for this campaign. So no Star Trek characters in your Tolkien, and no cyber-ninjas in your fantasy. After all, if we were playing d20 Modern I would have to ask the DM's permission to import the idea of lycanthopy into such a campaign, because the campaign is the DM's purview.

Also, there is no One True Fluff for the 12 base classes in D&D 5e. Not every barbarian has to be born outdoors to 'earn' that d12 hit die! I didn't _have_ to come up with ANY explanation of why my barbarian has never worn a loincloth in his life, knows how to use a knife AND fork, and eats with his mouth closed. Is the barbarian class available in this campaign? Great, I'm a 1st level barbarian. Is the soldier background available? Great, I'm a soldier. The effort I put into my backstory, to explain *why* I am a perfect human (three 18s in the physical stats, 6 Int), why I have a preternatural sense for danger (Alert feat), why I can get supernaturally stroppy (Rage), why am I so hard to hurt when I am going postal (werewolves are immune to normal weapons; I have a diluted version which explains the damage resistance from Rage, and better Unarmoured AC), why I get Danger Sense at level 2, why I Recklessly Attack, why at level 3 I get the Zealot subclass instead of the more obvious wolf totem, and why I do extra necrotic damage instead of the more optimal radiant (the fiend), why I get warlock powers at all (the fiend was also the patron of the original werewolf who bit my paw Daddy, which no-one knew about at the time, and my PC is only starting to realise during play), why my original spells known included _charm person_ and my original invocations were Devil's Sight and Beast Speech (because of the animal magnetism and werewolf senses), why I swapped _charm person_ for _darkness_ and Beast Speech for MOMF (because the influence of the fiend was starting to become more powerful and swamping my animal magnetism)....and my fluff will continue to influence my crunch as time goes by, whether it is 'optimal' or not.

And yet, I didn't have to provide ANY explanation. I have the right and responsibility to choose my class and background (and, yes, fluff) from those the DM has already said are available. I'm entirely happy to work with the DM, and do! If the DM wants me to adjust something, he explains why and we make it work. But if the DM were to insist on something I wasn't happy about, I'm not compelled to play _his_ idea of what my PC _should_ be! If my DM were to insist, for example, that my barbarian MUST be from a culture of iron-age savages, then as far as I'm concerned he's banned my perfectly RAW 1st level barbarian by insisting that his fluff overrules my fluff for my PC. I don't play that PC, because 'civilsed' barbarians are banned, and that was my character concept. My DM would also be showing that he treats the game mechanic of class as if it were a real thing in his game world, rather than a set of rules and tools to make your PC, a philosophical difference which may or may not be overcome.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> When I create a new setting, one of the very first questions that I answer involves the fundamental nature of magic. And one of my typical rules for magic is that it can only be meaningfully directed by an intelligent force. If lycanthropy is a thing in such a world (which is a decision that comes up much later in the process), then it's the result of a directed curse with a very specific intent.




Then you would be entirely happy with The Fiend be the directing intelligent force. You don't have to re-evaluate the fundamental nature of magic in your world after all. 



> As the DM, I have created an entire world for you to play in. There are literally an infinite number of characters that you could make, who would fit into that world. Why would you then insist on playing something outside of that? Why, when I tell you that the setting is pseudo-Medieval Europe, would you insist on playing a displaced cyber-ninja?




I wouldn't; that would be inappropriate.

Luckily for me, we are playing in a world in which barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes and fiends all already exist without me having to import them from another genre.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> That's not a Barbarian. That's a unique character quirk, which just happens to have the same mechanical features as the barbarian class.
> 
> Likewise, a cyber-ninja wouldn't fit the setting, even if it used the same mechanics as the Bard. The objection was never about the mechanics; it was always about the fluff, and too extreme of liberties being taken with assigning fluff to the mechanics.




Then we fundamentally disagree on the definition of 'acceptable fluff'.

For me, 'acceptable fluff' is whatever coherently explains how your PC can do the things that your PC's game mechanics already allow you to do, while staying within the paradigms of the genre and game world. Since barbarian is a class which exists, and civilisation, lycanthropy, and fiends are already concepts that exist in this game, genre, and game world, then my fluff is acceptable. If my fluff was along the lines of cyberware enhancement to explain my stats and abilities, then that would not be acceptable fluff because those things are not part of the game, genre, or game world.

For you, it seems that 'acceptable fluff' is that the metagame classes in the PHB are real things in the game world, and each has a limited range of fluff that must include the example ideas for each class in the fluff section at the start of each class' description. That if a player wants to play a barbarian who is not from an iron-age culture then he has broken some RAW game rule.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 11, 2018)

DM Dave1 said:


> I’d allow the “refluffed” Barbarian if that is going to be fun for the player.  As long as it follows the mechanics outlined in the official books and the story makes some semblance of sense in a fantasy setting, why not?   If they think it will get them some Lycanthrope abilities later, however, they might be somewhat disappointed.




Precisely. 

I am just explaining the stuff that the rules already allow me to do, not angling for some kind of unearned mechanical advantage.

For example, I'm not trying to persuade my DM to let me be immune to weapon damage just because werewolves are! However, if I somehow gained that ability _within the rules_, then my fluff provides a ready _explanation_ for it, in game.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 11, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Then you would be entirely happy with The Fiend be the directing intelligent force. You don't have to re-evaluate the fundamental nature of magic in your world after all.



If The Fiend had directly cast a curse on you, then that's one thing. I would be more than happy to work with you to create a unique class of character, which is the result of being cursed in such a manner. That wasn't what you described, though.


Arial Black said:


> I wouldn't; that would be inappropriate.
> 
> Luckily for me, we are playing in a world in which barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes and fiends all already exist without me having to import them from another genre.



The world we are playing in contains barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes, and fiends which all work in extremely specific ways that are not the thing you had described. Genetic-anomaly lycanthrope-offspring is not a part of the game world, any more than cyber-ninjas are a part of the setting.

Yes, I could change the setting to say that such a thing exists, but that's true either way. It's the same category of player over-reach. Whether you want to play your weird werewolf thing, or a cyber-ninja, you are adding something new to the setting which never existed before.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I would be more inclined to allow major class adjustments. Writing an all new class, or even just an archetype, makes a lot more sense to me than trying to change the fluff associated with the existing mechanics. (Assuming the character concept made sense for the world, I mean.)
> 
> The Barbarian class only has those mechanics because that is how you represent the fluff associated with the class, within the mechanical language of the game. If you have a different fluff, then it wouldn't make sense to use those mechanics, because those mechanics aren't derived from your alternate fluff. In order to get the same degree of authenticity, you should use the existing classes as guidelines for how the translations work, and then do your best to translate that new fluff into its mechanical representation.




It's the other way round. It's not that these mechanics only exist to realise a specific fluff, and are therefore only available for PCs with that exact fluff, it's that the mechanics _definitely_ exist, therefore ANY fluff which both adequately explains your PC having those abilities and which only use concepts that already exist in the game, genre and world, is valid fluff.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 11, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Then we fundamentally disagree on the definition of 'acceptable fluff'.
> 
> For me, 'acceptable fluff' is whatever coherently explains how your PC can do the things that your PC's game mechanics already allow you to do, while staying within the paradigms of the genre and game world. Since barbarian is a class which exists, and civilisation, lycanthropy, and fiends are already concepts that exist in this game, genre, and game world, then my fluff is acceptable. If my fluff was along the lines of cyberware enhancement to explain my stats and abilities, then that would not be acceptable fluff because those things are not part of the game, genre, or game world.
> 
> For you, it seems that 'acceptable fluff' is that the metagame classes in the PHB are real things in the game world, and each has a limited range of fluff that must include the example ideas for each class in the fluff section at the start of each class' description. That if a player wants to play a barbarian who is not from an iron-age culture then he has broken some RAW game rule.



Exactly! Although I disagree on that last point, that the descriptions in the PHB are merely examples. They are the in-game reality which the rules are trying to reflect, and not merely suggestions.

You seem to be saying that fluff is mutable, as long as the mechanics don't change. I'm saying that fluff and mechanics are equally mutable, and the important thing is that they reflect each other. If you really wanted to play your werewolf thing, and it was early enough in the process for me to fit that into the setting, then I'd be more than happy to help you create a class that better reflected such a reality. Likewise, if you really wanted to play a cyber-ninja, we could work together to figure out rules to make that happen.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> If The Fiend had directly cast a curse on you, then that's one thing. I would be more than happy to work with you to create a unique class of character, which is the result of being cursed in such a manner. That wasn't what you described, though.




But I don't need a new class, since I am only explaining the features of the barbarian class. It would be ridiculous to require anyone explaining their class abilities to create a different class with different abilities! It would never end! 



> The world we are playing in contains barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes, and fiends which all work in extremely specific ways that are not the thing you had described. Genetic-anomaly lycanthrope-offspring is not a part of the game world, any more than cyber-ninjas are a part of the setting.
> 
> Yes, I could change the setting to say that such a thing exists, but that's true either way. It's the same category of player over-reach. Whether you want to play your weird werewolf thing, or a cyber-ninja, you are adding something new to the setting which never existed before.




Since the fiend patron does indeed have a large measure of power beyond that of mere mortals, it is well within its abilities to have influenced the circumstances of my PC's conception to create what might _appear_ to be part-werewolf.

You are pretending the fiend does not have that power, just so you can pretend that my fluff breaks your world!


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Exactly! Although I disagree on that last point, that the descriptions in the PHB are merely examples. They are the in-game reality which the rules are trying to reflect, and not merely suggestions.




Yeah, we fundamentally disagree on that!

Do you have a rules reference for the idea that the descriptions in the PHB are the only allowed fluff and if you use your own fluff then you are breaking the game's rules?



> You seem to be saying that fluff is mutable, as long as the mechanics don't change. I'm saying that fluff and mechanics are equally mutable, and the important thing is that they reflect each other. If you really wanted to play your werewolf thing, and it was early enough in the process for me to fit that into the setting, then I'd be more than happy to help you create a class that better reflected such a reality. Likewise, if you really wanted to play a cyber-ninja, we could work together to figure out rules to make that happen.




Cool.

Help me create a character class which has a d12 hit die, Rage and Unarmoured AC at first level and Danger Sense and Reckless Attack at 2nd, because those are the class features my fluff explains! 

Any ideas?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 11, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Since the fiend patron does indeed have a large measure of power beyond that of mere mortals, it is well within its abilities to have influenced the circumstances of my PC's conception to create what might _appear_ to be part-werewolf.
> 
> You are pretending the fiend does not have that power, just so you can pretend that my fluff breaks your world!



How would you claim to know how The Fiend operates in my world? All of that setting-creation detail was established before you would have ever heard about my campaign. The Fiend in my world does not necessarily follow the same rules that you imagine it does, unless you assume that the description in the book is sacrosanct _and_ that your interpretation of that description is infallible.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 11, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> We both know...snip




Some specific responses.

"Also, since we know cooperation exists and is better than non-cooperation, but we also know that disagreements will always crop up, then the above statement can be modified to this: it must be that the DM has the last word on some things, and the player has the last word on other things, when disagreement rears its ugly head."

then down to 
|"For the entire history of the hobby, the consensus about who has the final word on what, the line of demarcation, is that the player has the final word on their own PC and the DM has the final word on everything else."

First, not that is not true. Referencing this "hobby" as a whole there are a friggin ton of different approaches to this issue - some offering quite a bit of overlap and crossing back and forth - at the table level and the system level - so the key part is that rigid hard lines of demarcation often are not as rigid as say some gaming theory philosophy-dreamers want to always point things to be. For instance, it may be that the situations allow the decisions to be voted on - where no concrete line of "your or mine" are made other than case-by-case group decisions on policy. other cases, Another vantage point might allow the GM to step in and veto (no that cant happen) but said veto is not used except in extreme cases. A fairly obvious case IRL may be a player acting in relatively bad faith who goes PVP even though it is not normally something done at the table - even if not expressly forbidden.

The thing about choosing to want to prop your position up on rigidly defined lines is that most often in real play these lines are not so rigid or absolute and you may wind up dancing on a theoretical pin that is very much far afield.

And of course, there are numerous examples of very fun games where the rigid absolutism of PC vs everything else was handled not at all as you suggest - games where characters woke up amnesia and had no idea what they were as far as "player stats were", games where screentime type of alterations to the world were firmly in the hands of players and the GMs - etc etc etc. games where NPCs can influence PCs and even change them by "social mechanics". there are RPGs where the actual story/plotlines/challenges are generated by the players much more than the Gm - each resolving pieces as they unfold. cases where the "task roll" for a search is a roll to narrate and create what *is there* as oppose to "find what was pre-determined to be there or not."

And of course, plenty where that gets muddled mixed and matched every day.

In my games, i take the opportunity when a player rolls a 20 on a skill check (proficient) to draw from a list of their background elements and suggestions made by them for inclusion of extra stuff. Some of it was "fleshed out my me" based on what they gave, some of it was created by me to add to what they gave and some of it was created by them and dropped in as is. So a search for a mountain pass might come across a dead body that has ties to one of the players and drives (or provides a new) personal  storyline that was not there before. In my game, each player was given a chance to invent a world and race for the game as NPCs and then we worked together to revise after they had enough experience with setting to see whaere they wanted to tweak it.



There is far more in heaven and earth and the rpg hobby, Horatio, than is able to be supported by your narrow, rigid pillar of demarcation that you need to support your arguments.

"So that's why your objection to my fluff is not valid. It _would be valid if my fluff choice changed the way lycanthropy worked in his game world for any other creature, but my circumstance is unique."

_I get you want to keep piling on things that *may* play a role or *might* play a role so as to keep working until you get the other side in your collaboration to just give up on your wanting to be the only civilized barbarian in your world. the circumatsnaces that allowed you to be such are declared from on high by you to be unique. thats cool... wonderful and fine and all... but for me thats not a collaboration but a dictation. you have taken a rather tired trope and tried to lock it into this "radical concept" of a civilized barbarian (ahem TARZAN ahem) and the equally radical concept of pregnant-when-supernatural trope.

i hope that works for you in your games. I hope you have GMs who ooohhh and ahhh for it. 

me? i dont have any problem with civilized barbarian or alternative fluff. i have a problem with unliateral pc declaration of off-limits tho when those are declared.

See, here is the rub... your PC, your bastion of MINE MINE MINE MINE HANDS OFF MINE MINE MINE is, get this, part of the world too. You are not "somewhere else". That means i have to account for you in that "world of the GMs" and just to be clear i am not going to try to take time to list for you everything that might be a problem within the game before you pick up a pencil. 

hence that whole -collaboration thing instead of the rigid line in the sand.

That way we get a very extremely large set of things to work with without an amazingly large list of edge cases trying and failing to nail down all the catches and bumps.

"(werewolves are immune to normal weapons; I have a diluted version which explains the damage resistance from Rage, and better Unarmoured AC), "

So, somehow the immune to non-magical weapons somehow morphs into higher Ac vs spells? That chosen and as an unassailable choice by the PLAYER? 

Wow... so if a player decided "i once drank gold dragon piss from a silvered boot under a full moon while reciting the oath of office to a town that no longer exists  and so i have the ability to backstab as a rogue... the Gm has to accept that because... the player decides its unique enough?"

yes an extreme example but - once one accepts that unique is in the hands of the player...

 "I have the right and responsibility to choose my class and background (and, yes, fluff) from those the DM has already said are available."

if you Gm told you that werewolfy sex tricks tropes can give you unarmored defense - then yep - you can choose it as part of your collaboration.

But, beyond that, its more like a collaboration. 

An expectation that "all that is allowed will be listed ahead of time" or "all that will be disallowed will be listed ahead of time" - either way - is an unreasonable burden to be placed on either side of a collaboration on a work as broad as these are. Whichever side has that burden is put in the place of de facto forfeiting his side of the collaboration (trusting to the others not just good will and good faith but having sufficient knowledge to avoid clashes) or presenting a massively restricted set of options or presenting a massive list of edge cases.  

Not a way i want to work out a game with my players. We come to it with the idea that we all get a good grasp of the basics and general boundaries but that we also expect a lot of possible scrapes and edge cases here and there that we will *work out* and not see as *one side is absolutely right* at that stage of world+PC chargen. 

if this extreme works for you - thats fantastic.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 11, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> But I don't need a new class, since I am only explaining the features of the barbarian class. It would be ridiculous to require anyone explaining their class abilities to create a different class with different abilities! It would never end!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, to be clear - not only do you the player decide than an NPC fiend has the power your fluff needs it to have but that also this is unique and so it has never ever done this at any other time?

Wow... a fiend savant when it comes to wolfy sex tricks... got it in one.

i am pretty sure by this point in the "discussion at my table" the other players would be rolling their eyes and giving me the "hook and gong" sign or just outright calling for the group vote.

had more than enough of this in point buy supers games with the "my *tightly themed set of super powers is that i am from an unknown alien race - all dead but me - and they have this seemingly odd and even contradictory assortment of powers that work together." (Which oddly enough is another not at all uncommon trope that seems to keep getting called "unique" when dreamed up)


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 11, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Yeah, we fundamentally disagree on that!
> 
> Do you have a rules reference for the idea that the descriptions in the PHB are the only allowed fluff and if you use your own fluff then you are breaking the game's rules?



Do you have a rules reference for the idea that the descriptions in the PHB can be unilaterally altered by any player, and that the DM should be cool with it? Because every reference I've found to altering the fluff is in the DMG, next to the part where it describes how you should also change the mechanics to reflect those changes in the fluff. The rules in the PHB just tell you what the class is, fluff-wise, and then tells you the mechanics associated with that fluff.


Arial Black said:


> Cool.
> 
> Help me create a character class which has a d12 hit die, Rage and Unarmoured AC at first level and Danger Sense and Reckless Attack at 2nd, because those are the class features my fluff explains!



No, it doesn't actually. Your fluff describes minor werewolf abilities, like enhanced physical stats and weapon resistance that is overcome by silver or magical weapons. The enhanced strength could be represented as Advantage on Strength-based checks while "raging", but there's no reason why that would necessarily impose Advantage on attacks made against you. Werewolves don't have anything like Danger Sense, but they do have Keen Senses, and Advantage on many Perception checks is nothing to sneeze at.

I have no idea why you would think that this entitles you to adding your Con bonus to your AC while unarmored. There's nothing in the description of werewolves which remotely hints to that, in any capacity.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So, to be clear - not only do you the player decide than an NPC fiend has the power your fluff needs it to have but that also this is unique and so it has never ever done this at any other time?



Not sure why that would be an issue.  Your character is a PC, unique events are supposed to happen to them.  That's why the PC is the protagonist of a fantasy story.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 11, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I have no idea why you would think that this entitles you to adding your Con bonus to your AC while unarmored. There's nothing in the description of werewolves which remotely hints to that, in any capacity.






			
				MM pg. 211 said:
			
		

> Armor Class 12 (natural armor) in wolf or hybrid form




So no, nothing in the werewolf description that specifically says “werewolves add their Con Bonus to AC”, but Lycanthropes have natural armor... have in every edition I’ve seen. Why can’t that equate to “gained Unarmored Defense” mechanic as a barbarian?

Why would you want to go through the effort of writing custom classes and subclasses when there is perfectly acceptable class that has abilities that are close to the backstory concept and can be viewed as causing them? 

I as a DM sure as heck don’t have time for all that. I barely have enough time to prep a game.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 11, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Not sure why that would be an issue.  Your character is a PC, unique events are supposed to happen to them.  That's why the PC is the protagonist of a fantasy story.



"Always remember, son, you are unique... just like everybody else." My brother stole that from somewhere.

Every event is unique in some way. 

That doesn't mean a player in a game should be able to declare what those unique events are or that the npcs acted uniquely around them as an unassailable right.

You want to collaborate on that? Fantastic.
You want to fist it as an absolute? Not so much.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "Always remember, son, you are unique... just like everybody else." My brother stole that from somewhere.
> 
> Every event is unique in some way.
> 
> That doesn't mean a player in a game should be able to declare what those unique events are or that the npcs acted uniquely around them as an unassailable right.



I don't think anyone posting on these boards is so unreasonable as to think any particular demarcation of player and DM constraints is unassailable, and any quotes otherwise are probably somebody getting overexcited.  We all get all a little invested in our viewpoints on here, I think. 

My particular viewpoint is that setting should exist primarily as a means to make communication between the player and the DM easier.  Unless the players are particularly excited to explore a setting the DM has created for his own enjoyment, having to learn the nuances of a DM's setting just introduces complication to that communication.  That's why I favor published kitchen-sink settings (which allow for importation of all sorts of fantasy tropes), or a simple loosely defined homebrew setting built off common tropes, with maybe one or two wacky twists.  

If your setting is so tightly defined that a devil-sired wolfman breaks it, my opinion is that you (as a DM) have put your own aesthetic desires too far ahead of your players, and you need to have a conversation about what all of you think the setting actually is and should be.



> You want to fist it as an absolute? Not so much.



I absolutely have no desire to do that fisting.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 11, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> So no, nothing in the werewolf description that specifically says “werewolves add their Con Bonus to AC”, but Lycanthropes have natural armor... have in every edition I’ve seen. Why can’t that equate to “gained Unarmored Defense” mechanic as a barbarian?



They have a natural AC of 12, in 5E, which is the equivalent of wearing leather armor (just like regular wolves, who instead have AC 13 because they have higher Dex).

Why can't that equate to the Unarmored Defense mechanic? Because it doesn't. That's not the process by which the game rules convert narrative into mechanics. The _correct_ and _consistent_ translation would be that they have the equivalent of leather armor. If you claim that the given narrative equates to whatever mechanic you want, then you are cheating the system, by changing the way it converts narrative into mechanics.

A game system isn't just a set of pre-defined classes that have pre-defined mechanics tied to their pre-defined narrative existences. A game system is the whole language by which a narrative is converted into mechanics. The type of hide which a wolf has is translated into a specific mechanical bonus, and if you alter that translation without altering the underlying narrative, then you aren't even playing that game anymore.


Salthorae said:


> Why would you want to go through the effort of writing custom classes and subclasses when there is perfectly acceptable class that has abilities that are close to the backstory concept and can be viewed as causing them?



Just because those mechanics could be tied to that new fluff, if you really wanted them to be, that doesn't mean they should be. If I'm being honest with myself, then there is probably a better (more accurate and consistent) set of mechanics which would better represent that new fluff.

If I'm going out of my way to add weird new stuff to my game world, then I owe it to everyone involved to do the work and get it right. If I re-fluff a giant spider to use the stats of an adult white dragon (for example), then no matter how I try to re-fluff its actions, the outcome of the fight will forever be tainted by the fact that its stats weren't a true reflection of what a giant spider should be.


Salthorae said:


> I as a DM sure as heck don’t have time for all that. I barely have enough time to prep a game.



In that case, I highly recommend that you either not home-brew stuff, or that you not care about the integrity and consistency of the system. Probably the latter, if everyone at your table is okay with it. But please don't hold your preference against others who do have the time, and are willing to invest the energy in going through the whole process.


----------



## Salthorae (Sep 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Why can't that equate to the Unarmored Defense mechanic? Because it doesn't. That's not the process by which the game rules convert narrative into mechanics. The _correct_ and _consistent_ translation would be that they have the equivalent of leather armor. If you claim that the given narrative equates to whatever mechanic you want, then you are cheating the system, by changing the way it converts narrative into mechanics.




Thanks for the italics, really helped drive home your point and make me see the light. 

I am not claiming the given narrative equates to whatever mechanic I want and I'm not cheating anything. I'm saying that an animal/lycanthrope's natural armor (of whatever mechanical bonus) that makes it harder to hit, jives pretty well with the barbarian's Unarmored defense...which is natural... and makes them harder to hit. I'm not going for a 100% alignment, but a "here's some points of commonality and overlay, so sure that works for me."

There is no codified way that narrative converts to mechanics in any D&D system. Anywhere. I am simply agreeing with Arial Black's narrative to class overlay. Mechanics are defined and they do allow you to tell a narrative, but there is no official codified way that the reverse is true. Narrative/fluff may _inform_ (see? they really help!) mechanics design and application, but you cannot say that "a" narrative must always equate to "x" mechanic. 



Saelorn said:


> A game system isn't just a set of pre-defined classes that have pre-defined mechanics tied to their pre-defined narrative existences. A game system is the whole language by which a narrative is converted into mechanics.



 Err, I think you have that opposite. A game system is a defined language of mechanics by which a narrative is enacted (in whatever medium you choose from PBP to TBT to Streaming). See above.



Saelorn said:


> The type of hide which a wolf has is translated into a specific mechanical bonus, and if you alter that translation without altering the underlying narrative, then you aren't even playing that game anymore.
> Just because those mechanics could be tied to that new fluff, if you really wanted them to be, that doesn't mean they should be.



 I'm not altering the wolf's hide or altering anything... at all? 



Saelorn said:


> If I'm going out of my way to add weird new stuff to my game world, then I owe it to everyone involved to do the work and get it right. If I re-fluff a giant spider to use the stats of an adult white dragon (for example), then no matter how I try to re-fluff its actions, the outcome of the fight will forever be tainted by the fact that its stats weren't a true reflection of what a giant spider should be.



Wha...what? Why would you ever use white dragon stats for a giant spider when you HAVE giant spider stats? No one is "adding weird new stuff to a world" here. We're not talking about inventing the wheel either. We're talking about a character who wants to play a city raised Barbarian with the Soldier background. He just wrote a story to explain how his city raised barbarian has the same mechanical abilities as a raging tribal warrior. You're thinking about this too hard.  



Saelorn said:


> In that case, I highly recommend that you either not home-brew stuff, or that you not care about the integrity and consistency of the system. Probably the latter, if everyone at your table is okay with it. But please don't hold your preference against others who do have the time, and are willing to invest the energy in going through the whole process.




So.. no one is even trying to home-brew something here? So yeah. And I can home-brew what, when, where, and how I want thank you much. 

You really have no place to tell me that I or anyone else shouldn't home-brew because you don't agree with my approval of someone's narrative rationale for how and why their PC is a specific class and background combination from the PHB, the first core book. 

Not sure why you're so sensitive about this thread, but you're doing exactly the same thing. You are consistently holding YOUR preferences for how mechanics and world fluff go together against  [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] and anyone who seems to be ok with this character backstory. So... pot... kettle?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 12, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> There is no codified way that narrative converts to mechanics in any D&D system.



I feel like you haven't read the DMG.


Salthorae said:


> Err, I think you have that opposite. A game system is a defined language of mechanics by which a narrative is enacted (in whatever medium you choose from PBP to TBT to Streaming). See above.



It's both. You start with the narrative, and then the system translates that into a mechanical language so that we can resolve it, and then it translates back into narrative so that we know what happens. If the mechanics didn't actually reflect anything within the narrative, then the narrative we end up with after the mechanical resolution would be meaningless, since it would just be whatever arbitrary story someone felt like telling.

Consider the example at hand. We could say that this semi-werewolf has the equivalent of leather armor, or we could say that it has the equivalent of Unarmored Defense. The difference between them may well be a +4 bonus to AC. Let's pretend that the DM allows the latter option. Later in the campaign, there is a very difficult fight, and this character is the last one standing against the boss; the boss makes an attack, which misses by a margin of 2, and then the PC goes and finishes off the boss (and then goes on to revive all of the other PCs, and they continue about their business). In this case, the party didn't ultimately triumph because they were actually stronger or smarter than their enemies; they only triumphed because the DM made the decision that this character should arbitrarily have a +4 bonus to AC. The correct outcome, if the DM had actually cared enough to model these things consistently, would be that the party is defeated.


Salthorae said:


> Wha...what? Why would you ever use white dragon stats for a giant spider when you HAVE giant spider stats?



We also have stats for lycanthropes. If we need to represent one, we should use those. If we want a lycanthrope that somehow acts like a barbarian for some reason, then you get nonsensical results, just as though you'd used stats for a dragon to represent a giant spider. (As for that particular example, it was something that happened to me while I was running a 4E game, and experimenting with their own philosophy of mutable fluff.)


Salthorae said:


> You really have no place to tell me that I or anyone else shouldn't home-brew because you don't agree with my approval of someone's narrative rationale for how and why their PC is a specific class and background combination from the PHB, the first core book.
> 
> Not sure why you're so sensitive about this thread, but you're doing exactly the same thing.



I'm saying that if you can't bother to read the book, or you're too lazy to follow the guidelines listed, then you should keep your home-brew at home, where it can't bother anyone else. The topic at hand is a jerk player who shows up to a new game and tries to bully the DM about how their own world is supposed to work. As members of the community, we are obligated to stop this sort of bullying before it starts. That kind of anti-social behavior should never be tolerated, and the jerk player in question would be doing everyone a favor if they learned to check their sense of self-entitlement.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> *I don't think anyone posting on these boards is so unreasonable as to think any particular demarcation of player and DM constraints is unassailable, and any quotes otherwise are probably somebody getting overexcited.  We all get all a little invested in our viewpoints on here, I think. *
> 
> My particular viewpoint is that setting should exist primarily as a means to make communication between the player and the DM easier.  Unless the players are particularly excited to explore a setting the DM has created for his own enjoyment, having to learn the nuances of a DM's setting just introduces complication to that communication.  That's why I favor published kitchen-sink settings (which allow for importation of all sorts of fantasy tropes), or a simple loosely defined homebrew setting built off common tropes, with maybe one or two wacky twists.
> 
> ...




i thought the same until it was pretty much made clear by explicit statement that wasn't the case - that my assessment that they did not really mean the extreme was strongly corrected to say they did mean it just that strongly etc. 

you can choose to dismiss what others say and even clarify to their full measure - thats cool. its like the definition of dismissive but hey - to each their own.

i don't have a view on what "the setting" in anyone's rpg "should be" beyond "what the group decides they want". With that in mind, i get to avoid making judgements from on high about other people's choices as to how their make-believe-co-op activity works or find clever ways to decide that a theoretical Gm has theoretically gone too far. of course, a key to this part if "they" not "I" and "group wants" instead of "one player mandates".

YMMV


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Luckily for me, we are playing in a world in which barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes and fiends all already exist without me having to import them from another genre.



Just to nitpick a bit.  You aren't playing in a world with those things.  You are playing a game that has those things.  The world may or may not have any or all of those things, depending on what the DM wants.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Help me create a character class which has a d12 hit die, Rage and Unarmoured AC at first level and Danger Sense and Reckless Attack at 2nd, because those are the class features my fluff explains!
> 
> Any ideas?




Mean Drunken Master.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> They have a natural AC of 12, in 5E, which is the equivalent of wearing leather armor (just like regular wolves, who instead have AC 13 because they have higher Dex).
> 
> Why can't that equate to the Unarmored Defense mechanic? ... snip




The amusing part is this discussion of the merits and whereofores and translation and reasonable-or-not of the sexy-wolf-trix being conducted here is something that poster says should not occur - it should be their absolute right to demand it as is without debate.

its kind of like arguing that they gave you five dimes instead of two quarters on a transaction where you were actually shortchanged by 50 dollars.


----------



## Erechel (Sep 12, 2018)

I've wrote (again) a long answer that got ditched because of the crappy connection. Short:
I didn't noticed the 5 feet disadvantage, but that doesn't really affect the account, because the original 34 didn't take it. 

In a featureless, empty white room without positioning or companionship, my base damage with lance is as follows-
6.5 (average damage) + 6 (strength + dueling) x 2 (extra attack): 25
4 Superiority Dice. 4.5 average damage.
Action Surge four double attacks
Average fights during 4-5 rounds

CR 6 Av. armor Class: 15, hit points: 146-160. I hit with 8, average attack result is 11. 

Round 1: 25+9 = 34
Round 2: 25+9 = 34
Round 3: 25x2 = 50
Round 4: 25
Round 5: 25

Total damage in 5 rounds: 168; DPR 33.6 (34). Total Damage in 4 rounds: 143. Average DPR 35.75

In a featureless, empty white room without positioning or companionship, my base damage with sword is as follows-
4.5 (average damage) + 6 (strength + dueling) + 0.45 (10% crit) x 2 (extra attack): 21.9
4 Superiority Dice. 4.5 average damage. Assume 1 crit in 4 rounds for extra 4.5.
Action Surge four double attacks in 1 round.
Average fights during 4-5 rounds

CR 6 Av. armor Class: 15, hit points: 146-160. I hit with 8, average attack result is 11. 

Round 1: 22.9+9 = 31.9
Round 1: 22.9+9 +4.5= 36.4 (I put the critical hit SD damage here, although it could be in any of the first 4 rounds)
Round 3: 22.9 x2 = 45.8
Round 4: 22.9
Round 5: 22.9

Total damage in 5 rounds: 159.9; DPR 31.98 (32). Total Damage in 4 rounds: 137. Average DPR 34.25

A short rest is needed after every complete fight, but DPR sustains. Not a bad assumption, especially when I'm not counting _anything_ that could possibly benefit me, such as terrain, OAs (10.95 or 12.5 extra damage as a reaction), basic poison (2.5 extra damage for one minute, PHB), the fear caused by Menacing Strike (possible routings or withdrawals of enemies... unless undead), alchemist fire to the blade (let's say +1 fire damage, the same as a torch does), hot coals on the ground, spikes, caltrops (1 piercing damage when you step in them, probably more if you fall prone on them -say 1d4 or 2.5-), magic weapons or falls from mountains, bridges, windows or rooftops that automatically win a battle.

Lance is still RAW and RAI a dueling weapon. You need to weild it two handed when you are on foot, _because_ is a horseman weapon, not because is a two handed weapon. It is the weapon of choice in jousts, that is duels between knights, and it is always one handed then; their reach and damage are to reflect the fact that you are on horseback (in fact, a sensible ruling would be that you can't even attack a prone creature on horseback if you have not a lance; and I must add that a knight should have the choice of using the horse trample instead of its weapons, but I'm not advocating this, because it is already powerful as it is).

And battles are never in a vacuum unless you have a crappy GM. Terrain, cunning, tricks, diplomacy, intimidation, cover, morale and such should play a heavy role on combats. Surrender, capture and retreat are legitimate ways to end a fight for the losing side. People should be aware that goblins won't fight to the last men alive, unless there is a _very_ powerful reason. Only fearless or very desperate creatures should fight to the end. Wild animals, intelligent foes and monsters should retreat when they are badly injured or they think that they can't win, _specially_ when their main force is dead or badly injured (killing spellcasters work wonders on their morale; and a dragon won't die over a pitiful fight: he is an intelligent enough monster to retreat and return when not expected).

About the horse thing: Most of my fights are on horseback. Not everyone, of course, but most yes. If a troll enters in a dungeon, a horse too. And if they not, luring the enemy outside does the trick. And the troll is at disadvantage. And yes, they die easily, that's why I have four horses and I'm making a plate barding for all of them.

And you centered on one piece of my argument, ignoring the sheer versatility that comes for a good build, even the "boring fighter": 6 skills, one of them with Expertise (athletics), 3 tools (Smith, Carpenter, Tinker), 3 languages, and heavy use of equipment such as crowbars, caltrops, and traps beat a white room theorist. As I've said earlier all that I've mentioned is sustained during real gameplay. Multiclassers are often beaten by dead levels, tier feature delays, lack of ASI to remain competitive, and bogged down in real play because they are often centered on an objective instead of a path. They suffer until they reach their desired synergy power, and then they get dissapointed when said power isn't all that great. I've witnessed this multiple times. I'm not saying that it is impossible to make it work, I say that is really difficult and not all that necessary.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 12, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Just to nitpick a bit.  You aren't playing in a world with those things.  You are playing a game that has those things.  The world may or may not have any or all of those things, depending on what the DM wants.




You raise a good point, _en passant_ at least. 

IF the game world had no lycanthropes, THEN that would be a valid objection to my fluff.

But I knew going in that the world already included lycanthropes. And The Fiend as a patron. And all the other stuff I included in my fluff.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> They have a natural AC of 12, in 5E, which is the equivalent of wearing leather armor (just like regular wolves, who instead have AC 13 because they have higher Dex).
> 
> Why can't that equate to the Unarmored Defense mechanic? Because it doesn't. That's not the process by which the game rules convert narrative into mechanics. The _correct_ and _consistent_ translation would be that they have the equivalent of leather armor. If you claim that the given narrative equates to whatever mechanic you want, then you are cheating the system, by changing the way it converts narrative into mechanics.




Rubbish!

It is not part of this ruleset that ANY and EVERY creature that, conceptually, has a higher AC through the concept of a tough hide MUST realise that concept with *exactly* +1 to AC, just like leather armour!

The way it works is that the concept of tough hide adds a mechanical bonus to AC based on how tough the hide is. And guess what? The barbarian's unarmoured AC gets a bonus to AC depending on how tough the barbarian is, mechanically represented by his Con bonus.

It's not rocket science!



> A game system isn't just a set of pre-defined classes that have pre-defined mechanics tied to their pre-defined narrative existences. A game system is the whole language by which a narrative is converted into mechanics. The type of hide which a wolf has is translated into a specific mechanical bonus, and if you alter that translation without altering the underlying narrative, then you aren't even playing that game anymore.




Really? If I statted up a werecreature with +2 rather than +1 of its AC coming from its tough hide, then I wouldn't be playing D&D 5e anymore?

Even the relationship between 'wolf' and 'werewolf', which conceptually gives a human wolf powers, does not result in the werewolf having an identical stat block to a normal wolf, especially in hybrid form.

Where did the hybrid form come from? The normal wolf doesn't have one! You are messing with my world by telling me how wolves work in my world!

...or could it be that wolf->werewolf isn't an exact match, that the wolf _inspires_ the werewolf abilities?

Y'know, just like the werewolf _inspires_ my barbarian abilities! Of course his abilities don't map exactly! That's because he's not an actual werewolf, in the same way that a werewolf is not an actual wolf!



> Just because those mechanics could be tied to that new fluff, if you really wanted them to be, that doesn't mean they should be. If I'm being honest with myself, then there is probably a better (more accurate and consistent) set of mechanics which would better represent that new fluff.




Let's say we have a perfectly RAW D&D 5e PC. If we gave ten game designers a pure fluff description of what our PC can do, no game mechanics or class names mentioned, and then asked each game designer to invent 5e game mechanics to match that description, then they would produce ten different sets of game mechanics. They would not magically produce One True Way ten sets of identical mechanics!

The idea that 'tough hide' as a concept will ALWAYS translate to exactly a +1 AC is absurd! Proof exists in the 5e MM itself, with different AC bonuses for different creatures all based on the 'tough hide' concept.

Going back to the 'lines of demarcation' (yes, we all acknowledge that the game is all about cooperation! We don't disagree on that!), while the DM can always say 'no' to ANY part of any PC, the player can always say 'no' to playing a concept, class, mechanic or fluff that they feel has been changed too far from what they want to play.

If they cannot agree, then there is no game! Both player and DM know that, hence the cooperation.

I've already said that the DM can refuse some element of a player's fluff, and that the DM should have a rational reason for doing so. When you have a warlock patron, which according to the game rules is powerful enough to grant 9th level spells and astonishing abilities like Hurl Through Heck (I don't want to get censored ) but no patron's powers are fully defined, then it makes sense that they have power to do all sorts of things. Have you _really_ already established that in your game world the fiend has x, y and z powers but definitely cannot mess with conception....*before* I told you my fluff? Really? Or did you decide, _after_ I told you the fluff, that one thing the fiend cannot do is mess with conception, just so you feel you have justification for saying 'no', when you could more easily have just gone with it?

No, what you did was invent a reason to be unhappy about it.

We know that it is impossible for any detailed backstory written by a player to avoid mentioning people, places and/or events in the game world, things that are _usually_ in the DM's purview. If the very fact that the player is using those things was a valid reason to refuse that fluff, then EVERY SINGLE PC would be refused on that basis, that the player is demanding control of NPCs, places or events in the DM's game world! There could be no PC backstory EVER! The DM would create the backstory for EVERY PC, simply because the players don't have authority to create NPCs, locations or events in the DM's game world.

This would mean that EVERY PC would be a DM created handout, with no input allowed from the player. But, although playing with such handouts is occasionally done, is this the expectation of our hobby? Is it weird, strange, or against RAW for players to create their own PC's backstory?

Even in games where players use DM created pre-gens, in my experience the players are _encouraged_ to customise said pre-gens. I simply don't recognise our hobby in terms that players aren't allowed to create their own PC's backstory!

Of course there are extreme examples dotted about the world of players voting for abilities, DM pre-gens, DM-less games, and all sorts of strangeness, but when I talk about 'the consensus' I'm talking about the way the hobby is _usually_ played, the way it is generally _expected_ to work. And that way is that players make the choices, in play and backstory, for their own PC, and the DM controls everything else.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So, somehow the immune to non-magical weapons somehow morphs into higher Ac vs spells? That chosen and as an unassailable choice by the PLAYER?




Actually, it's 'chosen' by the barbarian's game mechanics. Mainly because players don't have the right to invent new mechanical abilities for themselves (Yeah, my 1st level fighter can cast 9th level spells actually! It's on page 15 of my backstory between 'women fall instantly in love with me' and 'ruler of the multiverse'!), they can only use their backstory to explain what the game mechanics _already allow_ them to do. 



> Wow... so if a player decided "i once drank gold dragon piss from a silvered boot under a full moon while reciting the oath of office to a town that no longer exists  and so i have the ability to backstab as a rogue... the Gm has to accept that because... the player decides its unique enough?"
> 
> yes an extreme example but - once one accepts that unique is in the hands of the player...




Erm, as silly as the example is...yeah...! Bearing in mind that the PC must already have at least one rogue level (or in a class which grants the Sneak Attack special ability) in order to be able to use their backstory to _explain_ that ability...yeah.

Sure, I'd rather the player come up with a less silly explanation....but in the end I recognise that it's _their_ PC and they can _explain_ the abilities they have how they want.

As this player's DM, my role is to check that the character sheet is accurate, game mechanics-wise; so no adding abilities the game mechanics don't grant you. I would also look at their 'explanation' for how they acquired their backstabbing ability, and see how I can fit it into my game.

I could decide that anyone can get backstab powers by doing the exact same thing....but I'm pretty sure that would be both broken and absurd. So I would either secretly invent some other agent that is _actually_ the source of that ability (a fey guardian? The PC was bamboozled into believing that the ritual granted that ability but it was a practical joke and the PC could do it all along?), or just ignore it and get on with the game, knowing for a fact that this backstory in *no way* FORCES me to give those properties to dragons, urine, silver, boots, full moons, oaths of office or towns that no longer exist.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> had more than enough of this in point buy supers games with the "my *tightly themed set of super powers is that i am from an unknown alien race - all dead but me - and they have this seemingly odd and even contradictory assortment of powers that work together." (Which oddly enough is another not at all uncommon trope that seems to keep getting called "unique" when dreamed up)




Wait, are you saying that when you GM a point-buy superhero game that players are *not allowed* to explain their powers as the result of an extinct alien race, all but me?

Poor Kal-El.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Do you have a rules reference for the idea that the descriptions in the PHB can be unilaterally altered by any player, and that the DM should be cool with it?




If the example fluff were not mere examples but game rules, then it would have to be mentioned in the sections about character creation and classes.

It would say, 'choose your race, class and background', and under the class description it would say 'choose one of the allowed backstories' along with things like 'choose your weapon style/subclass/equipment'.

But it doesn't. It never will. ALL players are expected to come up with their own backstory, even if it's as cursory as "I'm a dwarf. Here's my axe". The examples are just to help get the creative juices flowing. The book is also formatted in such a way that players who have never played an RPG before can read the book and understand what's going on, and the examples help explain it.

But the examples are. Not. Rules.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> i thought the same until it was pretty much made clear by explicit statement that wasn't the case - that my assessment that they did not really mean the extreme was strongly corrected to say they did mean it just that strongly etc.
> 
> you can choose to dismiss what others say and even clarify to their full measure - thats cool. its like the definition of dismissive but hey - to each their own.
> 
> ...



If that's the interpretation you're getting from [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]'s posts, then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Erm, as silly as the example is...yeah...! Bearing in mind that the PC must already have at least one rogue level (or in a class which grants the Sneak Attack special ability) in order to be able to use their backstory to _explain_ that ability...yeah.
> 
> Sure, I'd rather the player come up with a less silly explanation....but in the end I recognise that it's _their_ PC and they can _explain_ the abilities they have how they want.
> 
> ...




So a few things.

1.  I'm not a fan of reflavoring, but I do allow it sometimes.  If the reflavoring matches the ability exactly, I don't have an issue with it.  With your soldier example, I can see how he gets rage, reckless attack, and even danger sense.  I don't see how the soldier would get fast movement, unarmored defense(soldiers, even angry ones don't get this), Indomitable might, or Primal Champion.  Those don't really fit the angry soldier concept in my opinion.  The more complex the thing you are trying to reflavor, the harder it is going to be.  With the rogue, that level of rogue also gives thieves' cant and expertise, not just backstab.  I much prefer to just create a feat or some other way for the backstab to come into play for the PC.

2. The explanation give above would be kinda, sorta okay, except that it would have to happen in background.  Once play begins, I'm going to know all that happens to the PC.  There's not going to be the situation where the PC drinks gold dragon piss under the fool moon(just started re-reading Dresden) etc., without it having been roleplayed out.  If it is background, it will be tougher to do unless the PC starts at a level above 1.

3. If you are secretly inventing the real reason the power happens, then I have to ask, what happened to "but in the end I recognise that it's _their_ PC and they can _explain_ the abilities they have how they want."?  You're invalidating their explanation.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Wait, are you saying that when you GM a point-buy superhero game that players are *not allowed* to explain their powers as the result of an extinct alien race, all but me?
> 
> Poor Kal-El.




I happen to know that Kal-El is completely human.  I'm not so sure about Nicolas Cage, though.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> If the example fluff were not mere examples but game rules, then it would have to be mentioned in the sections about character creation and classes.
> 
> It would say, 'choose your race, class and background', and under the class description it would say 'choose one of the allowed backstories' along with things like 'choose your weapon style/subclass/equipment'.
> 
> ...




The rules in the PHB do not allow for unilateral altering, though.  They explicitly say otherwise.  Here is a quote from the customization section, "If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."  That means that if you want to do something other than what is spelled out in the PHB as an acceptable alteration, you need DM approval.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 12, 2018)

Erechel said:


> I've wrote (again) a long answer that got ditched because of the crappy connection. Short:
> I didn't noticed the 5 feet disadvantage, but that doesn't really affect the account, because the original 34 didn't take it.
> 
> In a featureless, empty white room without positioning or companionship, my base damage with lance is as follows-
> ...




Not to nit pick but a short rest after every fight isn’t typical.  A short rest after every 2 fights maybe, but doubtful.  My game is a short rest every 4-6 fights.  What you are describing is a nova, just say so.  

I have never seen or been in a game where you can take your warhorse into a dungeon, let alone have it live past the first or second encounter.  Your horse has an average of 19 HP and various things can get you off it so you cant take the damage for it.  I don’t see how it survives the first area attack in good shape at your level (6).  I guess your group fails most group stealth checks no?

A troll can fit into many places a horse can’t, it’s shape is more malleable then a horse, but if your DM allows all the above I would have played a Paladin instead.  

A Paladin gets an intelligent mount, so it acts on its own turns and you can communicate telepathically with it. Therefore you can prone them your shield then have your warhorse attack them with advantage for 2d6+4.    In addition a Paladin can cast a spell with self as range and it affects both, so a Paladin can cast a smite spell on himself and can have his horse use the smite spell also.  A Paladin on his mount is a holy terror.  

A warhorse has these attacks also, RAW a PC can’t direct it to attack as it only has 3 action options and attack isn’t one.  I would change that if you took the mounted combat feat.  I would definitely talk to your DM about it as you have made a substantial investment in mounted combat.

The lance as a dueling weapon I consider an exploit, on horseback it is used across the second arm or rested on a shield in addition to being cradled under the arm.  It requires Dueling is intended to reflect precision, a weapon condition that require you to be seated on a mount to me isn’t as intended.  I would definitely not allow dueling there, that is IMO not RAI.  But then I would also not allow a horse into a dungeon in most cases either, or would just have an intelligent enemy immediately try to dismount you or attack the horse, as most intelligent creatures would.  Or set their reach weapons to receive a charge.  I will ask Crawford though for what it’s worth about the lance though.

Edit- I checked the lance discussion and the rules for it RAW are absurd.  RAW a halfling riding a dog can use a lance for D12 as a weapon since the lance doesn’t have the heavy property.   With the dual wielder feat the same halfling could use 2 lances while mounted and attack with both from the back of his riding dog.

Yes there is a problem here.  If your DM allows it though go for it!


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> If that's the interpretation you're getting from @_*Arial Black*_'s posts, then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.




Well then you and i must be reading very different posts.

While there is an even stronger statement in response after i gave the impression i did not think he meant to go so far a few pages back but here is one comment from just a little further up from this page alone.


"Sure, I'd rather the player come up with a less silly explanation....but in the end I recognise that it's _their PC and they can explain the abilities they have how they want."_


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 12, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The rules in the PHB do not allow for unilateral altering, though.  They explicitly say otherwise.  Here is a quote from the customization section, "If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."  That means that if you want to do something other than what is spelled out in the PHB as an acceptable alteration, you need DM approval.




I am finding out that their are players who don’t read anything but the actual rules text and are absolutists regarding everything else I.e. if the rules don’t specifically say something then it is allowed and fair game.  There is no “spirit” of the rules or RAI, it’s black and white. Some have not read anything but the SRD it seems, you statement in quotes above may simply not have been read.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Actually, it's 'chosen' by the barbarian's game mechanics. Mainly because players don't have the right to invent new mechanical abilities for themselves (Yeah, my 1st level fighter can cast 9th level spells actually! It's on page 15 of my backstory between 'women fall instantly in love with me' and 'ruler of the multiverse'!), they can only use their backstory to explain what the game mechanics _already allow_ them to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




RE the bold - this seems to be saying (now) that as Gm you can just decide their backstory is not real and actually something else entirely happened? 

So, your whole wolfy sex civie barbarian thing means nothing cuz as Gm i can decide "not really" and by the end of session one reveal a backstory explanation for your abilities that i prefer?

As long as i let you the player think it has been accepted until game time, we are good as then in story the "secret reveal" comes out and your absolute right to fluff you want is trumped by my absolute right to just change that into what i want?


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> ...astonishing abilities like Hurl Through *Heck*...




There you go again... re-flavoring the fluff! 




Maxperson said:


> The rules in the PHB do not allow for unilateral altering, though.  They explicitly say otherwise.  Here is a quote from the customization section, "If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."  That means that if you want to do something other than what is spelled out in the PHB as an acceptable alteration, you need DM approval.




I think it is worth pointing out that a clear distinction can and should be made between a PC's *backstory *and their *background*.  The *background *of soldier, for example, comes with tangible mechanical benefits as outlined in the PHB.  The *backstory* of the PC is the pure fluff that the player gets to make up and has NO real mechanical benefit (e.g. I was a soldier on the northern front in the Gnoll wars... my company was slaughtered and I escaped and was cared for by an ice Druid... blah blah blah).  

In other words, a *backstory* is just for fun and should not affect rolls at the table.  Sure, a player should work with a DM to make sure it all makes sense in the context of the world, but that should be a very low hurdle if the DM has outlined some base expectations (e.g. this is a high fantasy pseudo-Medieval campaign - no gunpowder, no robots, and absolutely no rapiers).


----------



## Erechel (Sep 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Not to nit pick but a short rest after every fight isn’t typical.  A short rest after every 2 fights maybe, but doubtful.  My game is a short rest every 4-6 fights.  What you are describing is a nova, just say so.
> 
> I have never seen or been in a game where you can take your warhorse into a dungeon, let alone have it live past the first or second encounter.  Your horse has an average of 19 HP and various things can get you off it so you cant take the damage for it.  I don’t see how it survives the first area attack in good shape at your level (6).  I guess your group fails most group stealth checks no?
> 
> ...




I see no contradiction on Lance rules with Dueling whatsoever, and it is RAW and RAI as it fits the concept of the knight swell; I'm not saying that absurdiness of the halfling on a dog with 2 lances (that I neither see that absurd _per se_, or at least when you have a lot of absurdiness and cheese in many, many multiclasses). It isn't a two handed weapon. And I've made the Sword damage and it is 32. And no, nova isn't that. Nova is to use Action Surge and the four attacks with the superiority dice in the first round for 68 damage. In fact, as I've said, the horses keep dying (it appears that you did ignore that). Until now, I'm with my 4th horse. And also said that it was sustained in real gameplay, both as player and GM. We played on at least 2 dungeons, but also in mountain ranges and cities, and in the wilderness. Only two times I couldn't use my horse. And no, we didn't fumble most of our stealth checks, because we don't make group stealth checks. The monk is burdened with exploration, so I don't have to. And luring people to the right position is key for any group with minimum strategy. 

I've also said that a short rest per fight isn't a bad assumption _when you aren't taking in account any other source of resolution._ Take poison, for example. With that only you increase damage by 2.5 for one minute (27.5 average, resourceless damage without OAs or critical hits). Also, using terrain features (both natural or provoked, such as stakes and caltrops) increase damage output; for example when you push a creature against fire (oil or alchemic fire thrown to the ground or tents), or knock it prone over caltrops, even without GM's fiat. And also, I've mentioned that maneuvers aren't only a "plus damage" issue: fear itself from Menacing Strike is a big go-to. We tend to make 2 fights per short rest, but also the fights tend to last less than five rounds, perhaps between 2 and 3. Enemies won't fight to the death unless pushed to, and once you have disabled their "big guns" (like Spellcasters, which I do, because I can't be surprised and have +5 to Initiative because of Alert), they tend to behave accordingly. I usually hamper spellcasters both via massive damage or via disarms and grapples to prevent casting, so I don't worry about AOE, and not that many CR 6 creatures have AOE. Lures are a part of our usual strategy (enemies tend to fear me, so we use other PCs to lure enemies, but when the enemy is stupid enough to not fear me, I'm the bait). As for the "Set pikes for charge": lunging strike. 15 feet reach with lance. And I always act first (+5 ini, no surprise). 

Most of our troll fights end with the monk using its cape to blind them (grapple from the back) and my character pushing them from a cliff, or by sword burning with oil and fire (+1 fire damage, the sword is ruined after the fight; I don't mind because I can repair them). I'm quoting actual sessions. Most of our humanoid or beast fights (like winter wolves) end with the enemy routing after I take out their leaders and the monk cuts the grass (we are mostly a 3 man group, with one extra character each session). As a matter of fact, our GM is aware of our strengths, and uses beefed up monsters (trolls with ice attacks and 18 AC) merely to compensate our fighting proficiency. When I GM, fights are very difficult also, except with big dumb monsters. Armies of goblins or knights have a lot more resources than AOE.

As I've said, it is sustained over extensive gameplay.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Wait, are you saying that when you GM a point-buy superhero game that players are *not allowed* to explain their powers as the result of an extinct alien race, all but me?
> 
> Poor Kal-El.




No. Not at all.

I am saying that we have seen plenty of times where in point buy supers **certain types of players** feel entitled to insist they can work around the campaigns established tone and intended style (soft restrictions) by assuming they can invent an alien race with only abilities they want and every ability they want all tied into a nice neat package and wrapped with a bow.

The part of the post you just ignored (of course) was the term "tightly themed."

In some comics at certain times - the tone and style and the nature of super powers and characters allowed is wide open and the presence of casual aliens with bundles of "whatever powers i want" are as common as nth dimensional imps with naming issues and stage magicians with dyslexic tendencies and glowing green rocks.

In others, the tone and style presents a more limited scope of heroes with most/all the supers with a fairly tightly themed package of powers that are all related - often mostly seen as one power with a variety of different applications. 

In a campaign the former would be fine with inventing a new alien race with a dial-a-mix of powers becausae none of the heroes is held to any sort of standard.

In the latter campaign, a fire mutant character would likely be told by the Gm and/or other players (depends on review process) that they cannot add to their character "seeing the future divination by dancing" during chargen as that does not fit any kind of tightly themed powers tone. In such a game  the invented an alien race "grab-bag of what i want" likely also not acceptable as it violates the soft-restriction of the tone and style of the campaign that was established - even tho that is not expressed with any hard coded absolute list of every can do or every cant do. Hopefully the Gm had provided a few alien race options for them to use as examples in whatever resource of examples he provided *if* its acceptable.


Now, as we have seen on these threads, some might call that some form of "fragile campaign" and go all gagaga over a Gm being so weak in his GM-fu to incorporate such a concept... but of course, its not that... its a choice of tone or style the campaign is preferred for those playing it for this time and place.

With borderline cases decided by discussion, not absolute lines in the sand.

But, if kal-el was provided at the start as an acceptable example of the alien last survivor of... then certainly his cousin kara would be welcome just like all the other Sniptonians.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> No. Not at all.
> 
> I am saying that we have seen plenty of times where in point buy supers **certain types of players** feel entitled to insist they can work around the campaigns established tone and intended style (soft restrictions) by assuming they can invent an alien race with only abilities they want and every ability they want all tied into a nice neat package and wrapped with a bow.



I think they type of campaign you're running plays a role here.  Is this a game with a tight-knit circle of regular players, or one where you're constantly bringing in new players?  I think it obvious a new player brought into a game that's already running has to be the one to bend to the existing vision at the table.  But, if this is a new game with your regular players, then the player bringing in the violating concept might not necessarily be in agreement with the tone the DM thinks has been established.  The DM might need to ask how tightly toned the players actually think the game is.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Not to nit pick but a short rest after every fight isn’t typical.  A short rest after every 2 fights maybe, but doubtful.  My game is a short rest every 4-6 fights.  What you are describing is a nova, just say so.
> 
> I have never seen or been in a game where you can take your warhorse into a dungeon, let alone have it live past the first or second encounter.  Your horse has an average of 19 HP and various things can get you off it so you cant take the damage for it.  I don’t see how it survives the first area attack in good shape at your level (6).  I guess your group fails most group stealth checks no?
> 
> ...




A few things...

obviously campaigns differ. they have different degrees of intensity and attention to detail etc. they have different pacings. So as far as some of those above...

Short rest every fight - i can certainly see a campaign style where short rests or even long rests occur after **nearly** every fight if not all (whether or not that counts as "known" to the PCs or not.) It also depends on how one differentiates a single fight from an extended encounter. A classic cyberpunk style campaign is the "Blue Light Special" where the PCs are emergency rescue teams for eithe rhigh paying clients or part of a government outfit. They get a "code red" from a high price client, jet into the fray, extract their client and get back to base. That sets up the vast majority of their outings as one-and-done. 

In such a campaign there would be obviously some times things get more complicated but for the vast majority of cases where they aren't the Gm would adjust his encounter balance efforts to take into account the "fully loaded - no hold back" aspects. 

*So, every one or every two or every three or two per long rest in a set of 6-8 are all just baselines that provide a consitent benchmark to help with the balancing - not right or wrong or RAW or non-RAW. Campaigns and groups define the game, not the other way around.
*
Mounts, warhorses, pets and other considerations...

Just two sessions ago in the weekly game i play in our group had our horses killed and our wagons stolen when four "gruesomes" (my PCs named for this homebrew monster type of my Gm) rolled into our caravan in thew hills and rolled us up pretty solidly so that we barely made it out with the gear on our backs and most of the PCs. they went for the horses first, since they were big enough to pull the wagons and that kept us from riding any of the wagons away. (For all of 5e's style of not so nitpicky about logistics (see spell component pouch and other examples) they really missed the boat by not including a first level equivalent of a "mount spell" for something as simple as routine travel needs.) 

other campaigns i have seen "we tie the horse up outside the delve" and even days later when we come back out of the dungeon the horses are still there and we can begin the trek thru wandering monsters back to the city.

I once started in a supers campaign where the session started at the "scene of the criris" and (as it was explained to me) "that roleplaying part of *sitting in your secret ID at work and how fast do you get here when the alarm* we skip that now to save time" and that is not so much different from older days when "session starts at dungeon door" was not all that rare a bird. i did not stay with that particular supers campaign after the one session as it wasn't what i was after, but they had a blast and it lasted quite a while if i recall.

mechanically speaking...

lance
pro - 1d12 damage + reach
con - two handed unless nounted, disadvantage within 5' (tyhe most common melee range)

greataxe
pro 1d12 damage
con - heavy and two handed.

scratching my head to see how those are particularly any sort of majorly screwed between each other balance-wise. 

Quick scan of mounted combat - dont see any special "add to lance" rules.

So, those two do not seem to me to be tragically imbalanced with each other. Do not see why a halfling wouldn't have access to a lance that can be used.

So maybe there is a problem with some class features causing whatever imbalance is believed to exist or a feat causing the imbalance but thats a horse of another color.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I think they type of campaign you're running plays a role here.  Is this a game with a tight-knit circle of regular players, or one where you're constantly bringing in new players?  I think it obvious a new player brought into a game that's already running has to be the one to bend to the existing vision at the table.  But, if this is a new game with your regular players, then the player bringing in the violating concept might not necessarily be in agreement with the tone the DM thinks has been established.  The DM might need to ask how tightly toned the players actually think the game is.




parts you snipped out from the post you quoted...

"In the latter campaign, a fire mutant character would likely be told by the Gm and/or other players (depends on review process)..."

and 

"but of course, its not that... its a choice of tone or style the campaign is preferred for those playing it for this time and place."

If from that post you took a "gm chooses style and tone" absolutist position enough to feel suggesting the "GM might need to ask the players..." as opposed to assuming this as a group campaign anyway, then yeah, i rolled a 1 on my communication check.

But again, no matter what each game is at its core an agreement between participants. if i as a player dont agree with how the game is going to be run - i leave if its strong enough an opposition and unwavering. Similarly, if the players decide they want a different game to be run, i as Gm leave i leave if its strong enough an opposition and unwavering.

RPGs are born out of agreement and consent and collaboration.

But the "types" you mention are of course not exclusive. my games i run tend to have a core of older players i have run with for decades but we also try and bring in new players regularly. ideally at least one newcomer per campaign but sometimes more, sometimes less.

But we are not subject to any "store front" or "AL" organized play restriction to allow anyone to walk up and play anything they want and any walk-in sort of thing gets a pre-gen and later we discuss them creating a new character of their own if thats what they want. (That allows one-off guest stars without the hassle of the full session zero type work-in.)


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A few things...
> 
> obviously campaigns differ. they have different degrees of intensity and attention to detail etc. they have different pacings. So as far as some of those above...
> 
> ...




http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=63478


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=63478


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 12, 2018)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...avy-weapon-Ergo-halflings-with-lances-D/page2


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=63478





borrowing a line i heard spoken out loud in a movie theater during the opening weekend airing of Serenity... as the doors opened on River after her "reaver dance"... (Edit that door open scene made no sense but...awesome)

*"Does she have a sister?"
*


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...avy-weapon-Ergo-halflings-with-lances-D/page2




i get you have some sort of dog in the lances halflings fight... thats awesome - go for it...

i dont.

The weapons seem relatively balanced to me in "design" as the slight edge from reach and "if mounted one hand" vs heavy and two handed are going to be really out-impacted by the constant 5' range disadvantage in the vast majority of combats we see. 

if you beef is with the dual wielder feat fix it in your games or avoid games where RAW is fixed and that feat allowed and horses in dungeons is normal.

Games are not white room excel sheets so getting down in the weeds with those rarely accomplishes much more than a quickie diversion while a hurricane creeps slowly forward towards one's house.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 12, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The rules in the PHB do not allow for unilateral altering, though.  They explicitly say otherwise.  Here is a quote from the customization section, "If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."  That means that if you want to do something other than what is spelled out in the PHB as an acceptable alteration, you need DM approval.




I would expand on what [MENTION=6747114]DMDave[/MENTION]1 said above. The passage you quoted refers specifically to working with the DM to create a new _mechanical_ benefit for a custom background. It does not in any way state that you need the DM's permission to alter class fluff to, for example, have a Barbarian PC who aspires for their tribe to join civilization rather than viewing civilization as a form of weakness.

Having the rest of your tribe _agree_ with you that civilization is a good thing would require DM buy-in by default, since the other tribe members are NPCs, but a PC's personal opinion of civilization is normally entirely up to the player. If a specific opinion of civilization would somehow create problems for a specific game, the DM can totally ask the player to change it, but, absent such a request, the player is doing nothing wrong by unilaterally determining their character's opinions.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> I would expand on what @_*DMDave*_1 said above. The passage you quoted refers specifically to working with the DM to create a new _mechanical_ benefit for a custom background. It does not in any way state that you need the DM's permission to alter class fluff to, for example, have a Barbarian PC who aspires for their tribe to join civilization rather than viewing civilization as a form of weakness.
> 
> Having the rest of your tribe _agree_ with you that civilization is a good thing would require DM buy-in by default, since the other tribe members are NPCs, but a PC's personal opinion of civilization is normally entirely up to the player. If a specific opinion of civilization would somehow create problems for a specific game, the DM can totally ask the player to change it, but, absent such a request, the player is doing nothing wrong by unilaterally determining their character's opinions.




of all the fluff texts any part of it that is seen as "determining character opinions" of PCs is to me a case of bad rulebook writing. When dealing with "opinions of the characters" or outlooks or viewpoints IMO they should be stated as "some feel" or "it is common..." and i tend to take it as such when i GM.

like i said - i have no problem with a civilized barbarian and have no issues working out the backstory with the player - even if that working out turns out to be "yeah this is fine".

but lets look at a bit beyond the "opinions of the character."

Consider...
"My sorcerer is actually a studious scholarly type and his sorcerer abilities are not actually derived by drawing on heritage but on a variety of rare incantations and rituals he has learned and performs. So his ancestry fiend armor and so on (all his ancestry features and class abilities ) are not due to a fiendish dalliance but just something he learned to create thru sophisticated magic rituals and specialized mastery."

here, the player generated backstory basically vaporizes the entire fluff for the class and shifts pretty close to that of the wizard. 

if allowed, any "distrust" between wizards or organized magics and "natural casters" would not seem to apply - tho other biases could. if allowed, others might seek him out to get him to show them the rituals etc - whether he can or not. if allowed the player has added to the world that the entire sorcerer fluff can be handwaved away and the entire ancestry bit becomes just "one way to get to those effects" and not something linked to them both ways.

is this also a case of "character picks their fluff" one sees as "automatic player choice"?"
is this unquestionably "player right - gm hands off" when it comes to a character for a campaign?

Even the CHA vs INT can be explained with a bit of "compelling bound spirits" or other type of fluff.

Even an INT 8 can be as well... lots of time spent on researching these kept me from other normal studies.

What if the bookish student studying rituals and dark arts came upon the arts that let him bind into himself special magic macfluffies that allowed him to...

insert fighter class stats.
insert rogue class stats.
insert cleric class stats without divinity needed.
etc etc etc.

Does a Gm have any say whatsoever in this being inserted into his campaign if he has not absolutely and explicitly forbade any way it could be fluffed up beforehand in some mega-tome of nots?


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Consider...
> "My sorcerer is actually a studious scholarly type and his sorcerer abilities are not actually derived by drawing on heritage but on a variety of rare incantations and rituals he has learned and performs. So his ancestry fiend armor and so on (all his ancestry features and class abilities ) are not due to a fiendish dalliance but just something he learned to create thru sophisticated magic rituals and specialized mastery."
> 
> here, the player generated backstory basically vaporizes the entire fluff for the class and shifts pretty close to that of the wizard.
> ...



Seems like an awesome amount of flavor for a player to add, this is the sort of concept you can build a setting around.



5ekyu said:


> is this also a case of "character picks their fluff" one sees as "automatic player choice"?"
> is this unquestionably "player right - gm hands off" when it comes to a character for a campaign?



Nothing is unquestionable, but this would certainly fall into the "DM would need a very specific reason to say no" category.  



5ekyu said:


> Even the CHA vs INT can be explained with a bit of "compelling bound spirits" or other type of fluff.
> 
> Even an INT 8 can be as well... lots of time spent on researching these kept me from other normal studies.



An excellent interpretation, and exactly the kind of thing I appreciate a player thinking of.



5ekyu said:


> What if the bookish student studying rituals and dark arts came upon the arts that let him bind into himself special magic macfluffies that allowed him to...
> 
> insert fighter class stats.
> insert rogue class stats.
> ...



The great part of magic Macguffins is that they can justify darn near anything.  Just an example, what is Buffy the Vampire Slayer but a fighter with a magical backstory?



5ekyu said:


> Does a Gm have any say whatsoever in this being inserted into his campaign if he has not absolutely and explicitly forbade any way it could be fluffed up beforehand in some mega-tome of nots?



The GM always has a say.  But unless this is being inserted into an running game with already established narrative that this concept would contradict, the DM does her game and her players little good by saying no.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> of all the fluff texts any part of it that is seen as "determining character opinions" of PCs is to me a case of bad rulebook writing. When dealing with "opinions of the characters" or outlooks or viewpoints IMO they should be stated as "some feel" or "it is common..." and i tend to take it as such when i GM.
> 
> like i said - i have no problem with a civilized barbarian and have no issues working out the backstory with the player - even if that working out turns out to be "yeah this is fine".
> 
> ...




I think there is a false dichotomy here.  The idea PC snowflake creates a blizzard in the world does not necessarily follow.

I like the idea of warlocks learning from a teacher and not being "granted" spells per se.  Looking through tomes and learning how to bargain with an entity sounds cool to me.  Being unskilled and POOF! instant magic power because I repeated Dispater three times in a row does not seem cool.  The power is the same, but the story does not sound fun.

Maybe the DM has most of his warlocks being granted spells.  

How does my backstory change all of that?  My character is a little different but the DM can run the hundreds or thousands of gifted NPCs as he chooses.  His societal institutions and people's assumptions may be in line with the PHB fluff.  If my PC does not fit the mold he does not necessarily break it...or the DMs world.

If a DM must have this level of control---to the point of not allowing unusual self generated fluff---I would not want to play.  There are so many work arounds that eventually become work-togethers.  I have a monotheistic continent.  Two players want to worship Norse Gods.  Cool.  You are strangers in a strange land.  Have at it.

Meanwhile, I run the world as I see fit and NPCs follow the power I have designed.  The PCs might seem looney to some or as heretics by others, but my world, as I designed it, is intact.

Would we have fun if I insisted that the characters conform to my world?  It is so easy to make exceptions and does not break anything.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Seems like an awesome amount of flavor for a player to add, this is the sort of concept you can build a setting around.
> 
> 
> Nothing is unquestionable, but this would certainly fall into the "DM would need a very specific reason to say no" category.
> ...




I agree with about 95%+ of what you say here.  Like i have said, i have no problem with the civie barbarian or even the wolfy sex tricks as the starting point of a discussion about how things tie together and fit or dont fit the campaign.

My general mindset is "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no."

Buffy is absolutely a fighter or monk more precisely archetype with supernatural origin - even to the bound spirits angle.

a GM should strongly consider allowing it if it fits within the scope of the campaign he and the players have devised. IMO. i would certainly do so.

But this should not be brought to the table as a player's right" to add and GM hands off territory. IMO.

because the Gm might well have a very compelling reason to say no.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I agree with about 95%+ of what you say here.  Like i have said, i have no problem with the civie barbarian or even the wolfy sex tricks as the starting point of a discussion about how things tie together and fit or dont fit the campaign.
> 
> My general mindset is "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no."
> 
> ...



So, like, I'm pretty sure [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] could chime in and say "that's what I've been saying from the start!"


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A few things...
> 
> obviously campaigns differ. they have different degrees of intensity and attention to detail etc. they have different pacings. So as far as some of those above...
> 
> ...




Mechanically speaking you left out very important mechanics, rules about dueling ability, weapon properties, creature size, and interaction of all those.  Plus the comparison should be between a Lance and a Pike, the closest comparison.

Lance - IMO the two handed  property was not added to allow the classic jousting scenario with a shield.  Clearly the lance requires 2 hands to use unless you have some other assistance, this is reflected in being mounted.  

Since this was not added small creatures can use it use it one handed.

Since anyone can use it one handed you can use dueling.  Dueling was added to some martial classes to reflect their greater skill in using smaller weapons, this evens out the damage trade vs a larger weapon for those classes.  I don’t think it was intended for the Pike, the lances closest relative, see rules, and thus not a pike used mounted.

The dual wielder feat was intended to use 2 full size weapons at once, not 2 lances from a mount.  I don’t KNOW this but I suspect that was the case.

I get that it is RAW, but this isn’t a balance issue, it’s an absurdly issue.  It’s a fantasy game, but I don’t think I know a DM that would allow a halfling on Golden retriever with 2 lances attacking with each and then get a bonus action attack again.

Or another way, how would players react if a goblin rode up on a wolf and attacked 3 times with a lance.  “Wait a minute here!”  Would be the mildest response.

But if your DM does a small Paladin on his mount should always use 2 full size lances and dual wielder feat combined with 2 weapon fighting and then just switch to two small weapons if need be.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I think there is a false dichotomy here.  The idea PC snowflake creates a blizzard in the world does not necessarily follow.
> 
> I like the idea of warlocks learning from a teacher and not being "granted" spells per se.  Looking through tomes and learning how to bargain with an entity sounds cool to me.  Being unskilled and POOF! instant magic power because I repeated Dispater three times in a row does not seem cool.  The power is the same, but the story does not sound fun.
> 
> ...




Honestly, i cannot suss out what you mean by the difference ebetween warlocks bargaining with entities and repeating dispater three times and how you find the former cool but the Gm wants warlock to have granted spells etc. it seems liike maybe you are mixing and matching wizard and warlock and i got lost.

So i will approach this from the more common warlock player-agency vs setting POV.

Case -1 - The warlock gets his powers from/thru a patron and the bond and relationship and bargain between them is a pivotal aspect of the character. this is an ongoing relationship - and as varied as relationships can be. Some are very friendly and amicable as they work towards common goals for common purpose. others not so much. Some are more parent-child or friends others may be more master and pawn. Lost of places in between. This is a thing the Gm and player should spend enough time on to work out those details.

Case -2 : as a player i decide its a commission basis and my patron now has no say or influence except to offer up powers when i want whether i do what it likes or not.

this tends to hit the nail when the question of "can the patron at all do anything regarding the PCs powers" like say stop an invocation from working or not allow spells to recover etc? 

Note the same question can be applied to clerics and their gods... since much the same language is used for both them and the patron warlock and neither explicitly states any ability the patron or deity has to do anything in RAW.

In my games the most common answer would be that this is something we work out as player and Gm but for most of these the answer would be that the patron/diety does have capabilities to affect the subject who it has partnered with on the powers level. it also has certainly got the ability to refuse to allow the character to gain more power from the relationship.

otherwise, it seems its less a relationship, less a character-character thing and more just a prop or pet the player controls.

that guts the nature of the patron-relationships.

Why in the world would all those other warlocks be so dumbfoundingly stupid as to make concessions, give and take, negotiate do services for and so on when they could have just found a nice pet patron to give them what they want for no price and no consequences?

Why are there any contentious bargains between patron and pawns when the pawn could just have chosen the much easier "i am in charge" route to get the exact same powers?

Were all those NPCs in the world who did that just dumb?

Yes, as a Gm i could say "yeah, yours is however you want" and then run the rest of the world by different rules.... but that really makes the rest of the world look pretty dumb if the payoff is the same but the price a lot higher.

So, in my worlds - in general - if you want the warlock patron pact to be a very favorable and friendly thing - its in your best interest to keep that relationship on very very good terms and be a good friend or whatever to your patron so you both get along.

if you are Ok with it being different and there being bumps and fits and starts, thats fine too. occasionally the patron will issue requests and favors and so on and things will play from there as we work that out as we came to agreement on.

but don't expect to be basically "the boss of that patron" and ignore it and do whatever you want and not have it have an impact on that relationship.

In my games at least.

of course, that patron can be a book, but it will be a book with attitude.


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I agree with about 95%+ of what you say here.  Like i have said, i have no problem with the civie barbarian or even the wolfy sex tricks as the starting point of a discussion about how things tie together and fit or dont fit the campaign.
> 
> My general mindset is "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no."
> 
> ...



Well stated. Player proposes, gm thinks about it , and then approves, rejects, or proposes something that is "adjusted" to fix the lore problem.

Even something very common might clash against the GM's world. 

PC "so I'm a barbarian with a battle axe and an iron helm"

GM: "sorry, it's the bronze age"


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 12, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Honestly, i cannot suss out what you mean by the difference ebetween warlocks bargaining with entities and repeating dispater three times and how you find the former cool but the Gm wants warlock to have granted spells etc. it seems liike maybe you are mixing and matching wizard and warlock and i got lost.
> 
> So i will approach this from the more common warlock player-agency vs setting POV.
> 
> ...





OK.  I have thought of a very succinct way to express the thought.  This is merely an example.

What if a particular Warlock essentially gets power from study with the help of a mentor?  What if the Warlock still learns and grows in power even if he disobeys his mentor?

I am arguing that:

1.  All of the warlocks in your world could be stricken powerless for this even if the PC is not

2.  If a player has an idea that breaks your typical world assumptions, it does not tear down your world, make it common or destroy anything

Allowing snowflake fluff does no harm on a grand scale.  An exception is just that.  Every other warlock may function just as you believe they function even if the PC does not.  

Second example:

1.  All clerics follow a deity and belong to a church in a game world...except the PC.  The PC follows a philosophy and does not belong to a hierarchy.  (That seems to break from PHB fluff).

Even if this cleric deviates from the typical, your world can still be entirely populated by normal clerics, church hierarchies and deity lovers!  The character does not have to alter anything other than his character's story.  Other NPCs would not whine about clerical powers being attached to Gods because they would be devoted, not understand what is going on with the PC.  The world would operate as you designed with...an exception.  It could even be the only one to exist.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Mechanically speaking you left out very important mechanics, rules about dueling ability, weapon properties, creature size, and interaction of all those.  Plus the comparison should be between a Lance and a Pike, the closest comparison.
> 
> Lance - IMO the two handed  property was not added to allow the classic jousting scenario with a shield.  Clearly the lance requires 2 hands to use unless you have some other assistance, this is reflected in being mounted.
> 
> ...





Ok so, i listed the weapon properties in the pro and con - some not by name but by effect because saying "special" did not seem to be very informative.

Second, you do not get to pick which and only which weapons get to be compared. i chose two for their melee strength and sane damage dice to avoid having to try and assess the value of pike d10 vs lance d12.

But if you want to add it to the mix fine

_lance_
_pro - 1d12 damage + reach_
_con - two handed unless nounted, disadvantage within 5' (tyhe most common melee range)_

_greataxe_
_pro 1d12 damage_
_con - heavy and two handed._

pIKE
PRO  REACH
CON d10 HEAVY TWO HANDED

Lets assume pike is the norm - the baseline.

Great-axe adds extra damage and removes reach. A gain and a drop. Are they equal? Varies by campaign.

lance added extra damage, changed the disadvantage penalty feature (heavy) from "for small creatures only" to "for everybody at 5' range only" and reduced the two-handed to "mounted only." So, ups and downs and mixed bag of nuts to be sure but the  "mounted only 1 handed" thing definitely carries some heavy baggage - that whole horse or other mount type thing. 

So, again, not seeing the built-in weapon imbalance there. 

Now, i can only guess that by "dueling ability" you may mean the Dual Wielder feat and not the Dueling fighting style or some other "ability" you may be thinking of... like maybe a sub-class ability? i do not know.

But regardless of what you were referring to - if it is a feat or a class feature then the issue is not with the lance at all but with whatever class feature changes that lance.

Its like when people want to yell and fuss about how powerful eldritch blast is and compare it to other cantrips... but want to include three or four invocations and warlock hexes into the mix *for one side* and not take into account other class anf feats when comparing.

For example, after you make sure and claim what all i left out...

lance and dual wielder feat...

compare to greataxe and great weapon master feat for the 5/10 and bonus action "cleave" thingy
compare to pike (or others) with pole arm master for the bonus attack and Ao on entry.

I do not see this as screaming OMG the lance is broken to me when it gets the feat in play.

As for what you feel, what you prefer, what you divine as the reason behind the shadow of the intent of the dream of what someone else thought lance properties were to represent... thats between you and your mirror.

as others have pointed out, martial skill could be defined and depicted as every bit a magical effect as anything else can. So maybe its the bound macguffins holding up the lances for the paladin.

they style of a campaign is determined at the table and very fantastic style and tone games might well be just fine with the war dog mounted pally halfling with his lances.

you want a little more down to earth campaign, great! All power to you. Simply try and put in place rules you all agree on to reflect that and ways to discuss out the edge cases that go beyond RAW and printed rules.

neither is right or wrong.

neither deserves scorn.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 12, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!
> 
> DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...
> 
> ...



Something something awesome space-gnome werepaladin lovechild.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> But it doesn't. It never will. ALL players are expected to come up with their own backstory, even if it's as cursory as "I'm a dwarf. Here's my axe". The examples are just to help get the creative juices flowing. The book is also formatted in such a way that players who have never played an RPG before can read the book and understand what's going on, and the examples help explain it.
> 
> But the examples are. Not. Rules.



For the backgrounds, sure. The backgrounds are intended to be examples. And if you want to find a single rule in the PHB that lets a player unilaterally change whatever fluff they want, then the backgrounds are where you should be looking, because it's entirely expected that the players will do so. We know that, because it says so.

Not the classes, though. (Or races, for that matter.) There's nothing anywhere which suggests that a barbarian could ever possibly be something that doesn't fit the general description presented in the class section. If your idea for the origin of your barbarian-class powers is that you aren't actually a barbarian as the book describes one - or as the DM describes one, if they use their DM powers delineated in the DMG to change such things - then you're not following how the game is played, and you need to consult with the DM to see if they can use their DM powers to change the rules on your behalf.

The fluff of a class is no less a rule than the mechanics. It's just a difference between a qualitative rule and a quantitative one. And of course, the DM is free to change any rule that they feel like, on their own behalf or at the request of a player. Players do not have that agency on their own, though.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> OK.  I have thought of a very succinct way to express the thought.  This is merely an example.
> 
> What if a particular Warlock essentially gets power from study with the help of a mentor?  What if the Warlock still learns and grows in power even if he disobeys his mentor?
> 
> ...





The answer to the "what if..." is simply put "agreeing to this means also saying that the other warlock in this world who made a deal that risks interference from their mentor are dumber than the PC because they chose a route to the same power that saddles them with a burden of cooperation and risk of loss."

Why wouldn't as soon as this option exists every other warlock and furture warlock want to find that better deal too? 
Why wouldn't every other patron want to snuff this out because they risk losing their own pawns/allies/partners?

if i set up shop outside a McDonalds and start giving away just as good burgers and shakes and fries and everything else on the menu for free - wouldn't McDonalds start to do something about it since i am effectively going to shut them down.

By removing the "patron plays a role" aspect... effectively moving it entirely out of play - you are creating a character with the same powers and none of the obligations. 

That paints the rest of the world of warlocks and patrons in a whole new light.

There is no solid answer to "why did all these guys ALL choose the lesser option that gets them no more power but instead gets them obligations and services to perform"?

While the run-to-example- for new-fangled-player-agency types is the straight to powerless, bad GM extreme - there is a lot of room between "no patron really in play" and "you did not obey powerless" and that is where Gm discussion with player about patron and relationship come into play.

let me be clear...

As far as i am concerned... player and Gm discuss warolock-patron, cleric-diety, barbarian-civilized, etc and the result is:
Mutual agreement and the character is played - success.
Mutual negotiation and something similar is played they are both happy with the compromises to either the character, the world or both- success
Disagreement and the player chooses to not play that character class but plays another - success
Disagreement and the player decides this game is not for him and leaves, never playing - success
Some other result that leads to disagreement on this matter during play - failure.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> For the backgrounds, sure. The backgrounds are intended to be examples. And if you want to find a single rule in the PHB that lets a player unilaterally change whatever fluff they want, then the backgrounds are where you should be looking, because it's entirely expected that the players will do so. We know that, because it says so.
> 
> Not the classes, though. (Or races, for that matter.) There's nothing anywhere which suggests that a barbarian could ever possibly be something that doesn't fit the general description presented in the class section. If your idea for the origin of your barbarian-class powers is that you aren't actually a barbarian as the book describes one - or as the DM describes one, if they use their DM powers delineated in the DMG to change such things - then you're not following how the game is played, and you need to consult with the DM to see if they can use their DM powers to change the rules on your behalf.
> 
> The fluff of a class is no less a rule than the mechanics. It's just a difference between a qualitative rule and a quantitative one. And of course, the DM is free to change any rule that they feel like, on their own behalf or at the request of a player. Players do not have that agency on their own, though.




I believe the DM has the power to disallow any fluff changes made by a player.  But then I question why they would necessarily want to do that.  I argue that if it is about the PC, it really cannot alter the world much if the PC is an exception and if the DM desires, the only exception.

It is really a taste thing.  Much of the fluff in the PHB is not as clear cut as some would assume.  Read the warlock text for example and count the contradictions.  Uncaring power, micomanaging power, power uninterested in patron, willing contract, contract done unwillingly, tricked into contract, learn and grow in power, power granted....

the list goes on.  There is a lot of room to play here.  What is the hexblade patron, really?  I say it is a connection to the power of death for my PC...another says it is Raven Queen or a weapon that might be made by her etc etc etc

If I am DM, I don't feel a need to prescribe the specifics for a specific PC.  I can, but why?  How would this enhance their fun?  How would it enhance mine?


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!
> 
> DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...
> 
> ...




While amusing that is mind of where i fall on some of this solid line of demarcation that the DM cannot have a say in stuff.

if i am a Dm tell a player they cannot play ABCD in the game - that player has the right to just say "great. thanks. bye."

But if as a a Gm when i lay out some basic set of guidelines for what characters can be - something short of a list of everything that can be imagined - if the player then claims the absolute right to invent background "fluff" for their character and i am not allowed to cross that line at all to say "no" then where is my "walk away" option? 

Do i now have to drop the entire campaign and go home and sit alone?
Do i now have to play the game Gm it even though its not something i want to run?
Do i have the right to tell the player "yeah thats legal here but you cannot play it at all so leave" but not to instead say "how about we change this..."

The player never has an absolute line drawn forcing them to play something they do not like. 

but it seems that if the player insists they be allowed to have stuff that is "off limits" at character creation then the Gm seems to be lacking that same option to refuse. 

One side with unilateral say-so does not a collaborative event make. The Gms power is given by the players. It exists only as long as they allow it. Some player seem to want more power than that the right to not only create but require (not ask) others to consent to it.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 12, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!
> 
> DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...
> 
> ...



I would say you're trying to make a point here; fortunately, I've seen enough of your posts to know better.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 12, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> If a DM must have this level of control---to the point of not allowing unusual self generated fluff---I would not want to play. .




Then, you have not bought into the campaign and setting that the DM is running and should not play.  The GMs and players whom I have known over the year would wish you well and let you go on your way.  The GMs would listen to you and might accept it  depending upon the fluff in question. They might recommend some changes or alternatives to conform to the campaign world and system. Then again, they might outright refuse (with or without an explanation that you might consider valid (including that they just did not care to include the idea in the campaign).  However, if they decided no,  that would be the end of the discussion and the players would back the GM, because the GM is viewed in charge of the campaign and setting (edit: and, even in 5e, it is stated in the Basic Set that the GM is the "ultimate" authority "on the campaign and its setting"). 

Now, depending on the system, the player's request may receive better acceptance (e.g. Fate), but the GM still has he ability to override an element introduced by the player.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 12, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!
> 
> DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...
> 
> ...




Just curious, but why is bad behavior trotted out so often to try to make a point?  That player is a jerk, and booting them isn't about rules or fluff or crunch or backstory; It's about not playing with people that are bad actors.  You didn't prove anything with this other than someone can use a similar set of words while acting badly.  If I'm trying to consider the merits of your argument here, I stop at 'I wouldn't play which that person' and I don't even reach whatever you're trying to say.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 12, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!
> 
> DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...
> 
> ...




Honestly I could deal with that. There are plenty of alien elements in the game (any of the illithids mythology) and plenty of lycanthropy tropes in the game. Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?

I mean Jim Butcher was able to turn a bet about combining the Lost Roman Legion and Pokémon into a best selling fantasy series. You can handle aliens and werewolves in D&D.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?




How about that it introduces elements and flavor into the *campaign and setting* that the DM does not want. Just because the game rules or specific settings include something does not mean that they are included in an individual setting created by the DM which is even stated in the Basic set under Worlds of Adventure. It is even stated that the DM is not required to include specific elements of a published setting. However, even if something such as illithid are included, the DM can always change their mythology for his or her campaign.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I believe the DM has the power to disallow any fluff changes made by a player.  But then I question why they would necessarily want to do that.  I argue that if it is about the PC, it really cannot alter the world much if the PC is an exception and if the DM desires, the only exception.
> 
> It is really a taste thing.  Much of the fluff in the PHB is not as clear cut as some would assume.  Read the warlock text for example and count the contradictions.  Uncaring power, micomanaging power, power uninterested in patron, willing contract, contract done unwillingly, tricked into contract, learn and grow in power, power granted....
> 
> ...




"my character is a cleric class character.
he once ate a magic carrot that gives him all the cleric stuff and no diety or church or code of conduct or gaols involved so i can do anything i want and no tithes no nothing.
You must include this in your world because it is fluff and nothing says i can't."

That changes the world.

It adds to the world another option that makes the entire set of cleric-divine choices seem quite a bit "questionable" and "dubious."

Same with "patrons as pets or slaves or powers-r-us vending machines"

For "following divine credo and advancing the wishes of my god grants me these favors" to make sense getting those favirs and powers for none of that cannot be the case. 

if someone sells 10,000 sq foot homes built wherever you want to for same quality and time - but at no cost - then the bulk of the world buying the same for "50k" has to be seen in the world as stupid or odd or at best antiquated and on the way out.

The character is not in a white room vacuum packed but the character and those forces interacting with him are part of the world and whether that world is created by the GM or by a collaboration they benefit from making sense together - to whatever degree the players care.

To insist to me that your background and backstory and fluff doesn't have to have any tie-in or any effect on the world is definitely telling me "it should not have any imapct on the world" (so it wont figure into any storyline aspects presented and close to "my character shouldn't have any impact either" (since your character is a direct product of that backstory and fluff which you insist doesn't have to change anything.)

I do not normally seek players who want that much "meaninglessness" for their characters.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Honestly I could deal with that. There are plenty of alien elements in the game (any of the illithids mythology) and plenty of lycanthropy tropes in the game. Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?
> 
> I mean Jim Butcher was able to turn a bet about combining the Lost Roman Legion and Pokémon into a best selling fantasy series. You can handle aliens and werewolves in D&D.




Why do folks keep coming back to whether or not a Gm or group of players "can handle" it or "are you a good Gm"?

its back to the fragile slur and such.

"If you dont let me, you must be weak-sauce as GM"

not convincing from a 3 year old and my game has a higher age limit than that.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 12, 2018)

Greg K said:


> How about that it introduces elements and flavor into the *campaign and setting* that the DM does not want. Just because the game rules or specific settings include something does not mean that they are included in an individual setting created by the DM. Even if something such as illithid are included, the DM can always change their mythology for his or her campaign.




And I say use it as an opportunity to say "Challenge Accepted!" I doubt it's an issue of "doesn't want" as opposed to "hadn't considered".  Tell me a campaign that is unable to deal with the concepts of an otherworldly being and a shape-changing being, which is all we're really talking about here. It's D&D - the campaign should be able to deal with those concepts without some massive break or juggling of core concepts. Use it as an opportunity to be creative.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Why do folks keep coming back to whether or not a Gm or group of players "can handle" it or "are you a good Gm"?
> 
> its back to the fragile slur and such.
> 
> ...




You can choose take offense while not answering the core question of my post all you want. But it's still there waiting for you to answer it.  I am not saying you "have" to do anything and I am not in any way being negative. If you really don't want to do something, then don't do it. But, I am encouraging you and others to try. You're a good enough DM to not only make any concept "work" in your setting, but to make it thrive and likely better your setting for pushing you to imagine something different you had never considered before. You can do it! Why is my saying "you can handle whatever background your players throw at you and be awesome," a bad thing?

I mean hey, if a player throws you a serious curve ball and you don't have a quick answer for how that could work in your setting, that's perfectly understandable. We all run into challenges like that sometimes. So, my advice is just tell the player you will think about it, and then work on it for a while. And if you're really stuck, just post about it here and see what others think about how to make that concept work. I bet someone will have an imaginative inspiration that will spark your imagination as well, and find a great way to fit it in your setting.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> It is not part of this ruleset that ANY and EVERY creature that, conceptually, has a higher AC through the concept of a tough hide MUST realise that concept with *exactly* +1 to AC, just like leather armour!



No, but it _is_ established through precedent that wolf-like hide gives a +1 to AC. When the DM is later evaluating a creature, and trying to determine what its AC should be, this is a valuable data point. If a beast has hide which conceptually like a wolf, then that's +1. If it's conceptually like an elephant, then that's worth +3. Every single creature in the book sets precedent for the language by which mechanics and fluff are inter-related.


Arial Black said:


> Really? If I statted up a werecreature with +2 rather than +1 of its AC coming from its tough hide, then I wouldn't be playing D&D 5e anymore?
> [...]
> Let's say we have a perfectly RAW D&D 5e PC. If we gave ten game designers a pure fluff description of what our PC can do, no game mechanics or class names mentioned, and then asked each game designer to invent 5e game mechanics to match that description, then they would produce ten different sets of game mechanics. They would not magically produce One True Way ten sets of identical mechanics!



Now you're getting it! There is no One True Way that every game setting has to work by. Some settings will have werewolves with a thick hide that gives them +4 AC, and others will have all of their durability tied up into their magical Damage Immunity power. The DM (or setting designer) is free to modify the rules in order to better fit their own specific ideas about how the world should work.

The setting where werewolves have +1 AC from their hide, and immunity to most weapons, is a default world that sets up the specific way in which D&D 5E correlates the werewolf-level of durability into game mechanics. That is the official D&D translation of what their default werewolf looks like. Any given DM is free to give them +4 AC instead, but if they want to use the language precedent for how D&D is supposed to describe such things, then they also need to change the narrative in order to reflect the change in the mechanics.


Arial Black said:


> Going back to the 'lines of demarcation' (yes, we all acknowledge that the game is all about cooperation! We don't disagree on that!), while the DM can always say 'no' to ANY part of any PC, the player can always say 'no' to playing a concept, class, mechanic or fluff that they feel has been changed too far from what they want to play.
> 
> If they cannot agree, then there is no game! Both player and DM know that, hence the cooperation.
> 
> I've already said that the DM can refuse some element of a player's fluff, and that the DM should have a rational reason for doing so.



I'm glad we're in agreement.


Arial Black said:


> Have you _really_ already established that in your game world the fiend has x, y and z powers but definitely cannot mess with conception....*before* I told you my fluff? Really? Or did you decide, _after_ I told you the fluff, that one thing the fiend cannot do is mess with conception, just so you feel you have justification for saying 'no', when you could more easily have just gone with it?
> 
> No, what you did was invent a reason to be unhappy about it.



That is an unfair assumption on your part. Whenever an uncertainty comes into question, the role of the DM is to be impartial - to try and discern the truth of the world, given what they already know about other truths. Whether this sort of thing could happen in a given world is going to be a judgment call from the DM, and they owe it to everyone there to give it fair consideration. It might be easier to just go with it, but it's doing a disservice to the players, by biasing their judgment based on what they want to happen. If the DM just ruled whichever way would make things easier for them, every time, then there would be no point in playing the game.



Arial Black said:


> Even in games where players use DM created pre-gens, in my experience the players are _encouraged_ to customise said pre-gens.



In my experience, pre-gens are mostly used in one-shot games where the DM isn't significantly invested in world creation.


Arial Black said:


> I simply don't recognise our hobby in terms that players aren't allowed to create their own PC's backstory!



And I don't recognize our hobby in terms that a player can unilaterally impose anything upon the GM. If you want to do something weird with your character - such as any concept which isn't even mentioned as a possibility within the book - then you should consult the GM first, and don't be surprised if they say no. Showing up with the expectation that anything you think of will automatically be accepted is a degree of entitlement which ruins the hobby for the GMs.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> But if as a a Gm when i lay out some basic set of guidelines for what characters can be - something short of a list of everything that can be imagined - if the player then claims the absolute right to invent background "fluff" for their character and i am not allowed to cross that line at all to say "no" then where is my "walk away" option?
> 
> Do i now have to drop the entire campaign and go home and sit alone?
> Do i now have to play the game Gm it even though its not something i want to run?
> Do i have the right to tell the player "yeah thats legal here but you cannot play it at all so leave" but not to instead say "how about we change this..."



I don't tend to think of it in terms of whether the DM has the "right", it's simply a question of what practice is better for your game as a whole.  If a player comes up with some concept that you just completely cannot be OK with, than sure, you have a right to say "I'm sorry, but I just can't run a game with that character.  Let's see if we can come up with something else."

The single best rule for facilitating a good game, whether player or DM, is to put your ego aside and play what's going to work best for the group.  If your group lacks a healer, play a healer.  If your DM adds a bunch of races and classes to his homebrew setting, play one of those, because they obviously mean something.  If everyone else is on board with a Dark Sun game, maybe it's not the time to play your gnome wizard.  If 3 of your players want to play gnomes, though, maybe it's not the time to run a Dark Sun game.  

If being denied your cyber-ninja character in a D&D game makes you pout, learn to be a more flexible player.  If the existence of a civilized wolfblooded barbarian makes you pout, learn to be a more flexible DM.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "my character is a cleric class character.
> he once ate a magic carrot that gives him all the cleric stuff and no diety or church or code of conduct or gaols involved so i can do anything i want and no tithes no nothing.
> You must include this in your world because it is fluff and nothing says i can't."
> 
> ...




Clearly this is absurd and a false comparison.  And dollar to doughnuts, you probably are aware of this.

I use training for power more often to get power than some fellows is not a magic carrot by any stretch.  If you see it as equivalent I am not sure what to say.  Its no longer a reasonable debate on any level.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> You can choose take offense while not answering the core question of my post all you want. But it's still there waiting for you to answer it.  I am not saying you "have" to do anything and I am not in any way being negative. If you really don't want to do something, then don't do it. But, I am encouraging you and others to try. You're a good enough DM to not only make any concept "work" in your setting, but to make it thrive and likely better your setting for pushing you to imagine something different you had never considered before. You can do it! Why is my saying "you can handle whatever background your players throw at you and be awesome," a bad thing?




"_Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?"

_Nobody is saying a good Gm couldn't. 
Nobody at all.
At least, nobody i have seen here on this thread.

The implied "if you say no your not a good GM" is just a slant at dismissing the other side.

As i and quite a few others have said already in this thread time and time again, we say yes a lot, we allow these things a lot, we allow lots and lots and lots of new backstories and new clever player stuff all the time.

We really, if you read even a decent number of posts really do not need you to encourage us to try what we have already been doing for years, and in some cases, decades.

A core issue at discussion here is "does a Gm have to" and there doesn't really seem to be any disagreement on "can a gm include these kinds of things" at all - except when it gets paired with "good gm" or "campaign so fragile" and so on.

Gms can allow lots of backstory and fluf and based on what i have read here most if not all of the GMs objecting to some of the "hands off must allow" examples do allow and include them a lot. 

So, my deepest appreciation for you encouraging me to just try... to maybe say yes unless i have a compelling reason to say no - even though i have stated it over and over thru the thread and of course its not at all condescending of you to phrase it this way with "good gm" thrown in for good measure.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> *I don't tend to think of it in terms of whether the DM has the "right", it's simply a question of what practice is better for your game as a whole.  If a player comes up with some concept that you just completely cannot be OK with, than sure, you have a right to say "I'm sorry, but I just can't run a game with that character.  Let's see if we can come up with something else."*
> 
> The single best rule for facilitating a good game, whether player or DM, is to put your ego aside and play what's going to work best for the group.  If your group lacks a healer, play a healer.  If your DM adds a bunch of races and classes to his homebrew setting, play one of those, because they obviously mean something.  If everyone else is on board with a Dark Sun game, maybe it's not the time to play your gnome wizard.  If 3 of your players want to play gnomes, though, maybe it's not the time to run a Dark Sun game.
> 
> If being denied your cyber-ninja character in a D&D game makes you pout, learn to be a more flexible player.  If the existence of a civilized wolfblooded barbarian makes you pout, learn to be a more flexible DM.




RE the bold - pretty much what i have been saying thru the thread - and what i have been doing for much longer

as for the rest - i tend to let folks work out for their table the balance between player vs group dynamics. No "best way" for me to tell others they should be doing. part of that likely stems from having played a number of very different games with radically different expectations towards "team play". 

Few of my VtM games (Gm or player) had anything like a "team building cover the roles" outlook to it and for entire sessions the PCs may not even see each other. 

meanwhile, few of my DnD games came close to the "team build focus" thresholds that some of my cyberpunk (Blue Light teams) or even super-teams did.

heck, some games i ran had an actual in character interview and try-out and if your character did not meet the expectations of the "patron" you did not get to play that character. if there was only room for one pilot and two showed up... only one got the pilot slot.

Amber games had very different team vs me dynamics at play.

So, that whole "whats best for the group character selection always seemed to me to be rather fluid and depends on the campaign, the setting and the group.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 12, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So, that whole "whats best for the group character selection always seemed to me to be rather fluid and depends on the campaign, the setting and the group.



Sure.  I would say fluidity is the key; don't walk into Session Zero (whether that be at the table, or by email, or however else you organize your games) with a particular vision or idea of what your character or the game should be.  Walk in with 10 ideas, and hopefully you leave with 10 new ideas and ways to make a concept you like that will facilitate the play style of the game.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Clearly this is absurd and a false comparison.  And dollar to doughnuts, you probably are aware of this.
> 
> I use training for power more often to get power than some fellows is not a magic carrot by any stretch.  If you see it as equivalent I am not sure what to say.  Its no longer a reasonable debate on any level.




I did not state it was an equivalent to your training whatsamagoo. 

it is simply not true that PC fluff doesn't call into question the rest of the world. A group can choose t ignore it... can ignore whatever amount of continuity they want. it can be done... nobody objects to that... but the strong smear being put forth of "but why would you..." kind of stuff begs the question.

let me put it another way - if something happened that only ever and can play ever happen to your PC and nobody else ever can have it happen again - then by DEFINITION you are building a PC that does not fit the setting. bringing in a character which does not fit the setting should be something a player and Gm can discuss without the Gm being thrown under the "if you dont let me you arent a good gm" bus or demanded to go thru a lot of hoops to explain why in the world his world is so fragile and all that jazz. 

"this character does not fit the setting by your own statement of its completely unique nature." should be sufficient.




the post i made and the carrot was simply a direct example case to rebut this statement made below... 

"_But then I question why they would necessarily want to do that. I argue that if it is about the PC, it really cannot alter the world much if the PC is an exception and if the DM desires, the only exception."

_


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 12, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Clearly this is absurd and a false comparison.  And dollar to doughnuts, you probably are aware of this.
> 
> I use training for power more often to get power than some fellows is not a magic carrot by any stretch.  If you see it as equivalent I am not sure what to say.  Its no longer a reasonable debate on any level.



It's an argument to absurdity, sure, but the underlying point is valid. If some warlocks or clerics can do whatever they want without risk of losing their powers, but other warlocks and clerics have to follow lots of rules and restrictions in order to keep their powers, then anyone in the latter camp is kind of a chump by comparison.

I'm not saying that a player can't have a reasonable interpretation of what a class description is saying, and have it vary in significant ways from the reasonable interpretation that their DM has; but there are limits on what can be reconciled, even if everyone is acting in good faith. And that limit is going to vary from person to person, but ultimately it's the DM's call as to whether it makes sense for that to be a thing in their world or not.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> It's an argument to absurdity, sure, but the underlying point is valid. If some warlocks or clerics can do whatever they want without risk of losing their powers, but other warlocks and clerics have to follow lots of rules and restrictions in order to keep their powers, then anyone in the latter camp is kind of a chump by comparison.
> 
> I'm not saying that a player can't have a reasonable interpretation of what a class description is saying, and have it vary in significant ways from the reasonable interpretation that their DM has; but there are limits on what can be reconciled, even if everyone is acting in good faith. And that limit is going to vary from person to person, but ultimately it's the DM's call as to whether it makes sense for that to be a thing in their world or not.




yup

and they do say carrots can help you see more clearly.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> It's an argument to absurdity, sure, but the underlying point is valid. If some warlocks or clerics can do whatever they want without risk of losing their powers, but other warlocks and clerics have to follow lots of rules and restrictions in order to keep their powers, then anyone in the latter camp is kind of a chump by comparison.
> 
> I'm not saying that a player can't have a reasonable interpretation of what a class description is saying, and have it vary in significant ways from the reasonable interpretation that their DM has; but there are limits on what can be reconciled, even if everyone is acting in good faith. And that limit is going to vary from person to person, but ultimately it's the DM's call as to whether it makes sense for that to be a thing in their world or not.




Some classes are more powerful than warlocks.  Other class is more powerful than X.  The world breaks because some people make "suboptimal" chump choices.  Again, not buying world collapse over some people (a single PC?) getting a better deal.  At all.  

If you say this exception rips the fabric of your reality, I suggest a different material


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 12, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Some classes are more powerful than warlocks.  Other class is more powerful than X.  The world breaks because some people make "suboptimal" chump choices.  Again, not buying world collapse over some people (a single PC?) getting a better deal.  At all.
> 
> If you say this exception rips the fabric of your reality, I suggest a different material



It's entirely a matter of degree, as to what sort of discrepancy a given DM is willing to tolerate, but the only real point here is that it's the DM's call. If a player invents new fluff for their character, and the DM isn't cool with it, then the player needs to respect that decision.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 12, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> It's entirely a matter of degree, as to what sort of discrepancy a given DM is willing to tolerate, but the only real point here is that it's the DM's call. If a player invents new fluff for their character, and the DM isn't cool with it, then the player needs to respect that decision.




OK then.  It is by degree.  If it is somewhat reasonable, and the player likes it, I am going to say yes, too.  People vary of course in what they think is reasonable.  I think it is reasonable to occasionally kill a sacred cow for the fun of a player and am not worried that it will have too much of a domino effect in my setting.  Generally.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "_Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?"
> 
> _Nobody is saying a good Gm couldn't.
> Nobody at all.
> ...




You claim I implied a lot that I didn't. I'd suggest you're falsely inferring a lot of intent that isn't there. I don't even know where you're getting the "campaign so fragile" context from but it sure isn't anything I've posted. And there is no implication that a "if you can't do it then you're not a good DM". What I said, and what I meant, is that you ARE a good DM and so I bet you CAN do it. That's not saying that if you can't do it you must not be a good DM. You have to go a long way to infer bad motives (unnecessarily) to ever find a scintilla of a hint of anything like that in anything I wrote. 

If you're seeing condescension, perhaps you might consider the possibility it's just you reading it looking for that tone when it's not present? For example, you mention what "you" have said throughout the thread as if all of my comments were directed at "you" when my comment wasn't even TO you, you just jumped in! Somehow you made my comment to LowKey13 about you, and then accused others of being condescending?


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> You claim I implied a lot that I didn't. I'd suggest you're falsely inferring a lot of intent that isn't there. ...
> If you're seeing condescension, perhaps you might consider the possibility it's just you reading it looking for that tone when it's not present? For example, you mention what "you" have said throughout the thread as if all of my comments were directed at "you" when my comment wasn't even TO you, you just jumped in! Somehow you made my comment to LowKey13 about you, and then accused others of being condescending?




I wouldn't worry too much Mistwell. He seems to do that, based on the fact that he randomly blocked me for... who knows, since to the best of my knowledge I haven't ever directly replied to him about anything. Some people just are going to be offended. Their loss.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 12, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, yeah, I've never had any of these issues because my players and I talk to each other with respect and understanding and try to have fun, instead of trumping each other with power plays (IT'S MAH FLUFF ... NOT, ITS MAY SETTING). It's all good, though.



Yea, I doubt most groups have any real issues here, because you're usually playing with friends and people go along to get along (which I think is the best approach, unless you feel your game is getting stale and might benefit from a shake up.)  

I think the real benefit to these threads is realizing that there's a wide range of preferences in how to roleplay, and encountering a player with wildly different preferences from yours doesn't mean that either of you is an a**hole.  Someday in the future, whether that be at or a con or if you invite a new player into the group, that information just might stop a conflict from starting.  I absolutely think I'm a better player and DM now than I was 10 years ago from reading threads like these.

The other important point for this thread is if your player wants to multiclass a thri-kreen katana, you as a DM have no choice but to allow it.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> /snip
> Wha...what? Why would you ever use white dragon stats for a giant spider when you HAVE giant spider stats? No one is "adding weird new stuff to a world" here. We're not talking about inventing the wheel either. We're talking about a character who wants to play a city raised Barbarian with the Soldier background. He just wrote a story to explain how his city raised barbarian has the same mechanical abilities as a raging tribal warrior. You're thinking about this too hard.
> 
> /snip




Apropos of nothing, I recently ran an adventure where I needed a demonically possessed person who gained magical powers because of the possession.  So, I used a beholder's stats.  Fit perfectly.  Took away the anti-magic ray, but, everything else, including the lair actions, fit to a T.

Not sure what the problem is with using a white dragon's stats for a giant spider, if needed.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

DM Dave1 said:


> I think it is worth pointing out that a clear distinction can and should be made between a PC's *backstory *and their *background*.  The *background *of soldier, for example, comes with tangible mechanical benefits as outlined in the PHB.  The *backstory* of the PC is the pure fluff that the player gets to make up and has NO real mechanical benefit (e.g. I was a soldier on the northern front in the Gnoll wars... my company was slaughtered and I escaped and was cared for by an ice Druid... blah blah blah).
> 
> In other words, a *backstory* is just for fun and should not affect rolls at the table.  Sure, a player should work with a DM to make sure it all makes sense in the context of the world, but that should be a very low hurdle if the DM has outlined some base expectations (e.g. this is a high fantasy pseudo-Medieval campaign - no gunpowder, no robots, and absolutely no rapiers).




Sure.  I think the free reign of players is bit more limited than just being out of genre, though.  If a player came to me with a background that included meeting several gods and hanging 5 with them, that would be as out of line as gunpowder and robots.  I've never said no to something a reasonable background, unless it happened to run afoul of something they didn't know about, and that has only happened once or twice in the last 10+ years.  In those rare instances I've just had to let the player know that something they don't know about is clashing and they've always been happy to drop it.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> I would expand on what @_*DMDave*_1 said above. The passage you quoted refers specifically to working with the DM to create a new _mechanical_ benefit for a custom background. It does not in any way state that you need the DM's permission to alter class fluff to, for example, have a Barbarian PC who aspires for their tribe to join civilization rather than viewing civilization as a form of weakness.
> 
> Having the rest of your tribe _agree_ with you that civilization is a good thing would require DM buy-in by default, since the other tribe members are NPCs, but a PC's personal opinion of civilization is normally entirely up to the player. If a specific opinion of civilization would somehow create problems for a specific game, the DM can totally ask the player to change it, but, absent such a request, the player is doing nothing wrong by unilaterally determining their character's opinions.




That's not an example of changing class fluff.  A barbarian PC can aspire to join civilization or not without altering the class fluff one iota.  The players have no ability to alter class fluff, though.  The rules allow for them to pick a race, pick a class, and then pick a background.  There is no ability for a player to alter fluff on anything at all.  To do that they need the DM's permission as the DMG makes the DM the final arbiter of all things.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's not an example of changing class fluff.  A barbarian PC can aspire to join civilization or not without altering the class fluff one iota.  The players have no ability to alter class fluff, though.  The rules allow for them to pick a race, pick a class, and then pick a background.  There is no ability for a player to alter fluff on anything at all.  To do that they need the DM's permission as the DMG makes the DM the final arbiter of all things.




PHB 46: "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness." It's right there on the page, as part of the class fluff. If you're truly going to argue that class fluff is immutable without the DM's permission, then that restriction applies to a barbarian's opinions regarding civilization.

Also, please note that the book very strongly suggests that class fluff _is_ changeable by the player. Consider the following:

PHB 94: "When it comes to combat, rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength."

PHB 11: "Or you might be interested in an unconventional character, such as a brawny rogue..."

Taken together, these quotes imply that a conventional rogue favors cunning over strength. But the book explicitly says that a player has the option to play something "unconventional", and gives an example _diametrically opposed_ to the rogue class fluff. If players needed DM permission to change the class fluff, why does the second paragraph on character creation suggest an unconventional character that requires changing the class fluff? That seems a little early to be introducing advanced options that require the DM's permission.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> PHB 46: "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness." It's right there on the page, as part of the class fluff. If you're truly going to argue that class fluff is immutable without the DM's permission, then that restriction applies to a barbarian's opinions regarding civilization.
> 
> Also, please note that the book very strongly suggests that class fluff _is_ changeable by the player. Consider the following:
> 
> ...




Right.  That's not what they are talking about, though with fluff alterations to class in this thread.  At least not the conversation I'm responding to anyway.  The class of barbarian gives these X, Y and Z abilities.  That's the barbarian class.  It's not an urban warrior class.  It's not a muscle mage class.  It's the barbarian class.  

So go ahead and play an unconventional BARBARIAN.  If you want to re-fluff the class into something else entirely, you are going to have to talk to me about it and see if we can come up with something.  No guarantees, because ALL of the abilities from 1-20 have to fit the new fluff.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's not an example of changing class fluff.  A barbarian PC can aspire to join civilization or not without altering the class fluff one iota.  The players have no ability to alter class fluff, though.  The rules allow for them to pick a race, pick a class, and then pick a background.  There is no ability for a player to alter fluff on anything at all.  To do that they need the DM's permission as the DMG makes the DM the final arbiter of all things.



Actually, if you read through the Backgrounds section, it basically gives the player fiat power over creating and customizing backgrounds. The only thing you need to consult the DM for is if you want to create a new background feature from scratch.

It's weird, and it conflicts with other ideas presented throughout the rules, but 5E has never claimed to be perfectly consistent or well-organized.


			
				 PHB said:
			
		

> You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it  better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a  background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any  two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages  from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package  from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5.  (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested  for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one  bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your  desired background, work with your DM to create one.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's not an example of changing class fluff.  A barbarian PC can aspire to join civilization or not without altering the class fluff one iota.  The players have no ability to alter class fluff, though.  The rules allow for them to pick a race, pick a class, and then pick a background.  There is no ability for a player to alter fluff on anything at all.  To do that they need the DM's permission as the DMG makes the DM the final arbiter of all things.




I think the more interesting, and definitely more divisive, question in this thread isn't about authority; it's about expectation.  Should a player expect that class fluff is merely a suggestion, and reskinning to fit your concept is the norm, which is normally rejected only if it violates currently standing campaign design?  Or should a player expect to play a variation on the tropes within the PHB, expanding beyond them only with careful negotiation with the DM?

If I put that up as a poll question, my guess is it would be 50/50, with maybe a slight lean towards the first option.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Actually, if you read through the Backgrounds section, it basically gives the player fiat power over creating and customizing backgrounds. The only thing you need to consult the DM for is if you want to create a new background feature from scratch.
> 
> It's weird, and it conflicts with other ideas presented throughout the rules, but 5E has never claimed to be perfectly consistent or well-organized.




The background changes are pretty much mechanical, though.  It allows you to take the soldier/guard background, but swap a skill proficiency to arcana if you were say a guard for an archmage in Halruua(sp).  I think that sort of thing is great to leave in the players' hands.  

I'm talking about completely changing the fluff of a class from being a Barbarian, to being a Mean Drunken Master or Angry City Guard and having nothing to do with being a barbarian at all.  That's not just an unconventional barbarian, it's becoming no barbarian at all.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I think the more interesting, and definitely more divisive, question in this thread isn't about authority; it's about expectation.  Should a player expect that class fluff is merely a suggestion, and reskinning to fit your concept is the norm, which is normally rejected only if it violates currently standing campaign design?  Or should a player expect to play a variation on the tropes within the PHB, expanding beyond them only with careful negotiation with the DM?
> 
> If I put that up as a poll question, my guess is it would be 50/50, with maybe a slight lean towards the first option.




I think that would depend on whether the people answering started playing the last 10 years, or have played longer than that.  The older crowd I think would answer the latter quite a bit more than the former, and vice versa.  It might finalize in the 50/50 range, but I think it would edge towards not being able to re-fluff at the player's whim.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The background changes are pretty much mechanical, though.  It allows you to take the soldier/guard background, but swap a skill proficiency to arcana if you were say a guard for an archmage in Halruua(sp).  I think that sort of thing is great to leave in the players' hands.
> 
> I'm talking about completely changing the fluff of a class from being a Barbarian, to being a Mean Drunken Master or Angry City Guard and having nothing to do with being a barbarian at all.  That's not just an unconventional barbarian, it's becoming no barbarian at all.




We already have "non-barbarian" barbarians in the game though. The dwarven battlerager doesn't come from a barbarian tribe, at least the only examples I've read about is that they are a specialist warrior class amongst the dwarves of Bruenor and the zealot could be from any background that follows a war god that divinely inspires their rage.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Right.  That's not what they are talking about, though with fluff alterations to class in this thread.  At least not the conversation I'm responding to anyway.  The class of barbarian gives these X, Y and Z abilities.  That's the barbarian class.  It's not an urban warrior class.  It's not a muscle mage class.  It's the barbarian class.
> 
> So go ahead and play an unconventional BARBARIAN.  If you want to re-fluff the class into something else entirely, you are going to have to talk to me about it and see if we can come up with something.  No guarantees, because ALL of the abilities from 1-20 have to fit the new fluff.




Isn't it though? What is the difference between ignoring the part of the class fluff that says that Barbarians view civilization as a weakness (to play a reform-minded tribal barbarian) and ignoring the part of the class fluff that says Barbarians "are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" (to play an urban warrior)? They're in the same paragraph of fluff. Why is ignoring one sentence of fluff fine and dandy, but ignoring a nearby sentence isn't?

More specifically, what is it about being an "urban warrior" that makes it incompatible with being an "unconventional Barbarian"?

A feral street child who has never been outside the city walls, and abides by no rules other than those of the urban jungle (but can maybe fake it well enough for polite society on occasion) sounds to me like both an unconventional Barbarian and an "Urban Warrior". Her rage is "...draw[n] from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain". That quote is one of the options for Barbarians listed on PHB 46 in the class fluff. But this character  concept violates other class fluff about not being comfortable in cities, and ignores the fluff about tribal affiliation. Does that mean the character can't be an unconventional Barbarian, and requires special DM permission because as an urban warrior it's "something else entirely"?

How much of the printed fluff can a player ignore before crossing the line into "something else entirely"?


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 13, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I think the more interesting, and definitely more divisive, question in this thread isn't about authority; it's about expectation.  Should a player expect that class fluff is merely a suggestion, and reskinning to fit your concept is the norm, which is normally rejected only if it violates currently standing campaign design?  Or should a player expect to play a variation on the tropes within the PHB, expanding beyond them only with careful negotiation with the DM?
> 
> If I put that up as a poll question, my guess is it would be 50/50, with maybe a slight lean towards the first option.




I've been playing since 2nd Edition AD&D, and I don't think I've ever played a character that was only a variation on tropes listed explicitly in a PHB. It wasn't until I started reading forums that I even learned that anyone expected their players to do so. I'd be very interested to see the results of a such a poll--my own experience clearly doesn't include a representative sample of the variety of opinions on this topic. (Not that a forum poll is a representative sample either, but at least it's a bigger sample.)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> 95% of the arguments on this board revolve around some variant of:
> 
> A: DMs suck, and I know that because I once had a terrible DM! Player agency FTW!
> 
> ...




Right, okay, so then, because you've seen threads (for the sake of argument, many) where people are behaving poorly, it's okay to assume that the best argument to put forward is one where people are behaving badly?  Sorry, dude, don't buy it.

Further, if you think that my post was saying you didn't prove X, you read it wrong.  I was saying that I can't even get to what you're trying to say because it's because an asshat being an asshet (not you, your example asshat) and I'd not put up with the asshat, so I never get to whatever you're trying to say.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> We already have "non-barbarian" barbarians in the game though. The dwarven battlerager doesn't come from a barbarian tribe, at least the only examples I've read about is that they are a specialist warrior class amongst the dwarves of Bruenor and the zealot could be from any background that follows a war god that divinely inspires their rage.




They're just dwarven barbarians is all.  They would fall into the unconventional barbarian category, not the barbarian class re-fluffed as non-barbarian.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> Isn't it though? What is the difference between ignoring the part of the class fluff that says that Barbarians view civilization as a weakness (to play a reform-minded tribal barbarian) and ignoring the part of the class fluff that says Barbarians "are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" (to play an urban warrior)? They're in the same paragraph of fluff. Why is ignoring one sentence of fluff fine and dandy, but ignoring a nearby sentence isn't?




You aren't ignoring the part that says "are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" to play an urban warrior.  You ignore that part to play a barbarian who comes to town and joins the guard.  An urban warrior isn't a barbarian at all.  He was born civilized and despite his anger, is not any sort of barbarian at all.  



> More specifically, what is it about being an "urban warrior" that makes it incompatible with being an "unconventional Barbarian"?




Urban warriors are born and raised civilized.  Barbarians are not.  I have no problem with one going to civilization and trying to fit in and enjoying civilization, but someone born civilized with a bad temper is not a barbarian.



> A feral street child who has never been outside the city walls, and abides by no rules other than those of the urban jungle (but can maybe fake it well enough for polite society on occasion) sounds to me like both an unconventional Barbarian and an "Urban Warrior". Her rage is "...draw[n] from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain". That quote is one of the options for Barbarians listed on PHB 46 in the class fluff. But this character  concept violates other class fluff about not being comfortable in cities, and ignores the fluff about tribal affiliation. Does that mean the character can't be an unconventional Barbarian, and requires special DM permission because as an urban warrior it's "something else entirely"?




That child still lives in the city, knows the city rules, even if he breaks them, and so on.  Even "feral", that person is going not going to be a barbarian.  I don't have an issue working with the player on feats or other ways to represent something similar to rage in the game, though.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You aren't ignoring the part that says "are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" to play an urban warrior.  You ignore that part to play a barbarian who comes to town and joins the guard.  An urban warrior isn't a barbarian at all.  He was born civilized and despite his anger, is not any sort of barbarian at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You appear to have a predetermined definition of what is and is not a "Barbarian" that you're using to decide which pieces of class fluff it's permissible to ignore, and which pieces are essential. For example, you're fine with a Barbarian moving to a city and enjoying it, so long as they weren't raised there. As best I can tell, that distinction is nowhere to be found in the text of the PHB.

Are you using a dictionary definition of the word "barbarian" and using it to define the D&D Barbarian class? Some other extrinsic source? (I would note that using dictionary definitions to determine what is and is not essential fluff for each class will produce problematic results when you get to the Druid class.)

Regardless of where your predetermined definition of Barbarian comes from, since it's not in the PHB your players may not share the same definition. I would suggest that it would be impractical to expect your players to be able to deduce which parts of the Barbarian fluff you consider essential (and thus requiring special approval) when you're basing your decisions off something extrinsic to the PHB.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> They're just dwarven barbarians is all.  They would fall into the unconventional barbarian category, not the barbarian class re-fluffed as non-barbarian.



Except they aren't really barbarians, their an elite fighting group (or at least a fighting group) within dwarf society. I wouldn't classify them as barbarians at all, however, when it comes to game mechanics, the barbarian class fits perfectly.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> You appear to have a predetermined definition of what is and is not a "Barbarian" that you're using to decide which pieces of class fluff it's permissible to ignore, and which pieces are essential. For example, you're fine with a Barbarian moving to a city and enjoying it, so long as they weren't raised there. As best I can tell, that distinction is nowhere to be found in the text of the PHB.
> 
> Are you using a dictionary definition of the word "barbarian" and using it to define the D&D Barbarian class? Some other extrinsic source? (I would note that using dictionary definitions to determine what is and is not essential fluff for each class will produce problematic results when you get to the Druid class.)
> 
> Regardless of where your predetermined definition of Barbarian comes from, since it's not in the PHB your players may not share the same definition. I would suggest that it would be impractical to expect your players to be able to deduce which parts of the Barbarian fluff you consider essential (and thus requiring special approval) when you're basing your decisions off something extrinsic to the PHB.




Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them.  Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class.   These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion.  That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different.  There are usually abilities that don't fit.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Except they aren't really barbarians, their an elite fighting group (or at least a fighting group) within dwarf society. I wouldn't classify them as barbarians at all, however, when it comes to game mechanics, the barbarian class fits perfectly.




Except that they are barbarians.  They are a wild and crazy fighting group that lives the wild life inside of dwarven areas.  They are revered, and powerful, but are not elite in the same way that a highly trained and organized fighting group is.  They fit the barbarian class, though in an unusual way.........unlike a street urchin.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them.  Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class.   These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion.  That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different.  There are usually abilities that don't fit.




Just to confirm, you're using "Barbarians come from uncivilized areas" as your definition of which Barbarian class fluff is essential and which Barbarian class fluff can be ignored without special permission? Do you have a particular citation for that? It's definitely not listed in the PHB as being more important than any of the other class fluff, nor does it closely match any of the definitions of the word "barbarian" I'm seeing (mostly historical earth definitions, implying a _current_ state of being uncivilized, or implying a relative judgement on the value of other cultures.) How are your players supposed to know that's the definition you're using in order to know that at your table, moving to and living in city is fine for a barbarian, but they can't have been born there?

And I see absolutely nothing inappropriate for a feral street urchin about any of the Barbarian features you listed. Surviving childhood on one's own in the underbelly of a major metropolis could easily be a harsher and more-violent existance than being raised by an isolated tribe or joning a group of dwarven berserkers.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 13, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> And I see absolutely nothing inappropriate for a feral street urchin about any of the Barbarian features you listed. Surviving childhood on one's own in the underbelly of a major metropolis could easily be a harsher and more-violent existance than being raised by an isolated tribe or joning a group of dwarven berserkers.




Street urchins would overthrow the city if they were that incredible.  All it would take is one to become that powerful and they'd all be hunted down and executed.  

Urchin barbarian: "We are stronger than the city guard!  We are stronger than the army!  We can pull down the king and his protectors!  We are street urchins!!!"


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Street urchins would overthrow the city if they were that incredible.  All it would take is one to become that powerful and they'd all be hunted down and executed.
> 
> Urchin barbarian: "We are stronger than the city guard!  We are stronger than the army!  We can pull down the king and his protectors!  We are street urchins!!!"




Not every feral child will have the mechanical abilities of the barbarian character class. Few will. But it can be a valid explanation of those abilities.

Come to think of it, not every person from an in-game barbarian *culture* has levels in the metagame character *class*! In fact, the Outlander background is not forced upon barbarian class PCs, nor is that background forbidden to PCs without levels in the barbarian class!

In short, the mechanics of this or any other class (the rules) is divorced from any in-game culture (the fluff). You can use them together for your PC if you want; you want your PC barbarian to have the Outlander background? More power to you! But it is not mandatory that PCs with levels of barbarian are _culturally_ barbaric, any more than rogue/thieves are compelled to steal.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> RE the bold - this seems to be saying (now) that as Gm you can just decide their backstory is not real and actually something else entirely happened?
> 
> So, your whole wolfy sex civie barbarian thing means nothing cuz as Gm i can decide "not really" and by the end of session one reveal a backstory explanation for your abilities that i prefer?
> 
> As long as i let you the player think it has been accepted until game time, we are good as then in story the "secret reveal" comes out and your absolute right to fluff you want is trumped by my absolute right to just change that into what i want?




Once the game starts, the sequence of events is up to the DM. Frequently in fiction, the protagonist discovers something new about themselves, or finds out that what they believed to be the case turned out not to be the case after all.

My werewolf-inspired civilised barbarian began knowing a little about the circumstances of his conception, but neither he nor his family know anything about the original werewolf being an agent of The Fiend.

I, the player, did know that. But even I don't know everything about that Fiend. My expectation was the the DM could, if he wanted to, further explore that aspect of my background. It was also possible that he had no interest in doing so. Either would be okay, because this IS the DM's purview!

As it turns out, both my PC and me discovered something new about the Fiend a couple of sessions ago (level 8) by a magical fey NPC trading memories for knowledge. Yeah, it was weird but cool; all the PCs had the chance to make such trades.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> No. Not at all.
> 
> I am saying that we have seen plenty of times where in point buy supers **certain types of players** feel entitled to insist they can work around the campaigns established tone and intended style (soft restrictions) by assuming they can invent an alien race with only abilities they want and every ability they want all tied into a nice neat package and wrapped with a bow.
> 
> The part of the post you just ignored (of course) was the term "tightly themed."




Ah! I misunderstood the 'tightly themed' part of your original post. I thought 'tightly themed' was referring to the PC's power set being 'tightly themed', and couldn't understand why you thought this was a bad thing! I thought you were suggesting that the player is somehow out of order for spending his build points on powers of his own choosing.

It turns out that you meant that _your campaign_ was 'tightly themed'!

Fine. I've already posted, numerous times, that the player must make a PC according to both the rules of the game AND the parameters of the campaign. If the DM says before hero creation that this is a street-level, gritty campaign and create appropriate heroes, the the DM is well within his rights to refuse Kal El.

Just like my DM could refuse Cyber Ninja on the grounds that there is no cyberware in his fantasy setting, or refuse the werewolf angle if there are no werewolves in his world.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 13, 2018)

Greg K said:


> Then, you have not bought into the campaign and setting that the DM is running and should not play.  The GMs and players whom I have known over the year would wish you well and let you go on your way.  The GMs would listen to you and might accept it  depending upon the fluff in question. They might recommend some changes or alternatives to conform to the campaign world and system. Then again, they might outright refuse (with or without an explanation that you might consider valid (including that they just did not care to include the idea in the campaign).  However, if they decided no,  that would be the end of the discussion and the players would back the GM, because the GM is viewed in charge of the campaign and setting (edit: and, even in 5e, it is stated in the Basic Set that the GM is the "ultimate" authority "on the campaign and its setting").
> 
> Now, depending on the system, the player's request may receive better acceptance (e.g. Fate), but the GM still has he ability to override an element introduced by the player.




Of course the DM can veto any player-introduced element; although pre-vetoing ANY PC which includes a player-introduced element would lead to no game because EVERY backstory includes people, places and/or events in the DM's world.

However, even though the DM can always veto, the player has the last word in the sense that the player can refuse to play any DM suggestion.

If the DM says no to part of the player's concept, then they will say what it is they object to, and why. That allows the player to either adjust their PC, OR the player puts that concept to one side and creates a different one.

To take a deliberately stupid example to emphasise the point, imagine that when I presented my part-werewolf barbarian the DM said no, it MUST be part frog or I won't allow it! He has the authority to say that. But I have the authority to say that there's no way I'm playing a frog person, so I'll have to put my concept to one side and think of a new concept.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> If some warlocks or clerics can do whatever they want without risk of losing their powers, but other warlocks and clerics have to follow lots of rules and restrictions in order to keep their powers, then anyone in the latter camp is kind of a chump by comparison.




The 5e devs deliberately wrote out any power-removing mechanic (they have a power-_swapping_ option with Oathbreakers), because they have realised for years that it is inherently unfair for some players to be penalised just because their player chose one of the allowed classes, while other classes can do what they like and don't get punished in the metagame by removing the mechanical abilities of the class.

The devs *want* players to pick whatever class and available power for ANY class, not just the ones unconnected to a god/patron/whatever.

I *hate* DMs who slaver at the mouth when they hear that a player has chosen a cleric or a paladin because the DM thinks he has carte blanche to take the player's agency away using the threat of taking class abilities away.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Street urchins would overthrow the city if they were that incredible.  All it would take is one to become that powerful and they'd all be hunted down and executed.
> 
> Urchin barbarian: "We are stronger than the city guard!  We are stronger than the army!  We can pull down the king and his protectors!  We are street urchins!!!"



Your street urchin barbarian isn't one of a type, his special abilities are unique to that character.  That's one of many reasons I think it's foolish to act like the concept of classes actually exist within the fiction.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The 5e devs deliberately wrote out any power-removing mechanic (they have a power-_swapping_ option with Oathbreakers), because they have realised for years that it is inherently unfair for some players to be penalised just because their player chose one of the allowed classes, while other classes can do what they like and don't get punished in the metagame by removing the mechanical abilities of the class.
> 
> The devs *want* players to pick whatever class and available power for ANY class, not just the ones unconnected to a god/patron/whatever.
> 
> I *hate* DMs who slaver at the mouth when they hear that a player has chosen a cleric or a paladin because the DM thinks he has carte blanche to take the player's agency away using the threat of taking class abilities away.



If you have a GM with such an intention, there are an infinity of other ways to remove player agency than that tho. 

The slavering GM is the problem, not a GM having a tool they can use in the game or having in a campaign npc ivinities able to say "no" when characters insist they be given the power to raise the dead after crapping all over the divines temple.

I doubt this was what the devs whispered to you their intent was in whatever place they imparted the rest of that wisdom. 

"Dang, it. Used all my flame strikes burning down Odin's temples. Better rest then tell old one eye to load me back up again."


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
> 
> So the disconnect that keeps happening in this thread, as in so many others (IMO) is that people just play differently and like different things. I'm using this particular quote as a starting point, acknowledging that you correctly stated "I think[.]"
> 
> ...



I fall somewhere in the midfle in this way...

I feel some classes have fluff tied to mechanics and others do not. 

There is no explicit statement in the PHB that says all classes are the same, so i see them as different.

Some classes come with baggage, some dont. Not all come with the same size baggage.

That will mean certain types of players, knowing that about my games, will tend to certain classes over others while other types might skew the other way.

I am fine with that. It is not my goal to dilute my campaign to the LCD of every class having all the same "flavors".

If you want to play a character with ties inside the class to other NPCs that really matter - cleric, warlock and others and some sub-classes will fit your bill as far as that goes. 

If you want less of that there are plenty of other choices too. Fighter doesnt come with that kind of ties, neither does rogue or sorcerer. Others may fit that bill and sub-classes.

Backgrounds, races setting appropriate backstories can also tweak this dial but within parameters that make sense.

As i have said, i would draw the line at taking a class with baggage and just fluffing away the baggage as it creates a pretty big glaring break in the world works this way kind of sense.

So, i am likely not gonna appeal to certain player agency dialed to 11 types and thats just fine with me.

All i know is, the players i have had play the baggage classes/concepts have loved it and others who avoided them under other gms have tried it under me after seeing it in play.

So, i must be keeping my slavering under control.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.



Yes, that is true.

Part of the reason I'm posting more aggressively is that this is an interesting topic, where people have real differences of opinions.  It's an issue where it's not uncommon to have players with different takes on the topic at the same table.  Glossing over it with the usual "Everyone's got a preference, and they need to be allowed to have them" doesn't give me much interesting information as to why people with the opposite take from me identify so strongly with those tropes.  

I mean, I'll play any game, with anybody.  The main reason I participate in these threads is to widen my exposure to different play styles, so I can go into various games and groups and know enough to recognize their preferences, and not assume they share my own.  So if I run into a DM who shoots down my concept for a Noble barbarian (a character concept I've played!), at least I can recognize why they feel that way, despite the fact that not allowing reskinning defeats a lot of the fun of character building to me.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 13, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> ...
> Are you using a dictionary definition of the word "barbarian" and using it to define the D&D Barbarian class? Some other extrinsic source? (I would note that using dictionary definitions to determine what is and is not essential fluff for each class will produce problematic results when you get to the Druid class.)
> ...






Maxperson said:


> Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them.  Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class.   These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion.  That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different.  There are usually abilities that don't fit.





You didn't really answer the question posed by [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] directly [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].  Where are you getting your definition of barbarian?

Regardless of whether you choose to answer that question or not, is it right to assume that in _your game_ the only true Barbarian is one with the Outlander background?  No wiggle room on that?

And to get back to the OP, how would you feel about a multiclass Barbarian/Paladin?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> As for why I feel the way I do? My main table is a pure nostalgia/fun play; after a certain amount of time, it's not about exploring new character concepts, it's about, well, playing the game (for us). Classic archetypes have their advantages.



Nice answer, thanks.

Out of curiosity, what _are_ the advantages of the classic archetypes?  Is it primarily nostalgia and familiarity?  (Not denigrating that as a preference, I've watched plenty of reboots of '80s shows lately!)  

I didn't start playing until 2e, and didn't play a lot until the Skills and Powers era, so using kits or building your own class to me feels normal.  It might be why I have trouble identifying with the desire to play familiar archetypes.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them.  Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class.   These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion.  That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different.  There are usually abilities that don't fit.




An inability to conceptualize these elements under the umbrella of "street urchin" is not the fault of the concept.

Unarmored defense - whodathunk that a person with no training in wearing armor might develop skills that would make them better at avoiding getting smacked with lumpy metal things.  Unless you're insisting that Unarmored Defense somehow actually makes the skin of the barbarian tougher.  

Fast Movement - whodathunk that someone who spends most of their time running around the city dodging guards and other dangers might be a bit fleet of foot.

Brutal Critical - Umm, considering that the power actually comes with zero fluff attached to it, you can flavor this however you like.  Maybe after years of mugging people, he just got really good at smacking people about the head and shoulders.

Indomitable Might - well, he's tough as nails, he's 18th level, so hardly a street urchin anymore - he's the survivor of masses of bloodshed and danger.  Again, the power has zero flavor attached to it, so, how can you complain when the player attaches any flavor to it that the player fancies?

Primal Champion - dude, he's a 20th level character.  There's a million and one ways you could easily justify this.

 [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you seriously going to try to argue that powers that have zero flavor attached to them can never have any flavor attached to them?


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 13, 2018)

Hussar said:


> An inability to conceptualize these elements under the umbrella of "street urchin" is not the fault of the concept.
> 
> Unarmored defense - whodathunk that a person with no training in wearing armor might develop skills that would make them better at avoiding getting smacked with lumpy metal things.  Unless you're insisting that Unarmored Defense somehow actually makes the skin of the barbarian tougher.
> 
> ...




See this is EXACTLY the reasoning I am talking about.  It will not hurt the game, it gives no particular mechanical advantage and hurts no one.  Why would we not help a player have more fun?  

Will other barbarians be "ripped off?"  I could see this character making friends with outlander sorts of barbarians.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Now, that said, there are other reasons. And a big part of it, for us, is simplicity and desire to play. If you've been playing a long, long, long time (maybe too long?) you eventually get to the point where you zero in and decide why it is that you really want to play. And not everyone has the same answer for that- there are those that still revel in complexity and newness. But I did that; I mean, I had a period of well over two decades of creating settings, towns, worlds, classes, magic items, rules of psionics, incorporating every imaginable alternate rule and/or 3PP, and so on. I'm good! I just want to get together with some friends, grab some dice, and get rolling. For me, the thing I've learned is that I don't really remember cool character builds, but I do remember the stories of what characters did, because that is what matters, and the times I have with friends. It's an emphasis thing for us- and that doesn't mean that other people don't have just as good as (if not better) time doing it differently, but it works for us.



Yea, it's funny how our psychology can prime us to make different aspects of the game matter.  Like, I can remember some details and plot points from most of the games I've played, but I can absolutely tell you the character build of every character I've played in the last 20 years, why I built them that way, their generally used tactics, and what sourcebooks I used.  For me, half the fun of D&D is the joy of tinkering with its systems.  That's why I still get excited for new books and when I discover homebrew that really stretches the system in novel ways.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, at the risk of being somewhat controversial, I will answer the question of, "Why would we not help a player have more fun" with an extended digression.
> 
> Let's talk about team sports! See, in team sports, it is entirely possible for one person to maximize their own fun to the detriment of other people's fun (we might call this person, for example, a Ball Hog, or a late-career Kobe Bryant). Conversely, it is also possible that by sublimating your own fun every now and then, you maximize the group's fun, and when the group's fun is maximized, your own fun becomes greater than if you were simply pursuing your own fun.
> 
> ...




I guess I skip past this consideration since I don't play with ass-hats.  But this is true.

We played with one player who enjoyed PC vs. PC conflict.  We don't anymore.  

Everything I am arguing comes with the assumption we play well together are concerned about eachother's fun and simply want to do something off book in terms of fluff.  I am arguing against reactive conservative assumptions about fluff in the book and NOT at the expense of shared fun, cooperation and so forth.

When anyone, even in the Gygaxian AD&D 1e days proposed a fun idea, DM and players alike rolled with it because its about shared fun.  When playing villains in 1e a friend took an evil centaur-hating wood elf who belonged to an anti-centaur cult.  He did not have an assigned deity but prayed to the darker forces of nature.

Fluff was broken but game was not.  Level-limited evil half orc cleric made use of a giant hammer.  DM made the stats for it (believe it was 2d6?) after we watched Conan the Barbarian.  The DMs world was not negatively impacted at all.

But yes, DM was involved.  If it was too gonzo, he would have rightly said something.  That I think is the point I try to make however.  Things should not be so restrictive that any deviation is seen as gonzo.  Live a little.  Make some sh*t up.  Collaborate.  Don't let coal in your anus become a diamond.  Or, consistent with my OP, don't let diamond butt-ism forbid most multiclassing unless you simply don't use the optional rule to begin with.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Now, you might say that in this particular example, nothing bad would happen at Maxperson's table. But you're not there- you don't know, and I don't know. Maybe his other players/DM would be annoyed? Maybe they have an informal understanding of what a Barbarian "is," and this would violate their understanding? Different strokes, and all that.



This kind of feels like the D&D version of the divide between grammar prescriptivism and descriptivism.  "Classes mean X!' versus "It's how you use the class that matters!"


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> That's a pretty good analogy!




"The katana is the class which kills all things" versus "I use the katana class when I want to kill all the things."


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 13, 2018)

In 3E the assumption was that taking a prestige class made you more powerful and often it did. But in every case, and in every edition when you take a level of Y you lose that chance to take that same level of X. That remains the trade off. Especially in 5E where levels cap at 20 you lose higher level abilities and gain a symmetry with an odd combination of lower level powers. With thousands of people discussing char op for years I haven't heard anyone say here's a one level dip you must take or your character will be under powered. In the end, I've had few people multi-class in any edition and none have broken the game. A paladin in heavy armor may be a terror on the battlefield and a few levels may add a lot of combat utility and you slay the demon patrol you encounter in the abyss without breaking a sweat, but when it's time to scale the obsidian walls of Everlost in darkness and silence to steal the wand of Orcus, you're going to want your rogue thief to handle it and maybe not wear heavy armor at the time. In the end, no character can do everything and the design is intended that way. It deliberately supports parties over solo ubermenches.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The 5e devs deliberately wrote out any power-removing mechanic (they have a power-_swapping_ option with Oathbreakers), because they have realised for years that it is inherently unfair for some players to be penalised just because their player chose one of the allowed classes, while other classes can do what they like and don't get punished in the metagame by removing the mechanical abilities of the class.
> 
> The devs *want* players to pick whatever class and available power for ANY class, not just the ones unconnected to a god/patron/whatever.
> 
> I *hate* DMs who slaver at the mouth when they hear that a player has chosen a cleric or a paladin because the DM thinks he has carte blanche to take the player's agency away using the threat of taking class abilities away.





How do you know this from the developers?  I have yet to see or hear anything of that motivation. 

And since the DM controls the setting and everything in it they can do that.  I haven't played in or heard of a game where the DM lords over the players though on an unfair basis due to class choice.  It all just has to fit and be consistent.  This applies even if you just reflavor fluff language.  I see far more of people choosing a MC to gain some mechanical advantage in game and trying to find some backstory to fit in, the min-max type.  

If you choose a class that give you powers from another source and are not willing to abide by the restrictions of that source(which by definition is controlled by the DM) then that's a YOU problem unless the DM is acting completely unreasonably.  I have been around long enough to see a power play, but that's ok if you have a well thought out backstory and integration into the campaign.

This goes back to what I said before about a PC building session for the group, if the DM and 3 of the 4 group think your idea is bad or unreasonable (or just a pure power play) it probably is.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I fall somewhere in the midfle in this way...
> 
> I feel some classes have fluff tied to mechanics and others do not.
> 
> ...







In a certain sense all PC have baggage in some sense, that's why they become adventurers.  But you are correct, once you play a class with a limitation of some sort, even a very low ability score, it changes the way you view the game for the better and is MUCH MORE entertaining.  If you put in the effort to properly play with some limitation, then any DM would see that and go along with it and "cater" to that.  You can build whole PC arcs off that.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> If you choose a class that give you powers from another source and are not willing to abide by the restrictions of that source(which by definition is controlled by the DM) then that's a YOU problem unless the DM is acting completely unreasonably.  I have been around long enough to see a power play, but that's ok if you have a well thought out backstory and integration into the campaign.



Do people still think that background hooks like the paladin Oath and the warlock Patron exist as a balance consideration?  That's obviously an atavism from the game's wargame roots (like when a paladin had more powerful abilities than a fighter, but had constraints on his ability to take certain effective actions, like use poison or hoard magic items).    

The whole point of the background hooks are to generate conflict in roleplaying, not to channel the character into certain actions.  And conflict is good!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, at the risk of being somewhat controversial, I will answer the question of, "Why would we not help a player have more fun" with an extended digression.
> 
> Let's talk about team sports! See, in team sports, it is entirely possible for one person to maximize their own fun to the detriment of other people's fun (we might call this person, for example, a Ball Hog, or a late-career Kobe Bryant). Conversely, it is also possible that by sublimating your own fun every now and then, you maximize the group's fun, and when the group's fun is maximized, your own fun becomes greater than if you were simply pursuing your own fun.
> 
> ...




Again, your go to is bad behavior.  No one is suggesting that you indulge players to the detriment of the entire group -- and letting a player play a street urchin flavored barbarian class doesn't abuse other players like your example PC killer to any degree.  All of this discussion assumes that the social contract is healthy, so please stop bringing up counterpoints about broken contracts abused by jerks -- it doesn't make any point other than 'don't play with jerks.'


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Again, as you don't seem to understand what I'm saying, I'd appreciate you lack of response.




No, I get it.  You're trying to say that if you indulge one player, it may be to the detriment of the others.  Your example was indulging a PC killer.  However, that example clearly violates a healthy social contract.  If you assume a healthy social contract, where players are not intentionally being jerks to one another (including the DM), then your point kind of dies on the vine.  In that case, insisting on rigid definition of class is EXACTLY the same kind of behavior as allowing a refluff -- one player is asserting their preference to the expense of the other.  Your example only looks at it from the direction of the play you don't prefer, but, given a health social contract at the table, a compromise can clearly be established such that everyone benefits.  Instead, you postulate jerks.  

Try making your argument without invoking jerks.  And, preferably, without being one yourself.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

shadowoflameth said:


> With thousands of people discussing char op for years I haven't heard anyone say here's a one level dip you must take or your character will be under powered.




I haven't either but that's approaching the problem from the wrong direction.  I get what you are saying though.

The direction is most recently "Dip Hexblade 1 for all of its benefits with CHR Pc's and don't worry about any background, backstory or whatever just use its great benefits."  While you do not have to do so, its clear Sorcerers and Bards gain IMMENSLY from a 1 level Hexblade dip, Paladins certainly do also, there are whole threads dedicated to it and every guide instantly changed when that class came out.

My position is sure, but you better have a good backstory and reason why the pact power continues to work since it a binding contract with dark entities, it says so right in the description of warlocks and hexblade in particular. 

There are essentially 2 positions in the many pages here.  One is roughly mine, that the DM might not allow it and you need to think about it and work it out in some way.  I apply this in general to everything, it is a fantasy game but even within that construct there are some rules, both written explicitly and implied by the full text of the books, that give a consistency to the game.

The other is everything is irrelevant that isn't hard-coded into the actual rules under hexblade, if it isn't strictly forbidden then its allowed, its my fluff and any DM that would present any restriction on it is unreasonable and terrible and ruining my game.  Everything is RAW, the only RAI is my interpretation, and no descriptive text matters, and if the DM says so F him.   

Something like the Lance argument I am involved in is minor, I wouldn't allow a Lance to use dueling weapon style. To me its clearly a loophole in the rules to which a joke thread was around 4 years ago.  I don't think that is what was intended by the designers (RAI) but I don't know, its clearly RAW.  To support my position a photo was posted and an absurd example was made, that halfling on a dog could technically wield 2 6lb lances with reach and benefit from two weapon fighting style and dual wielder feat as long as the halfling was mounted, but could not even use a shorter, 6lb glaive.  Its is RAW, but logically there is not consistency there, so  I think that's absurd, but I also said if your DM allows it go for it.  That's not really an argument, its just a different style. If you can get a DM to buy it good for you. Not all RAW is correct, there is an entire forum on that, and the errata comes out all the time.

But it is clear to me that many were suddenly struck by a bolt of creative inspiration when Hexblade changes came out, and then started to figure out how they could get around the restrictive text that is not actually presented as a rule.  This happens all the time when in all games when something comes out that is just flat out better, very few just state "wow this is really good, borderline OP or at least build defining, I need to use this.  I need to talk to the DM to work this out, the restrictions in the flavor text should give me a downside to this so I can use it as a hook with the DM."  Instead they try to figure out how to sell it to the DM with no limitations, to force it upon the DM, and then get mad when they get shot down for it.  All I am trying is to give big picture views, don't be surprised if your DM says no.

 In another thread I made an assertation that an immobile iron golem makes no noise, I was told that since the rules for golems don't say they are silent when immobile then they must make noise so my assumption was wrong, if I as a DM decided that they didn't make a noise when immobile then somehow I was screwing my players.  Well, RAW the rules don't say they are silent and appear to be statues when immobile, however in 38 years of reading descriptive text of golems in various modules (including the one discussed in the golem description) that's my opinion.  I was then told my experience was irrelevant to the discussion.  There is that type of player out there.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Do people still think that background hooks like the paladin Oath and the warlock Patron exist as a balance consideration?  That's obviously an atavism from the game's wargame roots (like when a paladin had more powerful abilities than a fighter, but had constraints on his ability to take certain effective actions, like use poison or hoard magic items).
> 
> The whole point of the background hooks are to generate conflict in roleplaying, not to channel the character into certain actions.  And conflict is good!





Not as much today even though the Paladin is still better than the fighter.  But it is part of the whole idea, like alignment.  Some just blow it off as a non consideration, just pick a Paladin oath they think is most powerful mechanically and just ignore everything else.  Most don't even pick alignment or deity or anything any more, its a pen and paper video game where if a response to an action isn't coded in then it has no effect.  I had a necromancer (in his defense he was 14) who didn't understand walking into civilized large town in good-aligned country with undead behind you would have repercussions with the locals.  

As an older player, those things still matter to me.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Not as much today even though the Paladin is still better than the fighter.  But it is part of the whole idea, like alignment.  Some just blow it off as a non consideration, just pick a Paladin oath they think is most powerful mechanically and just ignore everything else.  Most don't even pick alignment or deity or anything any more, its a pen and paper video game where if a response to an action isn't coded in then it has no effect.  I had a necromancer (in his defense he was 14) who didn't understand walking into civilized large town in good-aligned country with undead behind you would have repercussions with the locals.
> 
> As an older player, those things still matter to me.



It's not that it shouldn't be a consideration, it's just not a balance consideration.  It should be used to drive interesting roleplay.  That's why it's OK (balance wise) to ignore or reframe it.  Obviously, if you want to reinforce the constraints because that's what you've always done, that's fine too.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> I am going to make this very simple for you.
> 
> First time, I reply and I say nicely that you don't get it.
> 
> ...




I do get your point, I get it violently.  You seem to be missing mine.  Different tables play differently, yes, totes agree.  My point is that when responding to 'why not indulge' with PC killing as a replacement argument, you're insinuating that the other poster can't tell the difference between a behavior that is compromising within the social contract and one that breaks it.  That's not necessary to make your point, which, again, is 100% valid.  If everyone at your table prefers strong class fiction, then the answer to 'why not indulge' is 'we don't like to play that way.'  Not 'imagine that instead of a class fiction change for your character, the issue is a PC killer...'  Your examples are so clearly bad that the consideration of them stops at, 'well, I wouldn't play with a jerk.'  That's my point -- you keep hiding yours behind over-the-top examples.

Now, I recognize that this response may cause an automatic block by you without even reading it or considering it.  As I enjoy your posts, and think you have a great viewpoint to contribute, that saddens me.  However, one of my flaws is to run straight at bullying, and, frankly, your post above is an attempt to silence me through bullying.  I think you're better than that.  

Prove me right.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Prove me right.




Aaaand, no, I'm wrong.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Not as much today even though the Paladin is still better than the fighter.  But it is part of the whole idea, like alignment.  Some just blow it off as a non consideration, just pick a Paladin oath they think is most powerful mechanically and just ignore everything else.  Most don't even pick alignment or deity or anything any more, its a pen and paper video game where if a response to an action isn't coded in then it has no effect.  I had a necromancer (in his defense he was 14) who didn't understand walking into civilized large town in good-aligned country with undead behind you would have repercussions with the locals.
> 
> As an older player, those things still matter to me.




I am OLD school.  Well, 1st edition anyway.  These things matter to me too.

The difference for me is that changing the fluff of a class for one character does not automatically mean all laws of reality or all shared assumptions about the game are thrown out.  In fact, a player could never have such power over a campaign and I don't know that anyone is advocating for that.

I think this is a false equivalence.  If I allow one character to follow a philosophy and not a god as a cleric, I do not think that means that suddenly townsfolk are suddenly cool with dead people stomping through town (i.e. zombies).  

If a character insists that his retainers are undead in place of the servants of the noble background feature I would allow it but be clear: they are still noncombatants (no change in mechanics) will also run from fights, not go in a dungeon or anything like that.  

They can look how you want and moan "brains" as they fix your lunch.  But you better stay rural...if you go into civilization, pitch forks and fire will assail you all and probably fatally.  My world did not get rocked...if he abuses the refluff, his world will get rocked.

As an aside, that sounds like a fun re-fluffing for a wizard of formerly noble background that I just pulled out of my a**.  The character somehow found a way to keep his servants forever...its creepy, its unique and there would be a lot of funny stories told within an outside of the game regarding this.

I used the feature with a warlock and had the retainers refluffed as three unearthly elven maidens with red eyes that wanted to follow him and his burgeoning cult.  I left many details blank.  The DM could add unearthly events around them and it was all for feel.  They took care of the horses while we went into dungeons.

Where is the harm?

I think the harm comes when we imagine a terrible ripple effect in the campaign world.  Maybe there is one and maybe not.  It is situational.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I am OLD school.  Well, 1st edition anyway.  These things matter to me too.
> 
> The difference for me is that changing the fluff of a class for one character does not automatically mean all laws of reality or all shared assumptions about the game are thrown out.  In fact, a player could never have such power over a campaign and I don't know that anyone is advocating for that.
> 
> ...



I agree with your gist, here.  I think it also helps if you view your world not being built according to the PC rules -- ie, everyone that fights isn't a fighter (or barbarian, or...).  5e, I feel, explicitly does this with the NPC write-ups being similar to some classes, but not being those classes but something -- lesser.  In this world, there's much less reason to have strict class fiction because the PC classes are already the exceptions.

Now, in a world where most ARE built to PC rules, then it can make more sense to have a stricter class fiction because everyone who fights is a fighter.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> See this is EXACTLY the reasoning I am talking about.  It will not hurt the game, it gives no particular mechanical advantage and hurts no one.  Why would we not help a player have more fun?
> 
> Will other barbarians be "ripped off?"  I could see this character making friends with outlander sorts of barbarians.




To me, the way i see it, the concept of the urban jungle where the downtrodden and outcasts have more in common with the roaming tribes of hunter gatherers than the room-with-soft-bed-and-stove-in-winter city folk seems an obvious concept to me. Could even be seen as tribal in nature - existing in the shadows of the cities instead of the distant plains or hills. 

There would be a f'ton lot of room to play there and develop for you "city-barbarian concept.

i would however express the unarmored defense based on con to be most exactly the same rationale for barbarian in thw wild - constant exposure to elements and hazards without all the city comforts - even though they are all around them. 

Recalling a scene from that Dennis Quaid global warming movie where the NYC homeless man's survival skills play a huge role once the power goes out and the weather rolls in. pretty much mimics the barbarian once the party gets outside of town - and they were in a friggin' library.

Again, to me, some classes carry more baggage than others but there is a lot of room to play.

The urban barbarian urchin underclass doesn't invalidate the other barbarians and doesn't make their existence look out of place or stupid. So, i would have no problem with it - speaking for myself.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 13, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Out of curiosity, what _are_ the advantages of the classic archetypes?  Is it primarily nostalgia and familiarity?  (Not denigrating that as a preference, I've watched plenty of reboots of '80s shows lately!)



In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> To me, the way i see it, the concept of the urban jungle where the downtrodden and outcasts have more in common with the roaming tribes of hunter gatherers than the room-with-soft-bed-and-stove-in-winter city folk seems an obvious concept to me. Could even be seen as tribal in nature - existing in the shadows of the cities instead of the distant plains or hills.
> 
> There would be a f'ton lot of room to play there and develop for you "city-barbarian concept.
> 
> ...




The funny thing in this thread is that in truth, even people with opposing viewpoints are not diametrically opposed.  I would even venture a guess that most participants on either side of the debate could comfortably play at the same table.  Most.

Its like politics in America.  We are totally cool with eachother until we find out the other person votes straight party ticket for X.  All of a sudden I expect they eat babies!

All kidding aside, I think some worry about the jerk that tries to overturn the game.  I am clearly more concerned about DMs railroading.  Both happen. The one you worry about the most is likely more in line with personal experience.  

This whole time I am advocating for the fun of less rigid fluff to inspire fun multi classing, I am a  total "anti-cheese" middle of the road player who could not stand stacking prestige classes and do not like stat arrays devoid of character.  I like to have PCs with personality (with all that entails) backstories and engage in cooperative good-natured play.  I don't like screwing over other players or wrecking the campaign world (how could I unless the DM is drunk?).  In fact, I am usually trying to find reasons to follow DM story hooks if I can (if it is a total no go, then the DM has to be flexible).  But I digress...


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Do people still think that background hooks like the paladin Oath and the warlock Patron exist as a balance consideration?  That's obviously an atavism from the game's wargame roots (like when a paladin had more powerful abilities than a fighter, but had constraints on his ability to take certain effective actions, like use poison or hoard magic items).
> 
> The whole point of the background hooks are to generate conflict in roleplaying, not to channel the character into certain actions.  And conflict is good!




I am pretty sure the use of the term "power play" in the post you quoted was meant as a social player to gm one, not "class power" which you seem to be transitioning it towards.

its a guess but it seemed clear from the context to me.

As for me, if your character enters a bargain with an NPC that is as powerful as a fiend or a divinity and in exchange they give you access to ongoing powers etc etc I will be very very very explicit in discussion with you (and in-game discussion with PC) that that does come with baggage and strings and at least a few bits of how it can go badly if this arrangement doesn't work out as well as hoped. 

if at the player side at that moment you explain to me about player agency and the intent of the developers and how divinities have to keep providing spells and chanellings no matter what your character does - thats likely not going to end up the way you want - but it will end up successful by my standards.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I haven't either but that's approaching the problem from the wrong direction.  I get what you are saying though.
> 
> The direction is most recently "Dip Hexblade 1 for all of its benefits with CHR Pc's and don't worry about any background, backstory or whatever just use its great benefits."  While you do not have to do so, its clear Sorcerers and Bards gain IMMENSLY from a 1 level Hexblade dip, Paladins certainly do also, there are whole threads dedicated to it and every guide instantly changed when that class came out.
> 
> ...




"My position is sure, but you better have a good backstory and reason why the pact power continues to work since it a binding contract with dark entities, it says so right in the description of warlocks and hexblade in particular. "

For me as player my response to your challnge would be "because i am still undercontract and still doing whatever services the contract and deal requires. Does the patron not gain if his "partner/pawn" gets more powerful with sorcerer levels that the patron does not have to fuel? his contract gains power, his asset becomes better and more useful without him having to invest more. That seems a win-win."

That assumes of course that the GM **did his job** when the pact was agreed to and the player characert and the patron (and the player and the GM) came to mutual agreeable terms. The text tells you very clearly to work out those details with the Gm at the start.

The idea that a patron MUST INSIST the character only ever gain power again from it - seems a bit contrived and even illogical. You have him under contract, why not let him get more powerful on his own and then use him that much more?

As a GM, i would simply do my job and the player and i would work out these details without the notion of "patron is my pet" really ever getting off the ground. believe me, when the player got those extra sorc levels in - no problem - the patron can use that too. 

if a player and character couldn't come to a mutual agreed upon pact with their Gm and patron - then well - that is not a warlock multi-class level then. Try again when you have more to offer.

As for the OMG WHAT POWER LEVEL ETC bias - if you find the multi-class rules unbalancing or even specific combos unbalancing in your game as you run it - or any sub-class or any class or any feat or any... just alter the rules or throw them out. In my experience its cleaner to do that than get your dander up over what you think a player is conjuring up behind their eyes with all of that "suddenly everybody got creative" type rambles.

but thats just how i see it.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)




joining in on this note - the more "alien" and unfamiliar your setting is the more effort it takes to get started and "into it" the more difficult you make bringing players in - in my experience too. 

In those cases, i tend to go the "buck rodgers" or thomas covenant - sans whining" route and drop the PCs as "everyman" into the alien environment so that as the characters learn their players learn.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> It's not that it shouldn't be a consideration, it's just not a balance consideration.  It should be used to drive interesting roleplay.  That's why it's OK (balance wise) to ignore or reframe it.  Obviously, if you want to reinforce the constraints because that's what you've always done, that's fine too.




But it is a balance consideration.  If you ignore it, then you give the players carte blanche, that leads to murder hobo Devotion Paladins, Oathbreaker Paladins that love the their team, Hexblade MC for all CHR classes, everything.  If that fits into your world for your PC then it also has to fit into the rest of your world, all other peoples and nations.   

If you just run adventures without a fully developed game world, I use World of Greyhawk mostly but sometimes Forgotten Realms for PoTA and SKT, then it doesn't matter, you essentially run a series of one-offs.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 13, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The 5e devs deliberately wrote out any power-removing mechanic (they have a power-_swapping_ option with Oathbreakers), because they have realised for years that it is inherently unfair for some players to be penalised just because their player chose one of the allowed classes, while other classes can do what they like and don't get punished in the metagame by removing the mechanical abilities of the class.
> 
> The devs *want* players to pick whatever class and available power for ANY class, not just the ones unconnected to a god/patron/whatever.
> 
> I *hate* DMs who slaver at the mouth when they hear that a player has chosen a cleric or a paladin because the DM thinks he has carte blanche to take the player's agency away using the threat of taking class abilities away.



Agreed. There are bad DMs out there, who specifically targeted divine players and tried to make them break their oaths/vows/whatever. By removing that language from the book, they aren't seen as encouraging such over-zealous DMing.

But that assumes everyone is playing in good faith. It doesn't account for players who take certain class options for their mechanical aspects, without any intent of playing the character in an appropriate way. The exact nature of divine spellcasting is vague, which means it's up to the DM to interpret how they want it to work in their own setting, and one cleric playing by different (narrative) rules than every other cleric in the world would still be an aberration.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)




This is of course correct.  Most times a player who wants to do something different with his PC can just play it differently, but they wont do that so they need to change a class in somewhere to give them guiderails.  Being competitive gamers of course they build in an advantage without knowing it, if you let the DM know in advance they can give you their thoughts on it to keep it consistent.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> But it is a balance consideration.  If you ignore it, then you give the players carte blanche, that leads to murder hobo Devotion Paladins, Oathbreaker Paladins that love the their team, Hexblade MC for all CHR classes, everything.  If that fits into your world for your PC then it also has to fit into the rest of your world, all other peoples and nations.
> 
> If you just run adventures without a fully developed game world, I use World of Greyhawk mostly but sometimes Forgotten Realms for PoTA and SKT, then it doesn't matter, you essentially run a series of one-offs.





The underlying premise you put forth is that its a problem if balance-wise the multi-pally-whatever combos go murderhobo with no devotion type consequences *but* its not a problem for say a straight single class fighter or wizard or sorc or rogue (no devotion - no oath - no dip) to do the same? balance-wise?

Does this imbalance problem not exist if you have the same characters following their devotions - balance-wise? is the power level in play of pally-lock-sorc whatevers fine as long as they follow that oath and pact to the letter?

if not, then you are conflating the oath-devotion thingy and the power levels imbalance for no reason.

your problem seems to be the power gain from multi-classing and you seem to keep wrapping it up in narrative devotion paper.

they are very different things.

they have very different solutions if one views them as problems to be solved.

.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Agreed. There are bad DMs out there, who specifically targeted divine players and tried to make them break their oaths/vows/whatever. By removing that language from the book, they aren't seen as encouraging such over-zealous DMing.
> 
> But that assumes everyone is playing in good faith. It doesn't account for players who take certain class options for their mechanical aspects, without any intent of playing the character in an appropriate way. The exact nature of divine spellcasting is vague, which means it's up to the DM to interpret how they want it to work in their own setting, and one cleric playing by different (narrative) rules than every other cleric in the world would still be an aberration.




The assumption of everyone playing in good faith is one I thought was true but I am seeing that it isn't.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> The underlying premise you put forth is that its a problem if balance-wise the multi-pally-whatever combos go murderhobo with no devotion type consequences *but* its not a problem for say a straight single class fighter or wizard or sorc or rogue (no devotion - no oath - no dip) to do the same? balance-wise?
> 
> Does this imbalance problem not exist if you have the same characters following their devotions - balance-wise? is the power level in play of pally-lock-sorc whatevers fine as long as they follow that oath and pact to the letter?
> 
> ...





No, its also through alignment and world repercussions.  But then alignment isn't an issue as I have come to believe from this forum and others its just glossed over.  The power level of the pally-lock-sorc, which I think is vastly overstated, isn't an issue as long as you bring it all together with a backstory that makes sense (beyond "I read it was OP on the forums so I want to try it out") and play it correctly according to your power sources and binding agreement with your warlock patron (which will not be hand waived.)  If you want the powers that comes with those classes (whose descriptive text indicates that it is granted to you by another being) then you have to be willing to see the limitations also.   That means putting in more effort then just figuring out what combo of powers to take.

A simple world repercussion to which new players never seem to get is when I use their identical build and powers against them, with of course the bad guy having zero limitations about collateral damage to innocents, damage to property, etc.  Try a bad guy once with the Alert feat, some players will complain its unfair.  Its hilarious.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> No, its also through alignment and world repercussions.  But then alignment isn't an issue as I have come to believe from this forum and others its just glossed over.  The power level of the pally-lock-sorc, which I think is vastly overstated, isn't an issue as long as you bring it all together with a backstory that makes sense (beyond "I read it was OP on the forums so I want to try it out") and play it correctly according to your power sources and binding agreement with your warlock patron (which will not be hand waived.)  If you want the powers that comes with those classes (whose descriptive text indicates that it is granted to you by another being) then you have to be willing to see the limitations also.   That means putting in more effort then just figuring out what combo of powers to take.
> 
> A simple world repercussion to which new players never seem to get is when I use their identical build and powers against them, with of course the bad guy having zero limitations about collateral damage to innocents, damage to property, etc.  Try a bad guy once with the Alert feat, some players will complain its unfair.  Its hilarious.





A fighter and a sorcerer and a cleric and a pally-lock-sorc (whatever) walk into a bar and meet and go and do things and have adventures that are not murder hoboing - no power level imbalance problem.

A fighter and a sorcerer and a cleric and a pally-lock-sorc (whatever) walk into a bar and meet and go and do things and have adventures that are murder hoboing - a power level imbalance problem.

that makes no sense to me as a pair of both true statements for a single given campaign.

I am absolutely on the page of working thru pact, playing thru the fluff etc etc - but - it is from a campaign consistency and state of play position not from a position where i see it is a player balance in party problem. 

theres just nothing at all inherent in "i work with my patron and we quest as a group accordingly" that "balances" the power levels at all between those PCs.

Now, a GM might choose to leverage the pact to reduce the power of the character, in which case it is THE GM who is deciding the pact must be a mechanical element, not just narrative and story-producing and narrative-enhancing. That creeps close to the kind of bad GM others seem quite worried about playing under.

As for your alert fetish - again i suggest you fix rules you dont like as opposed to more counter-aggressive and hostile applications. My players haven't objected when encountering "non-surprisable foes" or foes with high init or foes which see invisible... so i dont get your screams in play.

EDIT TO ADD: havent used alignment since Reagan was president so... not an issue for me. Not playing alignment doesn't lead to murderhobos or other bad behaviors any more than playing with alignment prevented them. Alignment is and always was IIRC descriptive.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> No, its also through alignment and world repercussions.  But then alignment isn't an issue as I have come to believe from this forum and others its just glossed over.  The power level of the pally-lock-sorc, which I think is vastly overstated, isn't an issue as long as you bring it all together with a backstory that makes sense (beyond "I read it was OP on the forums so I want to try it out") and play it correctly according to your power sources and binding agreement with your warlock patron (which will not be hand waived.)  If you want the powers that comes with those classes (whose descriptive text indicates that it is granted to you by another being) then you have to be willing to see the limitations also.   That means putting in more effort then just figuring out what combo of powers to take.
> 
> A simple world repercussion to which new players never seem to get is when I use their identical build and powers against them, with of course the bad guy having zero limitations about collateral damage to innocents, damage to property, etc.  Try a bad guy once with the Alert feat, some players will complain its unfair.  Its hilarious.



I doubt the power level of that pally-lock-sorc is actually an issue even if there is no backstory/"roleplaying" to tie it together. Has anyone ever played such a character and actually been overwhelmingly stronger than other powergamed single-class characters at the same table?

I mean, a plain sorcerer lobbing fireballs can be a mean mean force to be reckoned with, and there's no powergaming involved in that at all. And in the game I'm playing right now, the strongest character (damage-wise) is the wand of lightning bolts. Er, whoever's holding the wand. 

The paladin/warlock in that game, played by one of the group's two powergamers, fits right in the middle of the group, both power-wise and in general effectiveness. (I'm the other one, and my damage sucks - but I have more hit points than the rest of the party combined and I'm an uber-explorer . . . of course that's real easy to accomplish just by selecting "druid")

I just haven't seen multiclassing result in stronger characters.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> But it is a balance consideration.  If you ignore it, then you give the players carte blanche, that leads to murder hobo Devotion Paladins, Oathbreaker Paladins that love the their team, Hexblade MC for all CHR classes, everything.



But that's an issue of not playing to type, not a balance issue.  



smbakeresq said:


> If that fits into your world for your PC then it also has to fit into the rest of your world, all other peoples and nations.



Except it doesn't, which is kind of the whole point.  It's why I find using class as a purely metagame construct so liberating.



smbakeresq said:


> If you just run adventures without a fully developed game world, I use World of Greyhawk mostly but sometimes Forgotten Realms for PoTA and SKT, then it doesn't matter, you essentially run a series of one-offs.



Exactly.  You use just enough world to support what your characters are doing.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)



That's a good point.  It's why I generally feel that trope heavy, kitchen sink settings are better, outside of a group that's invested in a setting they all have knowledge of.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)




This only makes sense if the only archetypes are those within the class fiction.  But, say, for the urchin/barbarian?  "I'm like Mr. Hyde."  Archetype done.

There's a good point that going way off the rails into strangeland has costs that may not get paid.  I agree with that.  But the baked-in fictions of the classes are not the only readily accessible archetypes that can be used in a fantasy setting.  Others exist.

Personally, I see class as what you can do, not necessarily what you are.  Quite often there's an agreement, but sometimes there isn't.  There's lots of stories in the sometimes that I don't want to write them off.  Some aren't worth the effort, some are, but I'm not going to settle for 1 kind of fighter fluff for all fighters.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I doubt the power level of that pally-lock-sorc is actually an issue even if there is no backstory/"roleplaying" to tie it together. Has anyone ever played such a character and actually been overwhelmingly stronger than other powergamed single-class characters at the same table?
> 
> I mean, a plain sorcerer lobbing fireballs can be a mean mean force to be reckoned with, and there's no powergaming involved in that at all. And in the game I'm playing right now, the strongest character (damage-wise) is the wand of lightning bolts. Er, whoever's holding the wand.
> 
> ...




MC definitely results in a stronger Bard since level 20 is terrible.  But you are correct in general.  Its not a power level issue, its a story issue.  I have an entire world and its all related, especially if its the movers and shakers doing it, which the PCs are.  Its like Living Greyhawk, everything has real world affects.

 I actually think this edition is much more balanced then the others


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A fighter and a sorcerer and a cleric and a pally-lock-sorc (whatever) walk into a bar and meet and go and do things and have adventures that are not murder hoboing - no power level imbalance problem.
> 
> A fighter and a sorcerer and a cleric and a pally-lock-sorc (whatever) walk into a bar and meet and go and do things and have adventures that are murder hoboing - a power level imbalance problem.
> 
> ...





I distinctly said its not power level problem.  

And since you haven't used alignment since Reagan then you wouldn't know what the difference is between playing with and without is correct?  It wasn't descriptive either, see Dragon Magazine, many articles, here is a listing:

"*Alignments:*
  Changing				"Betraying Your Evil Nature"				Eric Cagle		306(20)		D&D3
  Clarification				"Alignment: A New View of the Nine Philosophies"	John Lees		60(72)		D&D1
 					"Another View of the Nine-Point Alignment Scheme"	Carl Parlagreco		26(23)		D&D1
  Evil:
    Lawful vs. Chaotic			"Evil: Law Vs. Chaos"					Gary Gygax		28(10)		D&D1
    Playing evil characters		"How To Have a Good Time Being Evil"			Roger E. Moore		45(60)		D&D1
 					"Play a Villain? An Evil Idea"				Brian Blume		57(50)		D&D1
  Good:
    Definition of			"Good Isn't Stupid, Paladins & Rangers..."		Gary Gygax		38(22)		D&D1
    Paladin standards			"It's Not Easy Being Good"				Roger E. Moore		51(33)		D&D1
  Law and chaos				"Meaning of Law & Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons"		Gary Gygax		SR6(3)		OD&D
  Neutral				"Neutral Point of View, The"				Stephen Inniss		99(8)		D&D1
  Ramifications of			"Choir Practice At the First Church of Lawful Evil"	Lawrence Schick		24(34)		D&D1
  Real-life*				"Front-End Alignments"					Rich Stump		124(44)		D&D1
  Redefining				"For King and Country"					Paul Suttie		101(18)		D&D1
 					"Making Law Out of Chaos"				J.R. Renaud		163(74)		D&D1
  Role of				"Your Place In the Grand Scheme"			Tom Little		153(36)		D&D1
  Roleplaying of			"Get Your Priorities Straight!"				Royce Wicks		173(50)		D&D2
  Towns, of				"Towns: With and Without Pity"				Robin D. Laws		295(64)		D&D3
  Variation				"Varied Player Character and Non-Player Character
 					  Alignment in the Dungeons & Dragons Campaign"		Gary Gygax		9(5)		OD&D"
​If you have a complete game world, then Alignment is a big issue.  Don't call it alignment if that bothers you, call it tendencies or philosophical viewpoints or whatever.  It was a HUGE factor in the game and the game world, with planes being mapped to alignments etc.  If you are not using it you are missing out on big part of the game.


But if you don't care about it and don't enforce it and don't use it then it none of it matters, everyone can do anything they like without any alignment repercussions.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 13, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> The difference for me is that changing the fluff of a class for one character does not automatically mean all laws of reality or all shared assumptions about the game are thrown out. In fact, a player could never have such power over a campaign and I don't know that anyone is advocating for that.
> 
> I think this is a false equivalence.  If I allow one character to follow a philosophy and not a god as a cleric, I do not think that means that suddenly townsfolk are suddenly cool with dead people stomping through town (i.e. zombies). .




I agree thatit does not. However, I would not allow a cleric of philosophy in a setting that I run, because clerics ,in my homebrew campaigns, are a specific thing and they get their powers from deities....end of story. Allowing a cleric of philosophy would change that.  Therefore, player is free to choose to play a cleric of one of the established deities (including following the established tenets and strictures that I have established for the deity in question), to find another class, or to find another table.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I distinctly said its not power level problem.
> 
> And since you haven't used alignment since Reagan then you wouldn't know what the difference is between playing with and without is correct?  It wasn't descriptive either, see Dragon Magazine, many articles, here is a listing:
> 
> ...




Whoa, there, you're saying that if I don't use alignment as you do, I can't have a complete world?  Absolutely, if I don't use alignment, there are no alignment repercussions.  This doesn't, in any way, mean there aren't _any_ repercussions, or even moral repercussions.  You murder-hobo in my games, bad things happen without ever even looking at your alignment.  Alignment can be a good tool, no doubt, but it's not a necessary one, and not using it doesn't lessen the ability to apply repercussions.  Heck, to reach out to my favorite non-D&D game, Blades in the Dark, it doesn't have alignment as a mechanic at all and yet it's full of moral questions, dilemmas, and repercussions.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

If it’s full of moral questions, dilemmas and repercussions then you are using alignment you just calling it something else.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 13, 2018)

Greg K said:


> I agree thatit does not. However, I would not allow a cleric of philosophy in a setting that I run, because clerics ,in my homebrew campaigns, are a specific thing and they get their powers from deities....end of story. Allowing a cleric of philosophy would change that.  Therefore, player is free to choose to play a cleric of one of the established deities (including following the established tenets and strictures that I have established for the deity in question), to find another class, or to find another table.




Sounds like that would ruin your fun and therefore you would not allow it.  

I would not like to play that.  I don't "like it" but if a player found a way to make it fun for the table I would allow it.  In my campaign world there is a lot i don't know about...there are species I did not write about, cults I have not enumerated and people I have not named.  

What I wrote about still stands but there is room for a weird exception.  I have more fun with fluke things being possible even if unique or very rare.  If the player really had to play that concept you are right.  They would probably look for another table.  I just would not want to make that happen.

We have some general guidelines.  Currently we play with humans, elves, dwarves...odd monster races would be a hard sell.  But I would allow it if possible.  I just would not make radical alterations to the world to make it happen and I would be up front about it.  A full blooded orc in town is not accepted.  Welcome to consequences...


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 13, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> This only makes sense if the only archetypes are those within the class fiction.  But, say, for the urchin/barbarian?  "I'm like Mr. Hyde."  Archetype done.
> 
> There's a good point that going way off the rails into strangeland has costs that may not get paid.  I agree with that.  But the baked-in fictions of the classes are not the only readily accessible archetypes that can be used in a fantasy setting.  Others exist.



The argument about classes having codified fluff is only tangential to the argument about the merits of using established archetypes in the first place. The benefit of having an established barbarian archetype is similar to the benefit of having an established Mr. Hyde archetype, in that you don't need to explain things to the audience.

A big, related issue comes to how you see the PCs. You can frequently get away with a unique protagonist in a novel, where they aren't like their peers in some way, and you can spend a lot of page space in going through the details and ramifications thereof. If you're the one fighter in your fighter class who has a unique heritage with Hyde-like tendencies, then that's why you're the protagonist, and nobody in the audience feels cheated by it.

That's not the only way to look at it, though. If you don't assume that PCs are inherently special and that's why they're PCs, then you have to come to terms with the fact that expected archetypes stop holding. As a player, you can be fighting a group of town guards, and one of them suddenly Hulks out, and it feels like you're being cheated because this doesn't make sense for how you understand the world to work based on the archetypes you thought were in play.

And I'm not going to argue (right now) about which is the better way to play, but I do have a preference (as a player), and it's probably better if we don't make unfounded assumptions at this point in the life-cycle of the thread.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 13, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Yes, that is true.
> 
> Part of the reason I'm posting more aggressively is that this is an interesting topic, where people have real differences of opinions.  It's an issue where it's not uncommon to have players with different takes on the topic at the same table.  Glossing over it with the usual "Everyone's got a preference, and they need to be allowed to have them" doesn't give me much interesting information as to why people with the opposite take from me identify so strongly with those tropes.
> 
> I mean, I'll play any game, with anybody.  The main reason I participate in these threads is to widen my exposure to different play styles, so I can go into various games and groups and know enough to recognize their preferences, and not assume they share my own.  So if I run into a DM who shoots down my concept for a Noble barbarian (a character concept I've played!), at least I can recognize why they feel that way, despite the fact that not allowing reskinning defeats a lot of the fun of character building to me.




They do and this thread is pretty good

The noble barbarian is common in fiction.  “Uncivilized” people showing far more “nobility” then the civilized people trying to conquer or exploit them is a recurring theme.

I also didn’t follow through on barbarian with street urchin background.  Seems ok to me, I never lived in a barbarian encampment but I am pretty sure they would have orphans scrounging around somewhere.  Thieves tools might be a reach, I don’t think a barbarian tribe would have the skill to make them.  However I would let you use skills to break into things and once you acquired thieves tools let you learn how to use them, using the rules in the PHB with some modification, likely not taking 250 days.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The assumption of everyone playing in good faith is one I thought was true but I am seeing that it isn't.



If you want an entertaining read that works from the assumption of bad-faith gaming, try to track down a copy of Raven McCracken's seminal work, _The World of Synnibarr _(2nd edition). There's a significant section in the GM rules about how to call out players for cheating, as well as rules for the players to call out the GM for cheating, including the specific resolution method for what happens if a player thinks that the GM is deviating from the notes they had previously written down.

D&D 5E is a breath of fresh air, in comparison.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)




I would note that archetypes in general have the value you describe whether or not you require your players to adhere to them. A character concept can be described in terms of the achetypes it represents, but it can also just as easily be described in terms of the archetypes it contrasts with or outright subverts.

I would also note that one can infer that the descriptive utility of archetypes to describe (or contrast with) a character is limited by the degree of shared understanding of that archetype. For example, as the feral street urchin example suggests, there is no consensus in this thread on what qualifies as a "Barbarian".


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, at the risk of being somewhat controversial, I will answer the question of, "Why would we not help a player have more fun" with an extended digression.
> 
> Let's talk about team sports! See, in team sports, it is entirely possible for one person to maximize their own fun to the detriment of other people's fun (we might call this person, for example, a Ball Hog, or a late-career Kobe Bryant). Conversely, it is also possible that by sublimating your own fun every now and then, you maximize the group's fun, and when the group's fun is maximized, your own fun becomes greater than if you were simply pursuing your own fun.
> 
> ...




I get what you're saying here, but, let's be honest here with the example - if your enjoyment of the game is dependent upon another player at the table adhering to your specific interpretation of how a class must be played, then, well, as you said, no compromise is likely possible and those two people should not be gaming together.  

And, frankly, if someone's ego is so tied up into forcing everyone at the table to adhere to their specific interpretations that they cannot compromise, then that someone is being a total asshat.  They are the problem.  And, as a group, we should not cater to players or DM's like that.  The hobby certainly doesn't need them and they are the source of most of the worst games out there.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 13, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> If it’s full of moral questions, dilemmas and repercussions then you are using alignment you just calling it something else.



That seems to be a uselessly broad definition of alignment.  I'm not certain how that definition jives with D&D's planar structure, which you seem to think is another outcome of alignment.  Curiously, do you define real-world people according to alignment?  If not, then you must recognize that moral interacts occur without an alignnent system, so it's weird you'd insist Blades does.  If you do, well, cool, but I don't think there's a lot for us to talk about on this.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> The argument about classes having codified fluff is only tangential to the argument about the merits of using established archetypes in the first place. The benefit of having an established barbarian archetype is similar to the benefit of having an established Mr. Hyde archetype, in that you don't need to explain things to the audience.
> 
> A big, related issue comes to how you see the PCs. You can frequently get away with a unique protagonist in a novel, where they aren't like their peers in some way, and you can spend a lot of page space in going through the details and ramifications thereof. If you're the one fighter in your fighter class who has a unique heritage with Hyde-like tendencies, then that's why you're the protagonist, and nobody in the audience feels cheated by it.
> 
> ...



No, indeed.  I'm not saying that your preference isn't valid:  it very much is.  My point was that archetypes are far broader than the ones associated with default class fictions, so that's not a strong argument for sticking to class fictions.  That doesn't say anything about your preference, though.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> They do and this thread is pretty good
> 
> The noble barbarian is common in fiction.  “Uncivilized” people showing far more “nobility” then the civilized people trying to conquer or exploit them is a recurring theme.
> 
> I also didn’t follow through on barbarian with street urchin background.  Seems ok to me, I never lived in a barbarian encampment but I am pretty sure they would have orphans scrounging around somewhere.  Thieves tools might be a reach, I don’t think a barbarian tribe would have the skill to make them.  However I would let you use skills to break into things and once you acquired thieves tools let you learn how to use them, using the rules in the PHB with some modification, likely not taking 250 days.



Well, okay.  You're fine with changing background fiction but not class fictions?  Why?  Why are background fictions more malleable than class fictions?


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I distinctly said its not power level problem.
> 
> *And since you haven't used alignment since Reagan then you wouldn't know what the difference is between playing with and without is correct?  It wasn't descriptive either, see Dragon Magazine, many articles, here is a listing:
> *
> ...




Not sure why if i haven't used it since the 80s you think that means i do not know the difference in playing with it and without it.

We played with it during the reaan era. we played without it after that. truthfully we dropped it sometime in between. 

We saw what it added and what it cost. We didn't like it. 

Not liking something is not the same as not understanding it.

Also, now i admit my memory wasn't what it used to be, but even from the early days - alignment was descriptive. The characrer's alignment was a descriptive term drawn from their actions - not a straightjacket that limited their actions.

A LG paladin could go on on an orphan murdering spree that ran the streets red with blood - and his alignment would not stop him. 

The alignment would CHANGE because LG no longer described his actions taken.

There would likely be repercussions in game for the spree. Definitely likely to be consequences in game for the breaking of his paladin standards etc.

But alignment was always descriptive of the characters actions - not something forcing his actions. 

Thats why they had rules for alignment change and sometimes even penalties.

A list of articles discussing alignment and even discussing changing it - doesn't change that point.

Now of course a Gm coul;d say "if you are LG you are incapable of doing non-LG acts" but that wasn't ever part of the rules i saw.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 13, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, I'm going to point this out gently, again. One person's idea of an asshat, is another person's idea of the right way to play, and vice versa.
> 
> So it is totally fair that you don't like playing a certain way; good on you! But imagine someone else does? I know, hard, isn't it?  But seriously, this is just a variation on the usual. Just sub in "optimizer" and you get the same results. Some people swear by it, some people swear at it, and so on.
> 
> ...




just to be clear the statement made did not describe a way of playing as an asshat - like in storytelling vs rtactical vs whateverr... it was specifically about how one forces others to comply with their own inflexibility. it seemed to be about someone trying to force others in a social circle to comply with their wishes  - not a playstyle.

"_ frankly, if someone's ego is so tied up into forcing everyone at the table to adhere to their specific interpretations that they cannot compromise, then that someone is being a total asshat. "


_


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, okay.  You're fine with changing background fiction but not class fictions?  Why?  Why are background fictions more malleable than class fictions?




I am fine with changing class fictions, I never said that.  I said all I would require is that it be well thought out with a backstory and working with the DM to fit into the over all picture.  I am ok with changing almost anything, with the caveat you need more than "I think this will be a great min/max build so I need to find a way to justify it."  If you put in the work to come up with something I would certainly work with the player to get it in somehow.  I never said anything like that.

As far as my other post:

Alignment - mine is a broad definition, in fact it is the definition - from the wiki and is how I see it also:

"In the ​_Dungeons & Dragons (​D&D) ​fantasyrole-playing game, ​*alignment is a categorization of the ​ethical and ​moral perspective of ​player characters, ​non-player characters, and creatures. "  ​*_

"Richard Bartle's ​_Designing Virtual Worlds noted that alignment is a way to categorize players' characters, along with gender, ​race, ​character class, and sometimes nationality. Alignment was designed to help define ​role-playing, a character's alignment being seen as their outlook on life. A player decides how a character should behave in assigning an alignment, and should then play the character in accordance with that alignment.​[13] "​_

"Characters acting as a ​party should have compatible alignments; a party with both good and evil characters may turn against itself.​[14]Bill Slavicsek and ​Richard Baker's ​_Dungeon Master For Dummies noted that a party of good or neutral characters works better as the motivations for adventures are easier, the group dynamics are smoother, and the "heroic aspects of ​D&D shine through in ways that just don't happen when players play evil characters".​[14_

I read those books, they are good for DMs.  Alignment is a great tool for all of the world around the PCs, to keep it all together in various regions.

The PHB has a section on it right after other details.  As everything is optional of course you don't have to use it anymore then height, weight, sex, name or anything else in that section.  I use all those in my games also, like alignment you can pick those or roll on the tables.

I didn't realize that people thought of alignment as some sort of chain that shackles their creativity, as such a tremendous negative.  I see it as part of your background just like it says in the PHB:

"CHARACTERS ARE DEFINED BY MUCH MORE THAN their race and class. They’re individuals with their own stories, interests, connections, and capabilities beyond those that class and race define. This chapter expounds on the details that distinguish characters from one another, including the basics of name and physical description, the rules of backgrounds and languages, and the finer points of personality and alignment"


And yes, I define real world people this way also, years of life and travel and work and being an engineer and a lawyer has raised my awareness to constantly take in all information available about a person and continually assess them as to who they are as a person and whether I should waste my time dealing with them.  So:

Please don't respond anymore to anything I post.  You continually misquote and misrepresent things and then argue from there.  I have seen you do it before and LowKey13 has the same problem with you.  I was responding to another poster about how this is a productive thread on many things and as usual you have to piss all over it.  Take you negative posts back to whatever miserable life you lead.  I simply don't care about any opinion you have on anything anymore.​


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 14, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> If people want to run meatgrinder OSR-style games with class archetypes, and have fun doing so, that's good for them, right?




For those who dont know what OSR style game means there is a good summation.  Actually since I played when these games were being invented (I am older)  this is how I learned to DM and still DM, I read this before every session I play.   Anyway, here it is:

"This is a quick guidebook I've written specifically for 3e players who want to try out Swords & Wizardry or OSRIC. It's presumptuous of me to have written it, because I'm not really one of the thinkers here and it's a huge and fundamental topic. 

Quick Primer for Old School Gaming 

This booklet is an introduction to “old school” gaming, designed especially for anyone who started playing fantasy role-playing games after, say, the year 2000 – but it’s also for longer-time players who have become adjusted to modern styles of role-playing over the years. 

If you want to try a one-shot session of 0e using the free Swords & Wizardry rules, just printing the rules and starting to play as you normally do will produce a fairly pathetic gaming session – you’ll decide that 0e is just missing all kinds of important rules. You will have played a game where no situations had any sort of guidance, and you just imported rules from your normal game to fill in the gaps. This booklet is intended to fill the role of an experienced referee who’s actually played 0e – someone who can explain how the rules are put to use, not just what they are. 

For the Players and the Referee: 

Playing an old school game is very different from modern games where there are rules covering many specific situations. Read these rules as if they are the rules of a completely new role-playing game you’ve never seen before; keep in mind what you think is “missing” isn’t there on purpose; and remember that the GM has no obligation to be “fair,” just relatively impartial. 

First Zen Moment: Rulings, not Rules 
The biggest key to understanding “old school” gaming is like a Zen moment: much of the time, you don’t use a rule, you just use a ruling. It’s easy to understand that sentence, but it takes a flash of insight to really “get it.” I’m not saying that you’re going to have a flash of liking it. You might hate it. What I’m saying is that it’s a big intuitive leap from modern games to understand how this works. The players can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they “can” do it. The GM uses common sense or makes an ad-hoc ruling, and then the game moves on. This is why characters have so few numbers on the character sheet, and why they have so few specified abilities. Many of the things that are “die roll” challenges in modern gaming (disarming a trap, for example) are handled by observation, thinking, and experimentation in old-style games. Getting through obstacles is more “hands-on” than you’re probably used to. 

A simple example: by tradition, many pit traps in 0e are treated as follows. They can be detected easily, by probing ahead with a 10ft pole. If you step onto one, there is a 1 in 6 chance that the pit trap will open. And that’s all there is to it. Thieves – if the game even uses thieves as a character class – don’t spot them unless specifically checking, and they don’t disarm. 

Or say for instance you want your fighter to leap from a high ledge to the ground, both hands gripped tightly around the hilt of his sword to drive it deep into the back of the goblin below, who’s about to club the party’s cleric from behind. What do you do? You simply tell the referee what you want to do. Then the referee will probably ask you to roll to hit. If you hit, you do damage. You might even do extra damage because of your weight behind the blow. That will be for the DM to determine. If you are a ways off the ground you might have to check to see if you get hurt yourself – and maybe not, if you roll to hit well enough. On the other hand, the referee might decide that you automatically hit the goblin since you’re attacking from behind and from above, but not give you extra damage. However the referee decides the exact die rolls and numbers, it’s obvious that you’re going to have some sort of powerful attack here, even though you don’t have a specific “feat” or “skill” for this kind of maneuver written on your character sheet. 

Second Zen Moment: Forget “Fair.” 
A good GM is impartial, neither trying to favor the party nor the opposition. Beyond that, the party has no right to always encounter monsters they can defeat, no right to always encounter traps they can disarm, no right to invoke a particular rule from the books, and no right to a die roll in every particular circumstance. It is the GM’s game, and he calls the shots. It’s much less like a game of chess, and much more like a game of storytelling with dice. The only right the players have – and it’s a big one – the GM should never, ever, tell a player what the player’s character does. That’s the player’s decision. Unless the character is under a charm, or whatever, the player makes the decisions. With all the powers an old-style GM has, it is even more important not to “railroad” the game than it is in modern games. 

Third Zen Moment: Heroic, not Superhero 
Old School games have a human-sized scale, not a super-powered scale. At first level, adventurers are barely more capable than a regular person. They live by their wits. By the way, characters with low intelligence are still expected to be played intelligently as a matter of player skill. The player’s skill is the character’s guardian angel – call it the character’s luck or intuitions, or whatever makes sense to you, but you don’t cut back on your skill as a player just because the character has a low intelligence. It’s a game of skill. But back to the Zen moment. Even as characters rise to the heights of power, they aren’t picking up super-abilities or high ability scores. Truly high-level characters have precious items accumulated over a career of adventuring; they usually have some measure of political power, at least a stronghold. They are deadly when facing normal opponents … but they aren’t invincible. Old school gaming (and again, this is a matter of taste) is the fantasy of taking a guy without tremendous powers – a guy much like yourself but somewhat stronger, or with slight magic powers – and becoming a king or a feared sorcerer over time. It’s not about a guy who can, at the start of the game, take on ten club-wielding peasants at once. It’s got a real-world, gritty starting point. And your character isn’t personally ever going to become stronger than a dragon. At higher levels, he may be able to kill a dragon with his sword or with spells, but never by grabbing its throat and strangling it in a one-on-one test of strength. To make a comic-book analogy, characters don’t become Superman; they become Batman. And they don’t start as Batman – Batman is the pinnacle. He’s a bit faster than normal, a bit stronger than normal, he’s got a lot of cash, a Bat Cave, a butler, a henchman (Robin) and cool gadgets. But he can’t leap tall buildings in a single bound. If you don’t get a feeling of achievement with Batman instead of Superman as the goal, the old school gaming style probably isn’t right for your vision of what makes good and exciting fantasy. Old school gaming is about the triumph of the little guy into an epic hero, not the development of an epic hero into a superhuman being. There’s nothing wrong with the latter, it’s just that old-style fantasy matches up with the former. 

Fourth Zen Moment: Game balance a minor factor 
Game Balance is not the all-important measure of all things in old-style gaming. At any given time, one character may very well be more powerful than the rest (the experience tables cause some character classes to level up earlier than others). A few adventures later, the tables will turn as other characters level up – a different character often takes the limelight for a while. 

This is a co-operative game played among friends, not a competition to have the most powerful character. The competition is against the fantasy world, not against the other players and not against the referee. Focusing heavily on “Game balance” is a method for highly exact, competitive games. It’s okay to be inexact and approximate with game balance, as long as the boat’s not in danger of completely capsizing. 

For the Game Master 

As the Game Master, you’ve got to wrap your head around those Zen moments – at least a little bit – before refereeing a game using the 0e rules, or Swords & Wizardry, or whatever game you’ve chosen to try out. You’re the most important factor in making sure the game is actually the old-style game you want to try out: if you don’t at least get a basic grasp of those four ideas then what you run will just be a modern-style game without enough rules. 

Remember: You are the rulebook. There is no other rulebook. 

Make it fast, make it colorful, and make it full of decisions for the players. 

Resource management: It’s important to realize that old-style gaming is a game that involves a lot of “resource management.” Your party has a finite number of spells, a finite amount of food, a finite amount of torches, and a finite amount of damage that it can absorb. Light sources and food become less important at higher levels, but spells and hit points are always vital commodities that you’ve got to keep an eye upon. Some modern-style gamers don’t like this part of a role-playing game, thinking that it’s not adventurous to be worrying about how long the torches will burn, and that it’s silly for a magic-user to use one spell and then be “useless” for the rest of the adventure. Just take it on faith for a moment that this is an important and exciting part of old-style gaming. It’s one of those things that if it’s done right adds lots of tension and excitement. It might still not be your cup of tea – there are many different ways to enjoy fantasy gaming – but to really experience the “old-style” manner of play, this is pretty important. It comes back to that earlier Zen Moment about how old-style gaming is built on a human scale, not on a superhuman scale. Having to worry about things like whether the torches are going to run out emphasizes the experience of being a “regular person” exploring a very dark and very dangerous place where people really don’t belong. Gaining the ability to use magical light and to create food supplies is an achievement – an achievement too low to register on the modern-style, superhuman scale of things perhaps, but for a “regular guy” type of adventurer it’s a milestone. 

So, here’s how you run a game where resource management is a significant factor. The challenge to the players is to get where they want to go (places with piles of gold, they hope) without having to retreat. There’s a cost to retreating: perhaps they can barely afford their upkeep at the local inn; perhaps their reward from the local baron is reduced if they can’t achieve the mission within a certain number of days; perhaps there’s a risk that a hostage will be killed; perhaps there’s another adventuring party that’s trying to reach the same treasure. In other words, there’s also got to be a race against time. It might not be a fast race, and it might not have an overwhelming sense of urgency to it, but there’s got to be a race against time. Otherwise, yes, managing resources isn’t particularly fun – it’s unnecessary bookkeeping. The combination of race against time against depleting resources is a very powerful source of drama and tension. It’s one of the driving forces of old-style gaming. At low level, the race against time is often just to have enough money to scrape by: as the GM, you set some amount of money that they’re spending per day or per week. If they want to scrimp and save let them, but constantly describe the rats in their foul lodgings, the bland porridge they’re eating, the condescending attitude of villagers who see the characters failing to succeed – they’ll speed up their efforts. At higher levels, creating the race against time requires a bit more creativity on your part – especially because you don’t want to make it into something that forces the players into any particular adventure. The players should always have control over what their characters can do, so you’ve got to avoid overusing the whole “the king will have you executed if you don’t rescue the princess” sort of adventure hook. 

Combat is abstract. One criticism that’s often leveled against old-style gaming is that it’s boring to just have a series of: “I roll a d20. Miss. I roll a d20. Hit. I roll a d20. Miss. I roll a d20. Miss.” It’s true that from time to time the “tape” of an old-style combat is exactly like this. Some combats are unimportant enough that no one bothers to try anything particularly unusual, and if there’s not a fumble or a critical hit, and the party doesn’t get into hot water then this kind of combat won’t use much tactical thinking on anyone’s part. So why even have it? Because every quick, less-significant combat uses up resources. And when I say quick, I mean very, very quick. In modern games, where combat contains special moves and lots of rules, combat takes up lots of time. An “insignificant” combat is a complete waste of gaming time. In older rules, a small combat can take five minutes or less. So small combats work very well as a way of depleting those precious resources in a race against time. The players will actually seek to avoid minor combats when there’s not much treasure involved. They’re looking for the lairs and the treasure troves, not seeking to kill everything that crosses their path. The classic old-style adventure contains “wandering monsters” that can randomly run into and attack the party, and some modern gamers see this as arbitrary. It’s not. It’s another instance of running a race against time – if the characters aren’t smart and fast in getting to the lairs and troves, if they shilly-shally and wander, they’re going to lose hit points and spells fighting wandering monsters who carry virtually no treasure. This is also, by the way, why older-style games award experience points for gaining treasure as well as for killing monsters. If killing monsters is the only way to gain experience points, then one monster’s pretty much the same as another – the players don’t have much of an incentive to avoid combat. When treasure is the best source of experience points and there’s a race against time, the players have every incentive to use all their skill and creativity to avoid encounters that drain their resources. They’ve got to press on to the mission before they become too weak to keep going. 

So that’s why combat is abstract, or at least it’s one reason. Also, of course, fast combat mimics the pace of combat – in more complex games, players may have to sit for a while, contemplating the next “move” like a chess game. I’ve heard of egg timers being used to limit thinking time. With old-style, abstract combat, this just doesn’t happen (not often, anyway). Abstract combat also opens the door for one of the things that’s most important about old-style gaming – the freewheeling feel of “anything goes.” 

In old-style combat, a player can describe and attempt virtually anything he can think of. He doesn’t need to have any sort of game-defined ability to do it. He can try to slide on the ground between opponents, swing from a chandelier and chop at a distant foe, taunt an opponent into running over a pit trap … whatever he wants to try. That doesn’t, of course, mean that he’ll succeed. It’s your job to handle these attempts colorfully and fairly, choosing whatever probability you think is the right one and rolling some dice. Sometimes you’ll enforce common sense and roll that one in 10,000 chance. When the players truly understand that their characters’ actions aren’t constrained by the lack of a specific ability, you’ll find that combat becomes quite interesting. It’s also your job to inject events that wouldn’t occur within the format of a specific set of rules for what happens during combat. “You rolled a 1. Your sword goes flying.” “You rolled a 1. You trip and fall.” “You rolled a 1. Your sword sticks into a crack in the floor.” “Hey, you rolled a 20. You spin around and gain an extra attack.” Hey, you rolled a 20. You slay the orc, kick his body off your sword, and blood spatters into the eyes of one of the orcs behind him.” “Hey, you rolled a 20. You knock his sword out of his hand even though he’s not killed.” That’s just a set of examples for the various ways you could handle natural rolls of 1 or 20 without the constraint of specific rules. Even when the rolls aren’t unusual, you keep up a running picture of what’s happening. Not all the time – the players have their own mental picture of what’s happening, and you don’t want to step on their imaginations. But you’re also able to have monsters doing unexpected things – throwing a bench in the attempt to knock down two characters at once, monsters that try to swing by chandeliers, and other such challenges that don’t often surface in games with tighter rules. Try to put some “toys” into the combat areas some of the time: benches, places where you can fight from the high ground, slippery patches, etc. Because of the speed of the abstract combat system, unusual tricks by the players and monsters don’t cause delays while the rules are consulted. It’s all you – you are the rulebook. "


I did not write this but could not have written it better.  Here is the post:  https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?402972-The-Zen-of-Old-School-D-amp-D*
*​


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I am fine with changing class fictions, I never said that.  I said all I would require is that it be well thought out with a backstory and working with the DM to fit into the over all picture.  I am ok with changing almost anything, with the caveat you need more than "I think this will be a great min/max build so I need to find a way to justify it."  If you put in the work to come up with something I would certainly work with the player to get it in somehow.  I never said anything like that.
> 
> As far as my other post:
> 
> ...




As a matter of practical measures - i have to wonder if you are wanting to make your requests for them to not respond be taken as anything other than indirect personal slights towards them - why keep repeating the requests and dismissals but not simply block them? 

We do not get on these forusm the power to make others stop posting but we do have the power to block them so it seems odd after what seem to be multiple attempts you still persist in the one thats failing and not the one that succeeds as soon as you want it to.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 14, 2018)

I don’t believe in blocking people, if people can’t follow a simple request then it says more about them.

Also blocking messes up the forum threads.

It’s my first attempt with this poster.  None have failed before either.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> We played with it during the reaan era. we played without it after that. truthfully we dropped it sometime in between.




The time "in between" the Reagan era and the post-Reagan era is infinitesimally small, so we can actually narrow down the point at which you dropped alignment with great precision.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I am fine with changing class fictions, I never said that.  I said all I would require is that it be well thought out with a backstory and working with the DM to fit into the over all picture.  I am ok with changing almost anything, with the caveat you need more than "I think this will be a great min/max build so I need to find a way to justify it."  If you put in the work to come up with something I would certainly work with the player to get it in somehow.  I never said anything like that.
> 
> As far as my other post:
> 
> ...




Okay, what did I misquote or misrepresent, here?  Honest question, not seeing it.

As for you using D&D alignment in the real world -- cool.  That's a radically different view of the world than mine, and I agree I don't see how we could ever agree with that as a basis.  No harm, no foul, though - different strokes for different folks.

For the class fluff, sorry if I didn't get what you were saying, but it really seemed like you were adjusting the urchin background because of your understanding of barbarian.  My point was to ask why it isn't just as easy to adjust the barbarian to match the urchin background?  It is important to you that barbarians come from low-tech tribes?  These are honest questions.  It may end up we just radically see the game differently, as we appear to do alignment, but that's fine, too.  Hard to discuss things, though.  Honestly, though, if you're going to follow through with [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION]13's threats, please just go ahead and block me.  As you note, I also monitor who's worth my time, and generally it's those that chose to block because they can't be bothered to discuss if the discussion gets a little heated.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 14, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The time "in between" the Reagan era and the post-Reagan era is infinitesimally small, so we can actually narrow down the point at which you dropped alignment with great precision.
> 
> Just sayin'.



Only if one sees "during" and reads "for the entire"


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> An inability to conceptualize these elements under the umbrella of "street urchin" is not the fault of the concept.
> 
> Unarmored defense - whodathunk that a person with no training in wearing armor might develop skills that would make them better at avoiding getting smacked with lumpy metal things.  Unless you're insisting that Unarmored Defense somehow actually makes the skin of the barbarian tougher.
> 
> ...




Google street urchins.  If one has even a 10 strength, I'd be surprised.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, I'm going to point this out gently, again. One person's idea of an asshat, is another person's idea of the right way to play, and vice versa.
> 
> So it is totally fair that you don't like playing a certain way; good on you! But imagine someone else does? I know, hard, isn't it?  But seriously, this is just a variation on the usual. Just sub in "optimizer" and you get the same results. Some people swear by it, some people swear at it, and so on.
> 
> ...




Oh, I do agree.  Always play with people you can share interests with.

My issue here is that the idea that barbarian mechanics are tied to any sort of specific flavor.  They aren't.  There's absolutely nothing in the PHB to justify the idea that barbarians must derive their powers from any specific source.  You can tell me that you want a specific source for your game, fair enough.  But, don't try to pretend that there is any actual official justification for forcing your (the royal you, not  you specifically) preferences on the group.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 14, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Google street urchins.  If one has even a 10 strength, I'd be surprised.



 Add a little training and puberty.

ever heard of Mike Tyson?  He could hit like a truck in his youth.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 14, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Add a little training and puberty.
> 
> ever heard of Mike Tyson?  He could hit like a truck in his youth.




Sure.  He wasn't a street urchin.  A street tough given his size, maybe.  He had a home and family, even if his father left them.  At no point did he live by himself on the street starving.  At no point was he this tiny waif of a thing that is also known as a street urchin.

*urchin*

That young child dressed in dirty hand-me-downs and running rampant through city streets is an urchin. Street _urchins, as they are commonly called, have a reputation for getting into trouble._
_Strangely enough, urchin, pronounced "UR-chin," comes from the 13th century French word yrichon, which means “hedgehog,” and is still used as such in parts of England today. As for people who are urchins, perhaps they got the name because at the time*, they were so small, wild and many in number *— like hedgehogs. The 19th century novelist Charles Dickens wrote about so many fictional urchins, most famously Oliver Twist, that dickens has become a synonym for urchin.

_
urchin

1​*a poor and often mischievous city child*

Types:show 4 types...Type of:child, *fry,* kid, minor, nestling, nipper, shaver, *small fry*, tiddler, tike, tyke, youngster, a young person of either sex


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 14, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  He wasn't a street urchin.  A street tough given his size, maybe.  He had a home and family, even if his father left them.  At no point did he live by himself on the street starving.  At no point was he this tiny waif of a thing that is also known as a street urchin.
> 
> *urchin*
> 
> ...




OK.  Let's try another one.  Say you have a half-orc character with the urchin background.  Are you going to argue they have to be little?  They survived by being little and fast but not resilient and strong?

I understand the Charles Dickens archetype here but Half-Orcs did not figure into his tales.  This is illuminating.  While we draw on real world experience and stories that have been told, we are telling a NEW take on different tales because we are playing a fantasy game.  Sure, the basic idea is a dirty little kid but this is D&D with cities that may have nonhuman inhabitants.

This is where my approach differs from what I assume yours might be.  You are finding reasons to quash a character concept by using the dictionary and English fiction.  I would help the player find a way to play a street urchin (or whatever background is recommended for a kid who fights in the streets and grows up fighting) who later grows into an adult who goes berserk. 

By you line of reasoning, the kid probably has to be a Norseman who raids via longboat in order to take barbarian with the berserker subclass.

Again, it almost looks like you are trying to find reasons to say no rather than some way to say mostly yes.  Its your game!  But again, we have to be a small person to have the urchin background?  No half orcs?  Have to quick and not strong?  

When we do this we are inventing restrictions to what end? Why paint people into corners?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 14, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> OK.  Let's try another one.  Say you have a half-orc character with the urchin background.  Are you going to argue they have to be little?  They survived by being little and fast but not resilient and strong?
> 
> I understand the Charles Dickens archetype here but Half-Orcs did not figure into his tales.  This is illuminating.  While we draw on real world experience and stories that have been told, we are telling a NEW take on different tales because we are playing a fantasy game.  Sure, the basic idea is a dirty little kid but this is D&D with cities that may have nonhuman inhabitants.
> 
> ...



Well, there's also the part where he's insisting that the background of growing up a street urchin means that you're still a street urchin -- 10 years old, malnourished, scrawny.  That absolutely could have been true, but something happened after to get to our young adult barbarian PC, yeah?  Yeah.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 14, 2018)

Greg K said:


> I agree thatit does not. However, I would not allow a cleric of philosophy in a setting that I run, because clerics ,in my homebrew campaigns, are a specific thing and they get their powers from deities....end of story. Allowing a cleric of philosophy would change that.  Therefore, player is free to choose to play a cleric of one of the established deities (including following the established tenets and strictures that I have established for the deity in question), to find another class, or to find another table.




That's fine, and is within the DM's purview.

As I've mentioned many times, the player creates a PC that is both:-

* made according to the rules of the game

* made in accordance with the conceptual limits of the campaign world (so no lycanthrope-heritage fluff if lycanthropes don't exist)

You have said, prior to character creation, that ALL clerics in your world gain their powers from a deity. If a player shows up with a deity-less cleric then you are within your rights to say no.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 14, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> And that is the entire point of this discussion. Some preference do not have a mutual compromise. If I am going to run ToTM onle, and someone else wants tactical combat, that's not something that can be compromised. If a table wants to run ONLY classic archetypes and NO multiclassing, and a new player wants to run the coolest new UA thing, that's not something that is reasonably compromised either.
> 
> Yeah, compromise should always be achieved, and that's why we communicate; but sometimes compromise means someone has to give up their fun for the greater good. And maybe it means that the player killer becomes a team player for the campaign, and everyone agrees to play the occasional one-shot of Paranoia.




Whoa, you're conflating very different things here!

TotM versus grid: some game rules are toggled 'on' or 'off', and everyone in the same game must use the same rule. For example, while playing on a grid, some tables might run diagonal movement to take an extra square (5ft) for each even diagonal (like 3e), and some tables use 1-for-1 movement, diagonal or not (like 4e). In such a case, it doesn't really matter which the table uses, but it MUST be that ALL creatures, PC or otherwise, use the same rule.

Multiclassing: IF the optional rule is allowed in this campaign, but the players are playing single class PCs, then a new player introducing a multiclass PC in no way spoils the other players' fun! They still get to play their own PC in any way that want.

The same applies to fluff. Let's say that one player (or DM!) treats character classes as inviolable archetypes; that 'barbarians' are one thing in both game mechanics and in world culture, etc. for every class. Let's say another player (or DM!) uses the game rules to make a RAW PC but uses their own fluff for their own PC, and the game mechanic of 'class' is a metagame construct that has no existence in the game world. Can these players play at the table without either destroying the other's fun by their very presence? Of course!

Taking my werewolf-inspired barbarian. In world, my PC doesn't approach the other PCs and say, "Hi! I'm a barbarian, but weirdly I'n not really barbaric, culturally speaking. I'm a special snowflake!"

No, my PC introduces himself to the PCs (and anyone else) in game by saying, "Hi, I'm Captain Finn Winter of the Avant Guard!". Finn would *never* think of himself or describe himself as a 'barbarian'. Such a thought would never enter his head! It would be absurd, because our PCs cannot look at their own character sheets! They don't realise that they are made-up avatars for 'real people' to have a bit of fun with their mates once a week (if we're lucky!); they have no knowledge of their own 5e rules 'class'.

So, the other party members might want to know what I can do, what I can contribute to the team. Sure, me _the player_ could say that I'm a Bar 3/War 6, focusing on getting the most out of _armour of Agathys_ and Damage Resistance, but my _character_ could never say such a thing because he cannot be aware of the metagame.

It would be like a comic superhero being aware that he is a fictional character. When Deadpool does this (with the superpower 'Comic Awareness'!) it just illustrates that this is something that fictional characters *cannot* (usually) do.

So, when asked, Finn would say that he is good in hand-to-hand combat, and his military training was that of pathfinder/scout/commando-type stuff, but he *cannot* say that he is a 'barbarian'! The only place that word is mentioned is on the character sheet; it doesn't exist for him in the game world.

So what PCs can know about each other is equal for every PC; "I'm good at (x and y)". They *cannot* know if the others are 'single classed' or 'multiclassed', because that is metagame knowledge.

Given that, each PC is an individual. (I'm Not! _Shut up!_) Every PC is their own 'special snowflake' in that sense. Therefore one player's PC cannot spoil the 'fun' of the other players merely on the basis that _this_ PC 'changes the whole world'! They also cannot complain about the metagame, because multiclassing IS allowed in this campaign, but they CHOSE to be single class themselves.

Player 1: I'm playing a wizard. What about you?
Player 2: Cleric.
Player 1: Cool! What about you?
Player 3: Rogue.
Player 1: Cool! You?
Player 4: Fighter.
Player 1: Cool! What about you?
Player 5: Barbarian/Druid.
Player 1: How DARE you spoil MY fun!
Player 5: ...what...?
Player 1: You have to play a single class PC, because if you don't then I won't be able to enjoy myself!
Player 5: ...but the DM said that multiclassing is allowed...
Player 1: It's a well known fact that each player gets to veto each other player's PC!
Player 5: Okay, you can't play a wizard. It will prevent me from having fun.
Player 1: How DARE you tell me what character I can and cannot play!


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 14, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 14, 2018)

Barbarian class to me in the game terms some sort of character who grew up in a tough, wild environment where the strongest survive.  Urbanization is a distant concept, formal education is almost non-existent.  It’s something you are born into (start at first level) not learned (you can freely MC into.) If the campaign or just the PC moved spent time with a tribe or clan or something where they could learn the ways  of those people then they could go into that class.  Yes I still use training.

In my game world of Greyhawk the term barbarian would mean “foreigner.”  Your PC could be labeled as such without actually being one.

I get what an street urchin is but they don’t have a background for “wild orphan” or “camp scrounger.”  It’s easier to just change it a little bit then reinvent the wheel.

I haven’t had anyone try a “city barbarian” but I could see that, a massive metropolis (in fantasy terms) has a group that lives under the streets in tough conditions always on the edge of survival, learning to shrug off hardships through sheer toughness.  Maybe you were a slave brought to the city and escaped or something like that.

If you as a player think of something half way reasonable I will work to fit in most if not all of it.  I had a player who played a mute due to injury, he never spoke at the table, only made gestures or wrote things down.  I wouldn’t have used that idea but it works for him.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 14, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> No, I'm not. That is the recurring problem we keep having. People can see the differences in other areas, but when it comes to some certain preference that they, individually, have, it becomes an issue that isn't about preferences, but some sort of universal law.
> 
> Just look back at your post, arguing points regarding metagame knowledge for PCs for your point. Sure, that sounds fine, but that also sounds like an argument that has been had countless times in countless threads, and not everyone agrees with you (or me) regarding metagame knowledge.
> 
> ...




???

I don't understand your point _at all!_

Husband: I know we usually order the same thing dear, but this time I think I'll try the salmon. I know you don't like salmon.
Wife: _You don't love me anymore!_

Each player gets to choose their own PC. One player has no business being upset at another player merely for exercising that choice, or making a choice that you would not have made.

As for disagreeing about metagame knowledge, are you suggesting that roughly half the roleplaying tables play the game such that their PCs, in game, are aware of each others' character sheets? That they can tell, by looking, if another person in multiclass or not? Or even what single class they are?

Is it:-

DM: As you turn the corner you see four humans leaving the tavern: a thief, a mage, a cleric and a fighter.

OR

DM: As you turn the corner you see four humans leaving the tavern: one guy in leather armour, a horizontally-striped shirt, and carrying a bag with 'swag' written on the side, one in a dress and a tall, pointed hat embroided with stars, one in full plate and carrying a mace, and one in full plate carrying a greatsword. You know what classes they are because the law tells them how they must dress according to what 'class' they are. 

OR

DM: As you turn the corner you see four humans leaving the tavern.
Player: What classes are they?
DM: You cannot _know!_ You might make an educated guess, based on what weapons and armour you can see, but some clerics can use greatswords, rogues aren't forced to be thieves, fighters could wear light armour and use a rapier, and wizards haven't dressed like stereotypical 'wizards' since The Great Arcanist Purge of 2365; they just wear..._clothes.

OR

DM: There is no such thing as 'character class' in game. That's just a metagame mechanic. In the game world, each person is an individual with their own talents._


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 14, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 14, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Husband: I know we usually order the same thing dear, but this time I think I'll try the salmon. I know you don't like salmon.
> Wife: _You don't love me anymore!_




But you're leaving out what happened just a moment before!

Waitress: The salmon is my favorite, sir.


I mean, this thread forum internet is littered with people twisting someone else's examples to use against them. I just wanna join in!

EDIT - I should point out that I'm not trying to suggest that you're twisting anyone's examples, or doing something similar, Arial. It's precisely because you're not that I'm using your example as a springboard for the joke.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 14, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 14, 2018)

We measure classes relative to other classes. That ultimately is the name of the game. In a game with only fighters, rogues and wizards the fighter is clearly the strongest and most able to endure physical pain and trials. 

Introducing the barbarian class into such a game takes away from who the fighter used to be. He is no longer the strongest or most able to endure physical pain. Adding that barbarian to the game takes away from my character conception just by virtue of being there. 

The same happens with multiclassibg too.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, there's also the part where he's insisting that the background of growing up a street urchin means that you're still a street urchin -- 10 years old, malnourished, scrawny.  That absolutely could have been true, but something happened after to get to our young adult barbarian PC, yeah?  Yeah.



Picked up by some thugs and forced to fight in an underground arena,  you had to become tough to survive. Your rage kept you alive when others feel to the side until one day, you were strong enough to break free.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> OK.  Let's try another one.  Say you have a half-orc character with the urchin background.  Are you going to argue they have to be little?  They survived by being little and fast but not resilient and strong?




Giving a half-orc the street urchin background is like giving someone born and raised in the middle of a desert the sailor background.  Can you pick it by RAW?  Sure.  Does it make any sense at all?  Nope.  Street urchins are small and weak.  It's what makes them urchins and not toughs or other street people.  I suppose if you wanted to play the half-orc runt of the litter who was small and weak, then sure, I'd be okay with him being an urchin.  But the typical half-orc won't be one.



> I understand the Charles Dickens archetype here but Half-Orcs did not figure into his tales.  This is illuminating.  While we draw on real world experience and stories that have been told, we are telling a NEW take on different tales because we are playing a fantasy game.  Sure, the basic idea is a dirty little kid but this is D&D with cities that may have nonhuman inhabitants.




There is no Charles Dickens archetype of street urchin.  Street urchins were small and weak before he ever began writing.  He liked to use them in his books, but he didn't create the idea that they were small and weak.



> This is where my approach differs from what I assume yours might be.  You are finding reasons to quash a character concept by using the dictionary and English fiction.  I would help the player find a way to play a street urchin (or whatever background is recommended for a kid who fights in the streets and grows up fighting) who later grows into an adult who goes berserk.




I have a certain amount of realism that I like, and I like words to have meaning.  A street urchin is called what it is in 5e BECAUSE of what they are in the real world.  The name evokes an image, and if you are going to use that name on an image that is nothing like what it is intended to evoke, it's jarring.  Just like a desert "sailor" who has never seen a boat.



> When we do this we are inventing restrictions to what end? Why paint people into corners?



I always try to say yes, but the yes MUST be something that makes sense, like my half-orc runt street urchin.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Picked up by some thugs and forced to fight in an underground arena,  you had to become tough to survive. Your rage kept you alive when others feel to the side until one day, you were strong enough to break free.




Sure, and that explains rage.  It doesn't explain barbarian, though.  I'd work with the player to come up with a cool rage mechanic for his PC.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Sure, and that explains rage.  It doesn't explain barbarian, though.  I'd work with the player to come up with a cool rage mechanic for his PC.



Really it's just a difference in your and my styles. I see the barbarian class fitting perfectly for that character since I don't equate the barbarian class as a barbarian culture and I see no need to come up with a cool rage mechanic when we already have one.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Giving a half-orc the street urchin background is like giving someone born and raised in the middle of a desert the sailor background.  Can you pick it by RAW?  Sure.  Does it make any sense at all?  Nope.  Street urchins are small and weak.  It's what makes them urchins and not toughs or other street people.  I suppose if you wanted to play the half-orc runt of the litter who was small and weak, then sure, I'd be okay with him being an urchin.  But the typical half-orc won't be one.



That's irrelevant.  Background is what the character _was_, not what the character is now.  I'm sure we all know people who were relatively small, scrawny children and adolescents who had major growth spurts and ended up being large adults.  

And, like you said, even if you do run the game with class as a concept that exists in the game world, there's nothing that requires a PC to be an exemplar of their race and class.  PCs are allowed to break norms.  That's why you can have half-orc wizards and tiefling paladins.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> That's irrelevant.  Background is what the character _was_, not what the character is now.  I'm sure we all know people who were relatively small, scrawny children and adolescents who had major growth spurts and ended up being large adults.




I don't know anyone that went from scrawny to being equal to the most buff bodybuilder in the real world, nor have I heard of it.



> And, like you said, even if you do run the game with class as a concept that exists in the game world, there's nothing that requires a PC to be an exemplar of their race and class.  PCs are allowed to break norms.  That's why you can have half-orc wizards and tiefling paladins.




An exemplar?  No.  Something recognizable as that race or class?  Yes.  Breaking a norm still involves being that thing in some recognizable fashion.  An angry street urchin isn't recognizable as a barbarian.  It's just a justification to use the barbarian mechanics(not barbarian) as something else.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 15, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> That's irrelevant.  Background is what the character _was_, not what the character is now.  I'm sure we all know people who were relatively small, scrawny children and adolescents who had major growth spurts and ended up being large adults.



Hands up everyone who immediately pictured that Charles Atlas ad


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I don't know anyone that went from scrawny to being equal to the most buff bodybuilder in the real world, nor have I heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> An exemplar?  No.  Something recognizable as that race or class?  Yes.  Breaking a norm still involves being that thing in some recognizable fashion.  An angry street urchin isn't recognizable as a barbarian.  It's just a justification to use the barbarian mechanics(not barbarian) as something else.



Bet you also don't know any street urchins, barbarians, or half-orcs.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Bet you also don't know any street urchins, barbarians, or half-orcs.



And?


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I don't know anyone that went from scrawny to being equal to the most buff bodybuilder in the real world, nor have I heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> An exemplar?  No.  Something recognizable as that race or class?  Yes.  Breaking a norm still involves being that thing in some recognizable fashion.  An angry street urchin isn't recognizable as a barbarian.  It's just a justification to use the barbarian mechanics(not barbarian) as something else.




I know.  Arnold was 5'10" and 240 when he was 9 years old!  Close maybe But come on!  How many body builders do you know?  When I was younger  I lifted a bit and read about the sport.  There were many scrawny guys that bulked up and talked about it in books on the subject.

I agree with modifying things to find a fit.  I really do. But Alfred Adler talked a lot about striving for superiority and changing greatly to overcome weakness.  It doesn't matter if it's true---this is a very common idea even in pop culture.  And that is D&D at times---emulating Batman as improbable but possible (little 8 year old in a mansion did not know martial arts or carry all that muscle.

that you would not see a way for something improbable in a fantasy game makes it seem like you are just trying to bait someone.  A sailor background in a desert setting?  Sure!  He is a far travelled!  Why assume he had to learn the skill right there?  And if he grew up there couldn't he have left and learned the trade?  No one said he sailed on a sand barge.

i don't want to change the way you play and you seem smart enough...but you really don't think the improbable belongs in a realm of fairies and dragons, ever?  

I will leave it at that Before anyone  quotes a statistic about how few sailors are in the middle of the Sahara.  Respectfully that is tedious.  Suffice to say you and most here want some reaonable basis for a character choice.  Got it, and agreed to a point.  

But next someone will say paladins must be Knights and have squires in a feudal system.  I will let Others go down that path without pointing out the fork in he road they decided must not be allowed to exist.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 15, 2018)

Half-orc child acquired through the slave trade, but was quickly dumped on the streets when it became apparent it was sickly and proved to be no good for manual labour. The local thieves guild trained it up as one of their street urchins, their eyes and ears, however the creature was always plagued by a mysterious illness, being malnourished and living on the streets certainly did not help matters. Then one eventful day the Horde knocked on the town walls...
Taking pity on the bastard muggle that survived the onslaught, the local shaman/warlock of the tribe managed to shake off the child's illness/curse and so blossomed the half-orc barbarian, the secret weapon of the Horde.

Whenever the Horde desired to pillage a settlement, they would send in the half-orc who spoke the common tongue fairly well and had a knack for deceit having picked up the skill during his years on the street. Pretending to be trader/travelling labourer, the half-orc would scope out the village/town's defenses and report back to the Horde.   

Additional backstory exploration - what was the mysterious disease or curse and how did the half-orc obtain it?

Half-Orc check
Street Urchin check
Barbarian check


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> And?




Well, considering that your apparent expert knowledge on people who have gone from being small to buff is based on pretty much exactly the same level of knowledge as what you personally know about street urchins, ie. nothing, it's pretty hard to take you seriously when you are making absolute claims about what a street urchin can only be.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 15, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> ...but you really don't think the improbable belongs in a realm of fairies and dragons, ever?



Ever? Perhaps. So commonly that any player could just decide to play one, without requiring a discussion with the DM about the incredible circumstances surrounding it? Perhaps not. 


Warpiglet said:


> But next someone will say paladins must be Knights and have squires in a feudal system.  I will let Others go down that path without pointing out the fork in he road they decided must not be allowed to exist.



I'm having difficulty parsing your statement, but I will say that paladins must be knights and have squires in a feudal system in my setting.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 15, 2018)

Anyone ever read Alice by Christina Henry? A character named Harry Hatchet from the old part of town would fit the barbarian class, street urchin might even fit as a background although criminal might be the better fit. 

On a side note, I also kind of feel that the criminal background should give you thieves' cant.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 15, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Half-orc child acquired through the slave trade, but was quickly dumped on the streets when it became apparent it was sickly and proved to be no good for manual labour. The local thieves guild trained it up as one of their street urchins, their eyes and ears, however the creature was always plagued by a mysterious illness, being malnourished and living on the streets certainly did not help matters. Then one eventful day the Horde knocked on the town walls...
> Taking pity on the bastard muggle that survived the onslaught, the local shaman/warlock of the tribe managed to shake off the child's illness/curse and so blossomed the half-orc barbarian, the secret weapon of the Horde.
> 
> Whenever the Horde desired to pillage a settlement, they would send in the half-orc who spoke the common tongue fairly well and had a knack for deceit having picked up the skill during his years on the street. Pretending to be trader/travelling labourer, the half-orc would scope out the village/town's defenses and report back to the Horde.
> ...



Bored noblewoman
Orc in the gladiator pits
9 months
Half-orc child delivered with payment to discrete street level scum.
Insert a vast majority of fantasy story foundations.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I know.  Arnold was 5'10" and 240 when he was 9 years old!  Close maybe But come on!  How many body builders do you know?  When I was younger  I lifted a bit and read about the sport.  There were many scrawny guys that bulked up and talked about it in books on the subject.




Yes, they bulked up.  They did not bulk up to the peak of human strength like Barbarians do.



> I agree with modifying things to find a fit.  I really do. But Alfred Adler talked a lot about striving for superiority and changing greatly to overcome weakness.  It doesn't matter if it's true---this is a very common idea even in pop culture.  And that is D&D at times---emulating Batman as improbable but possible (little 8 year old in a mansion did not know martial arts or carry all that muscle.




He also wasn't extremely malnourished during a critical time of growth like urchins are.  

I get that D&D characters are better than normal humans, but things still need to make sense.  A street urchin, even an angry one, isn't barbarian.  He's a civilized street urchin with severe anger issues.  He can grow to become very powerful in many ways, but barbarian just doesn't fit in my opinion.



> that you would not see a way for something improbable in a fantasy game makes it seem like you are just trying to bait someone.  A sailor background in a desert setting?  Sure!  He is a far travelled!  Why assume he had to learn the skill right there?  And if he grew up there couldn't he have left and learned the trade?  No one said he sailed on a sand barge.




I specifically said he was raised and grew up there, and that he had never been on a boat(which includes sand boats).  I set it up so that he had never seen anything like sailing, but by RAW could still pick the sailor background.  



> but you really don't think the improbable belongs in a realm of fairies and dragons, ever?




If a fairy godmother gifted him with great strength, I could see an urchin becoming one of the strongest.  He might even have many or all of his memories taken from him and replaced with those of a barbarian, allowing him to take the class, but then it's not really an angry street urchin barbarian as has been put forth here.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Well, considering that your apparent expert knowledge on people who have gone from being small to buff is based on pretty much exactly the same level of knowledge as what you personally know about street urchins, ie. nothing, it's pretty hard to take you seriously when you are making absolute claims about what a street urchin can only be.




My knowledge is at least equal to the rest of those here, and is backed up by definitions, pictures of urchins and real world history.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> And?




And... you have been provided with _ample and repeated_ possibilities. And you have offered no substantive argument for their rejection other than a very apparent personal bias which essentially amounts to "uh-uh."

Multiple people have given multiple options, and most (I'll agree not all) have been cogent, fitting, and well within the bounds of a typical fantasy setting. You don't like the idea. Fine. You don't want it in your game. Fine. But at least have the integrity to acknowledge that you are basing this entirely on a preconceived bias that ignores multiple details observations.

Seriously.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> On a side note, I also kind of feel that the criminal background should give you thieves' cant.




I had the same thought a while back.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, they bulked up.  They did not bulk up to the peak of human strength like Barbarians do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Since when are Barbarians the "peak of human strength"?  You are adding definitions here that don't actually exist in the game.  Note, it's not 3e.  Barbarians gain exactly ZERO bonuses to strength.  Nothing.  Heck, in our current D&D game, both the cleric and the paladin are stronger than the barbarian (to be fair, the cleric has Gauntlets of Ogre Power, but, still, there's nothing preventing me from becoming stronger than the Barbarian).

Heck, Barbarian as a class gets exactly zero class benefits from a high strength.  All of their class benefits are derived from Dex and Con.  They can't wear heavy armor, so, they don't need Str there.  They have one Strength based class skill - Athletics.  Sure, they get advantage on Athletics and Strength checks while raging, but, again, they get that regardless of whatever their strength actually is.

You are inserting what you think that a barbarian is without any actual references to what the class says.  

Which has been my issue here all the way along.  Hey, you can interpret the class whatever way floats your boat.  But, please stop trying to claim that your interpretation is, in any way, actually directly supported by the text.  It's not.  It's your preferences and that's fine.  But, as far as any objective claims go, you're very much mistaken.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Since when are Barbarians the "peak of human strength"?  You are adding definitions here that don't actually exist in the game.  Note, it's not 3e.  Barbarians gain exactly ZERO bonuses to strength.  Nothing.  Heck, in our current D&D game, both the cleric and the paladin are stronger than the barbarian (to be fair, the cleric has Gauntlets of Ogre Power, but, still, there's nothing preventing me from becoming stronger than the Barbarian).
> 
> Heck, Barbarian as a class gets exactly zero class benefits from a high strength.  All of their class benefits are derived from Dex and Con.  They can't wear heavy armor, so, they don't need Str there.  They have one Strength based class skill - Athletics.  Sure, they get advantage on Athletics and Strength checks while raging, but, again, they get that regardless of whatever their strength actually is.
> 
> ...



Well, to be fair, rage only works with strength attacks and if they make it to level 20 they can reach a strength score of 24, something no other class can do without magical items.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Well, to be fair, rage only works with strength attacks and if they make it to level 20 they can reach a strength score of 24, something no other class can do without magical items.




Well, that's true.  I forgot that capstone.  But, to be fair, it doesn't really counter my point.  A single capstone power that is almost never seen in play isn't really a big thing is it?  And, 5e uses the term "strength attacks" because if they say melee, then a barbarian can't use thrown weapons while raging without losing his rage.  

Now, to be fair, most barbarian PC's are going to be pretty high strength.  16 at 1st level (if human) is pretty likely.  Although 15 isn't unheard of.  Strong, but, no stronger than any other human character.  The notion that barbarians MUST be one thing or another is what I'm arguing against.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Well, that's true.  I forgot that capstone.  But, to be fair, it doesn't really counter my point.  A single capstone power that is almost never seen in play isn't really a big thing is it?  And, 5e uses the term "strength attacks" because if they say melee, then a barbarian can't use thrown weapons while raging without losing his rage.
> 
> Now, to be fair, most barbarian PC's are going to be pretty high strength.  16 at 1st level (if human) is pretty likely.  Although 15 isn't unheard of.  Strong, but, no stronger than any other human character.  The notion that barbarians MUST be one thing or another is what I'm arguing against.



Strength attacks also means that using a finesse weapon or a bow for instance doesn't benefit from rage, the class needs strength to really benefit from rage otherwise the class defining ability is pretty useless.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Strength attacks also means that using a finesse weapon or a bow for instance doesn't benefit from rage, the class needs strength to really benefit from rage otherwise the class defining ability is pretty useless.




Saying that barbarian is a Str based class is kinda like saying rain is wet.  Of course it is.  My issue is with the idea that barbarians are somehow the "peak of human strength".  There are other Str based classes in the game.  And you can certainly play a 16 Str barbarian every effectively.  Heck, even a 14 Str Barbarian works.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Saying that barbarian is a Str based class is kinda like saying rain is wet.  Of course it is.  My issue is with the idea that barbarians are somehow the "peak of human strength".  There are other Str based classes in the game.  And you can certainly play a 16 Str barbarian every effectively.  Heck, even a 14 Str Barbarian works.



Well it sounded from your earlier posts that you didn't think this was the case by saying they get almost no benefit from strength. They may not be peak, but with rage they can definitely gain more mileage out of their strength score than a similarly scored fighter could get. This might be where the arguement for peak is coming. 

I agree that a 14 works. Any class works with a 14, less than a +2 bonus to your main stat and I think you're going to have a bad time.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Since when are Barbarians the "peak of human strength"?  You are adding definitions here that don't actually exist in the game.  Note, it's not 3e.  Barbarians gain exactly ZERO bonuses to strength.  Nothing.  Heck, in our current D&D game, both the cleric and the paladin are stronger than the barbarian (to be fair, the cleric has Gauntlets of Ogre Power, but, still, there's nothing preventing me from becoming stronger than the Barbarian).
> 
> Heck, Barbarian as a class gets exactly zero class benefits from a high strength.  All of their class benefits are derived from Dex and Con.  They can't wear heavy armor, so, they don't need Str there.  They have one Strength based class skill - Athletics.  Sure, they get advantage on Athletics and Strength checks while raging, but, again, they get that regardless of whatever their strength actually is.
> 
> ...





Dude.  Their iconic class ability, rage, is almost entirely about strength and their two highest class features are about strength.  Reality floats my boat.  What's floating yours?


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 15, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, in an ideal world, you're right. But we are human beings of human emotions, so I will use an extreme example to show why this isn't true. Imagine you create your favorite character, as always, Legolas the Elven Ranger. Now someone else joins your table, and knowing your choice, creates, "Megolas, the Elven Ranger."  Again, just like the restaurant example I used, maybe this isn't a problem. Or maybe this is! Because humans are mysterious creatures that do not work entirely by logic, but by emotion and social compact.





I invariably try to avoid treading on other players' toes this way, and encourage others to do the same, by the simple expedient of getting the players together as soon as the new campaign is announced and discuss who wants to play what type of character. That way we can ensure a well-balanced party, or even a _deliberately_ unbalanced party (as opposed to an inadvertently unbalanced one).

If a player replaces one PC with another, that player will already take into account the party make-up so can choose a class/race/etc. accordingly.

If a new player wants to join, they aren't told what class they MUST play, they are told what the rest of the party already is.

Once I was dragged to a university RPG club night. He attended that university as a mature student, while I never attended any university. We looked for a game to join, and the only one available was a game of Basic. Now this was around the late '90s, and up to that point had played 1e and 2e AD&D for about 20 years, but never actually played Basic or the other BECMI set. After all, I started with ADVANCED D&D, why would I go and play the training wheels version?

I fancied playing an elf, which I knew was both race AND class in this game (unlike in REAL D&D!), but one player (who had been playing this campaign for a while) was already playing an elf. Not wanting to tread on her toes, I thought I'd ask her what weapon she was using so that I could deliberately choose something different. When I asked, her reply was, "I don't know, but it does 1d8 damage".

But the point is, this is not a game RULE! It is etiquette. I can understand why someone would be upset if my PC took their party status as 'best X' in the group away. But I do not understand why a player playing, say, a rogue would be upset if my PC was a fighter/mage when they would not be upset if I were playing a fighter or a mage.



> Again, just because you don't understand someone else's preferences, doesn't mean they don't exist, or are less valid.




So why is my preference to play a multiclass PC less valid than theirs? Why am I not allowed to play my preference but they are allowed to play theirs? Why would it upset them?


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 15, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> We measure classes relative to other classes. That ultimately is the name of the game. In a game with only fighters, rogues and wizards the fighter is clearly the strongest and most able to endure physical pain and trials.




You mean....we did this back when there were only three classes: fighting man, magic-user and cleric? That was before I started playing. When I started it was AD&D 1e, and I can't remember any player of a fighter complaining that the players of rangers or paladins were 'taking their fun away' because they could also have 18/% strength.  



> Introducing the barbarian class into such a game takes away from who the fighter used to be. He is no longer the strongest or most able to endure physical pain. Adding that barbarian to the game takes away from my character conception just by virtue of being there.
> 
> The same happens with multiclassibg too.




The game has included more than three or four classes, and multiclassing, since the mid '70s. Forty years later, why would any player of 5e (especially one who's D&D experience only includes 3e and after) be upset that more than one class relies on strength?

There are many RPGs that do not have the concept of 'character class' as part of their mechanics. The phenomenon you described could only exist pre-AD&D, and even then only if there were two players to start with and a new player chose your class instead of the third class.

So, today, I join a party of five players and the barbarian's player gets upset if I play a fighter on the grounds that I _might_ have a higher strength?

At some point we have to recognise that although some upsets are justified, some are not.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, they bulked up.  They did not bulk up to the peak of human strength like Barbarians do.




My PHB must be faulty!

Mine misses out the part where barbarians get a free 16 in Str.

Or is it that players of barbarians are compelled, RAW, to put their highest score in Str?

The last barbarian I created was for a games day-type event. Point-buy, PHB only, 5th level.

I made a Bar 5, acolyte background (based on the comic character Zealot from Wildcats). She played like a paladin, attitude-wise, according to the rest of my party after the game.

Str 14 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8

She only has 14 Str! It's not her highest score! Which rule did I break? What makes her 'Not A REAL Barbarian'? Should the event organisers have been called over and my PC disallowed because her lack of strength 'upset' one of the other players? What about choosing the acolyte background; was that too 'upsetting' to be allowed?

Are the players of rapier-wielding Dex barbs *breaking the rules?* Would the appearance of a Dex barb cause that PC to be thrown out of the game because other players found the concept 'upsetting'?


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> You mean....we did this back when there were only three classes: fighting man, magic-user and cleric? That was before I started playing. When I started it was AD&D 1e, and I can't remember any player of a fighter complaining that the players of rangers or paladins were 'taking their fun away' because they could also have 18/% strength.




No.  We still do it.  Just because more classes have ultimately changed your conception of what defines each class doesn't mean you don't still do it.



> The game has included more than three or four classes, and multiclassing, since the mid '70s. Forty years later, why would any player of 5e (especially one who's D&D experience only includes 3e and after) be upset that more than one class relies on strength?




Have you forgotten the basic rules of 5e are free and only include 4 classes?  So going from a game world where fighter there is clearly the strongest and most able to endure pain (at least if you want him to be) then you already have your concept of what your fighter based on what other classes are in the game.  Introducing a barbarian  to such a game would destroy your class concept.  Likewise if the barbarian was available when you began the game then if you were creating a character towards the strongest most able to endure pain concept then you wouldn't have picked fighter in the first place but instead picked barbarian.  

Having the option available changes the realities of what a class is and represents in the game.  

So if a player dislikes multiclassing for whatever reason.  Then allowing multiclassing to be in the game does actively take away some from the concepts he is able to play because class concepts are relative to the other classes / multiclass combinations that are in the game and since he won't multiclass then those represented in this game by multiclassing are out for him.  If such a game had remained single class based then one of the single class characters would now fit that conceptual space the best and he could play whatever concept you think got removed by not having multiclassing.



> There are many RPGs that do not have the concept of 'character class' as part of their mechanics. The phenomenon you described could only exist pre-AD&D, and even then only if there were two players to start with and a new player chose your class instead of the third class.




Unless you are talking classless RPG's then class concept is derived for most people from the classes fluff and mechanics.  So I think you are reaching a bit here.

Also don't try to obscure what is happening just because the best examples can be found in lower class games.  That doesn't mean it doesn't exist in high number of class games, it's just that it is harder to spot.



> So, today, I join a party of five players and the barbarian's player gets upset if I play a fighter on the grounds that I _might_ have a higher strength?




If it has already been established that Fighters exist in the world and he has accepted that then he won't be mad but his concept won't necessarily rely on being the strongest etc as it may have otherwise.



> At some point we have to recognise that although some upsets are justified, some are not.




Taking away someones class concept just because you want more options is never justified.  Also, saying they can play it if they want but only having it available to be played through multiclassing or some other mechanic they personally dislike is just as bad.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Giving a half-orc the street urchin background is like giving someone born and raised in the middle of a desert the sailor background.  Can you pick it by RAW?  Sure.  Does it make any sense at all?  Nope.  Street urchins are small and weak.  It's what makes them urchins and not toughs or other street people.  I suppose if you wanted to play the half-orc runt of the litter who was small and weak, then sure, I'd be okay with him being an urchin.  But the typical half-orc won't be one.
> 
> There is no Charles Dickens archetype of street urchin.  Street urchins were small and weak before he ever began writing.  He liked to use them in his books, but he didn't create the idea that they were small and weak.
> 
> ...



I think that perhaps there may be a more constructive approach for the people discussing this with you.

Your objection to the character using the barbarian class mechanics and the Street Urchin background is that "Street Urchin" is a specific phrase outside of the mechanics, with real-world historical implications and baggage about what they look like etc? That you view characters using the barbarian class mechanics as being required to have a high strength? And that you see the character background as what the character still is, or at least was immediately before that game starts?

And that a fellow player wanting to try aforesaid concept (Street tough that used to be an Urchin and that uses the class mechanics of the barbarian class to represent their capabilities.) would be disruptive enough to your immersion as a player that you would ask them to not play that character?

Customising backgrounds isn't even an 'Optional Rule'. Its a base feature. Would a custom background called . . . Street Tough or something similar, with the same features as the  Street Urchin background solve the conceptual issue that people have been discussing with you?


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> My PHB must be faulty!
> 
> Mine misses out the part where barbarians get a free 16 in Str.
> 
> ...




I don't even think this post deserves a response.

Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution.  Wizards in D&D cast spells.  (Well at least until a player decides to play a character against type and then you have a wizard swinging a sword casting no spells and a barbarian being dexterous instead of strong).  Hey it's cool players can do such things if they want with varying degrees of mechanical effectiveness but no matter how many exceptions you try citing everyone is still going to believe barbarians are the strong and hearty class and that wizards are the magic non-sword swinging class.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Strength attacks also means that using a finesse weapon or a bow for instance doesn't benefit from rage, the class needs strength to really benefit from rage otherwise the class defining ability is pretty useless.



 I'm pretty sure than you can use weapons with the Finesse property just fine as a barbarian while raging, and get the benefits of rage. Just because you have the option of using Dex for them, doesn't  mean that you have to.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I'm pretty sure than you can use weapons with the Finesse property just fine as a barbarian while raging, and get the benefits of rage. Just because you have the option of using Dex for them, doesn't  mean that you have to.




But if you only have 10 strength and 16 dex it does make you want to!!!


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 15, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I'm pretty sure than you can use weapons with the Finesse property just fine as a barbarian while raging, and get the benefits of rage. Just because you have the option of using Dex for them, doesn't  mean that you have to.



You're right, I wrote that wrong, I should have said you don't gain the rage bonuses when using finesse weapons with dexterity.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 15, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Have you forgotten the basic rules of 5e are free and only include 4 classes?  So going from a game world where fighter there is clearly the strongest and most able to endure pain (at least if you want him to be) then you already have your concept of what your fighter based on what other classes are in the game.  Introducing a barbarian  to such a game would destroy your class concept.




The 5e rules have _already_ destroyed this class concept (such as it is!).

So, the game adding more options = the game _taking away_ options?

The DM gathers the players for the start of a new campaign, and says to make a 1st level PC using the PHB, point-buy only. One of the players had previously downloaded the free rules, and come up with a concept of 'strongest starting human', which is Str 16. Are none of the other players *allowed* to use the PHB classes except what that player knows? Are they not _allowed_ to have a PC with 16 or 17 strength, in case it 'upsets' that one player?



> So if a player dislikes multiclassing for whatever reason.  Then allowing multiclassing to be in the game does actively take away some from the concepts he is able to play.




So player 1 dislikes multiclassing because they (irrationally, BTW!) _feels_ that someone else multiclassing takes away their choice to play their concept.

But surely player 2 would have _their_ concept _actually_ taken away by player 1's objection.

Why does player 1's irrational preference trump player 2's rational choice to play what *they* want?


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 15, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I don't even think this post deserves a response.




I believe yours does.



> Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution.  Wizards in D&D cast spells.  (Well at least until a player decides to play a character against type and then you have a wizard swinging a sword casting no spells and a barbarian being dexterous instead of strong).  Hey it's cool players can do such things if they want with varying degrees of mechanical effectiveness but no matter how many exceptions you try citing everyone is still going to believe barbarians are the strong and hearty class and that wizards are the magic non-sword swinging class.




Let's take this little non-sequitur: "_Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution. Wizards in D&D cast spells."

First, the wizard equivalent to "__Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution" is "wizards in D&D have a lot of intelligence".

The Str/Con scores of barbarians (or wizards) are purely based on where the player assigns their points/rolls.

__Second, the barbarian equivalent to "__Wizards in D&D cast spells" is "Barbarians in D&D use weapons".

__They are not tied to ability scores.


_


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> I believe yours does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Both intelligence and spellcasting are equivalents in this analogy.  ie. "Things that define a class"

Wizard's don't have to use spells.  Barbarians don't have to be strong.

Wizard's also don't have to be intelligent.  Barbarians also don't have to use weapons.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The 5e rules have _already_ destroyed this class concept (such as it is!).




Not at all.  There is no rule in 5e that says what character creation options are available for a given campaign.



> So, the game adding more options = the game _taking away_ options?




That's not the best way to word it.  Mechanics and concepts map to one another.  Adding mechanical options usually just changes some of the mappings (but not always).  

So you can keep the concept of strongest and hardest to physically kill.  It's just that concept maps to a barbarian now.
Likewise you have eliminated the concept of strongest and hardest to physically kill from the fighter class due to it's mechanics no longer respresenting that in the game world.

As such you have created new and interesting mechanics with the barbarian class with the result of lowering the number of concepts the fighter class mapped to.



> The DM gathers the players for the start of a new campaign, and says to make a 1st level PC using the PHB, point-buy only. One of the players had previously downloaded the free rules, and come up with a concept of 'strongest starting human', which is Str 16. Are none of the other players *allowed* to use the PHB classes except what that player knows? Are they not _allowed_ to have a PC with 16 or 17 strength, in case it 'upsets' that one player?




If the group has agreed to use the PHB point buy only then that player upon explanation would realize his error and instead keep his character and modify his class concept or keep his class concept and change to the barbarian class.  Either would be acceptable.  In the situation you describe the game rules were already set out and there was a misunderstanding.  Since he was the one in error he needs to be the one to adapt and make the game work.



> So player 1 dislikes multiclassing because they (irrationally, BTW!) _feels_ that someone else multiclassing takes away their choice to play their concept.




I've already elaborated why it's a perfectly rational position.  Calling it irrational now serves no purpose other than to inflame.



> But surely player 2 would have _their_ concept _actually_ taken away by player 1's objection.




Actually...  player two can most likely keep their concept they would just have to map it appropriately in a game without whatever class they were originally going to take.  What they couldn't have is whatever mechanics that class provided to go along with that concept.  

Kind of like how player 1 can keep his concept and change classes to one that better suits his concept if more are allowed but won't get to have whatever set of mechanics his original class choice provided to go along with the concept.



> Why does player 1's irrational preference trump player 2's rational choice to play what *they* want?




Player 1's preference is the same as player 2's.  They both want to play a specific character concept with a specific set of mechanics.

(Yes I know I've slightly changed definition of concept in this elaboration as I didn't really have a better word.  Concept definition 1 = class and identity intertwined.  Concept definition 2 = identity apart from class.)


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I don't know anyone that went from scrawny to being equal to the most buff bodybuilder in the real world, nor have I heard of it.



Even assuming a Str-focused barbarian (not required by RAW), a 1st level Barbarian will typically only between a 14 to 17 Str.  Hardly the most buff bodybuilder in the world.

Plus, moving into tropes, we have a pretty iconic example of "zero-to-hero" in Captain America.  If you wouldn't allow a fantasy equivalent of a "super-serum" in your game for a PC backstory, our versions of what D&D is supposed to be like are so incongruent that there's really nothing to discuss.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 15, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Even assuming a Str-focused barbarian (not required by RAW), a 1st level Barbarian will typically only between a 14 to 17 Str.  Hardly the most buff bodybuilder in the world.
> 
> Plus, moving into tropes, we have a pretty iconic example of "zero-to-hero" in Captain America.  If you wouldn't allow a fantasy equivalent of a "super-serum" in your game for a PC backstory, our versions of what D&D is supposed to be like are so incongruent that there's really nothing to discuss.



Super serum another name for patron gift for say a barbarian character.

Backstory includes faustian deal with "patron" for abilities to let young scoundrel seeking revenge get power up. 

So insert any number of gimmicks and you have a barbarian with rage spawning from less tribal sources and the obvious opening for warlock multi-class door open in the future if the PC is a good pawn.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Your objection to the character using the barbarian class mechanics and the Street Urchin background is that "Street Urchin" is a specific phrase outside of the mechanics, with real-world historical implications and baggage about what they look like etc?




Street urchin has meaning, yes.



> That you view characters using the barbarian class mechanics as being required to have a high strength?




I've never seen one start lower than 14, and usually higher than that.  They also usually get even stronger with stat increases.  Lastly, even if you stay at 14, you will have an 18 when you hit 20th level, have advantage on strength checks and saves while raging, and be unable to fail to have at least a 14 on strength checks(18 when 20th level).  Even if the score is 14, those extra abilities give you more "strength" than normal people who can fail to roll equal to their strength and don't have advantage on those checks when they get angry. 



> And that you see the character background as what the character still is, or at least was immediately before that game starts?




Adventurers typically start young



> And that a fellow player wanting to try aforesaid concept (Street tough that used to be an Urchin and that uses the class mechanics of the barbarian class to represent their capabilities.) would be disruptive enough to your immersion as a player that you would ask them to not play that character?




First, I would help the player create a Street Tough background.  A Street Tough is not an Urchin.  Second, I would work with the player to see whether he is just cludging barbarian into his concept because some of the abilities fit the concept.  Often there are better ways to get to the concept that the player hasn't thought of.  Third, there's often a way to tweak the background, which while it includes the mechanical background choice, is the entirety of the character's background from birth on up.  If the PC had been captured from a barbarian tribe at a young age and brought to the city, he could have the Street Tough background and be a barbarian.  There is almost always a way to make something work. I almost never have to ask a player not to play a character.  In fact, I can't think of the last time it happened.  Would have been more than 10-15 years ago at the very least.



> Customising backgrounds isn't even an 'Optional Rule'. Its a base feature. Would a custom background called . . . Street Tough or something similar, with the same features as the  Street Urchin background solve the conceptual issue that people have been discussing with you?



Well, I'd think that athletics or intimidation would be better to represent a Street Tough than sleight of hand would.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Even assuming a Str-focused barbarian (not required by RAW), a 1st level Barbarian will typically only between a 14 to 17 Str.  Hardly the most buff bodybuilder in the world.




Assuming no other increases along the way(unlikely in my experience) that barbarian will finish at 18-21 strength.  19-21 are actually higher than the most buff body builder in the world as you can't go above 18 by just working out.



> Plus, moving into tropes, we have a pretty iconic example of "zero-to-hero" in Captain America.  If you wouldn't allow a fantasy equivalent of a "super-serum" in your game for a PC backstory, our versions of what D&D is supposed to be like are so incongruent that there's really nothing to discuss.



I've already said that all I require is for things to make sense.  Some sort of potion giving great strength could work.  A fairy godmother.  A wizard spell gone awry.  Lots of way to do it that make sense.  None of those were given in the examples I have been arguing against, though.  The example is just a street urchin that became a barbarian.  Some others later on have come up with some ways it could work, and I agreed with those and provided examples of some othe rways.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I've already said that all I require is for things to make sense.  Some sort of potion giving great strength could work.  A fairy godmother.  A wizard spell gone awry.  Lots of way to do it that make sense.  None of those were given in the examples I have been arguing against, though.  The example is just a street urchin that became a barbarian.  Some others later on have come up with some ways it could work, and I agreed with those and provided examples of some othe rways.



I don't know, man.  If "A street urchin can't be a barbarian" and "A street urchin can be a barbarian, assuming a narratively coherent chain of transformative events" mean pretty much the same thing to you, there's going to be communication problems.  People are obviously assuming a rationale between the transformation from state A (background) and state B (1st level character), because there's a ton of narrative space in between.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I don't know, man.  If "A street urchin can't be a barbarian" and "A street urchin can be a barbarian, assuming a narratively coherent chain of transformative events" mean pretty much the same thing to you, there's going to be communication problems.




I'm not sure what you mean by that.  I've been saying that they are not the same thing this entire portion of the thread.  A street urchin can't be a barbarian.  Exceptions exist to virtually every rule, but only under very specific sets of circumstances.  If a player wants to be an exception, they will need to explain HOW they are an exception in a way that makes sense.  



> People are obviously assuming a rationale between the transformation from state A (background) and state B (1st level character), because there's a ton of narrative space in between.




No such rationale is given and I'm not going to assume that they mean anything other than a typical street urchin can be a barbarian if he's angry, if that's what they are saying.  The only thing some of them have given as their rationale is aging.


----------



## Krachek (Sep 15, 2018)

The barbarian class is not tied to a specific background in DnD 5.
The class itself do not make any reference to tribal or nature background.
The frenzy berserker is not loved but give plenty of space to play with an soldier, criminal, urchin or any background that a fighter would usually choose.

The unpopularity of the frenzy berserker sub class made people think barbarian == tribal totem warrior.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 15, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Both intelligence and spellcasting are equivalents in this analogy.  ie. "Things that define a class"
> 
> Wizard's don't have to use spells.  Barbarians don't have to be strong.
> 
> Wizard's also don't have to be intelligent.  Barbarians also don't have to use weapons.



 No, I think that the distinction stands. The ability scores may be enablers that affect how well the character performs their class' functions, but that is not the same as actually being class functions.
Of course. most characters of the wizard class will have a reasonably high intelligence, and many characters of the barbarian class will have a decent strength. But that is not the same as claiming that having a score that synergises with some of the core mechanics of the class is the same as having and using those core class mechanics in the first place.



FrogReaver said:


> If the group has agreed to use the PHB point buy only then that player upon explanation would realize his error and instead keep his character and modify his class concept or keep his class concept and change to the barbarian class.  Either would be acceptable.  In the situation you describe the game rules were already set out and there was a misunderstanding.  Since he was the one in error he needs to be the one to adapt and make the game work.



 What error? The concepts posited in this example are within the given boundaries of the suggested game. The issue being examined is the clash of concepts. (Wanting to play the strongest starting human vs. another character happening to have the same strength as you do.)



> I've already elaborated why it's a perfectly rational position.  Calling it irrational now serves no purpose other than to inflame.



 Disliking multiclassing for example can be perfectly rational. Telling another player that they can't multiclass because you don't like multiclassing would be regarded as less so. At the very least, you're likely to be called out by the DM, if not the rest of the table.



> Player 1's preference is the same as player 2's.  They both want to play a specific character concept with a specific set of mechanics.



 I feel there there is a distinction between applying a personal preference (within the group rules) to your character: (eg. "I want to play a street tough using barbarian class mechanics." or  "I don't like multiclassing so I'm not going to play a multiclass character.")
And applying that personal preference to _someone else's_ character as player 1 is in this example: "You can't have a character use the class mechanics of the barbarian class unless you're from an outlander culture." or "I don't like multiclassing so _you _can't play a multiclass character."

Those preferences, if enforced are not the same.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> No, I think that the distinction stands. The ability scores may be enablers that affect how well the character performs their class' functions, but that is not the same as actually being class functions.
> Of course. most characters of the wizard class will have a reasonably high intelligence, and many characters of the barbarian class will have a decent strength. But that is not the same as claiming that having a score that synergises with some of the core mechanics of the class is the same as having and using those core class mechanics in the first place.
> 
> What error? The concepts posited in this example are within the given boundaries of the suggested game. The issue being examined is the clash of concepts. (Wanting to play the strongest starting human vs. another character happening to have the same strength as you do.)




In the example Arial provided he made it clear that the player was told the PHB but then used the limited free version not realizing there was a difference.



> Disliking multiclassing for example can be perfectly rational. Telling another player that they can't multiclass because you don't like multiclassing would be regarded as less so. At the very least, you're likely to be called out by the DM, if not the rest of the table.




That's the actual point of this discussion.  When it's very presence affects your character concept, it is rational to not want others to use it.



> I feel there there is a distinction between applying a personal preference (within the group rules) to your character: (eg. "I want to play a street tough using barbarian class mechanics." or  "I don't like multiclassing so I'm not going to play a multiclass character.")
> 
> And applying that personal preference to _someone else's_ character as player 1 is in this example: "You can't have a character use the class mechanics of the barbarian class unless you're from an outlander culture." or "I don't like multiclassing so _you _can't play a multiclass character."
> 
> Those preferences, if enforced are not the same.​





I totally agree.  The issue is that you refuse to view the option of multiclassing as ever affecting a players character concept that doesn't multiclass.  *Once the mere presence of an option starts affecting a players character concept then it's no longer just a personal preference to "your" character.*​
So you are saying the person that wants the multiclassing option isn't applying his preference to the others character and I'm saying, wait a minute they actually are.  All a character boils down to is mechanics and concept. By adding in class A that better represents X than class B you are taking away some of the concepts that class B supports in the game.

So what we actually have is a rule that's very presence affects player A that hates multicalssing and a rule that's absence affects player B that likes it.  If the rule didn't affect player A by it's very presence then the best solution is for him to personally not multiclass and player B to personally multiclass.  That isn't what is going on here though.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I've never seen one start lower than 14, and usually higher than that.  They also usually get even stronger with stat increases.  Lastly, even if you stay at 14, you will have an 18 when you hit 20th level, have advantage on strength checks and saves while raging, and be unable to fail to have at least a 14 on strength checks(18 when 20th level).  Even if the score is 14, those extra abilities give you more "strength" than normal people who can fail to roll equal to their strength and don't have advantage on those checks when they get angry.



 Cool. So we're on the same page that rage can push the limits of what a character is capable of beyond what their physique would normally allow. And that the typical ability distribution of someone playing a character using barbarian class mechanics is just typical rather than required.
(Its also worth bearing in mind that in 5e, the Strength Ability score represents natural athleticism and ability to generate power rather than raw muscle bulk. Bruce Lee would be a good example of a high-Str character in 5e.)



> Adventurers typically start young



 Adventurers start at whatever age that player writes on their character sheet at beginning of play.



> First, I would help the player create a Street Tough background.  A Street Tough is not an Urchin.  Second, I would work with the player to see whether he is just cludging barbarian into his concept because some of the abilities fit the concept.  Often there are better ways to get to the concept that the player hasn't thought of.  Third, there's often a way to tweak the background, which while it includes the mechanical background choice, is the entirety of the character's background from birth on up.  If the PC had been captured from a barbarian tribe at a young age and brought to the city, he could have the Street Tough background and be a barbarian.  There is almost always a way to make something work. I almost never have to ask a player not to play a character.  In fact, I can't think of the last time it happened.  Would have been more than 10-15 years ago at the very least.



 Remember that this discussion is about a clash of concepts between *players* within the game rules set by the DM. A DM would be within their authority to lay down the law about what sort of characters are allowed to use what classes, or what backgrounds must represent. What people have been arguing with you about is that a player shouldn't have the ability to tell another player that they can't play their concept due to the player's preferences.



Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by that.  I've been saying that they are not the same thing this entire portion of the thread.  A street urchin can't be a barbarian.  Exceptions exist to virtually every rule, but only under very specific sets of circumstances.  If a player wants to be an exception, they will need to explain HOW they are an exception in a way that makes sense.
> 
> No such rationale is given and I'm not going to assume that they mean anything other than a typical street urchin can be a barbarian if he's angry, if that's what they are saying.  The only thing some of them have given as their rationale is aging.



 No, people have been talking about a street fighting character that uses the class mechanics of the barbarian class, and the 'Street Urchin' background as given in the PHB.
Any implication that this must mean that they spent time in an outlander culture, or that they were a weak and malnourished child right up to the point of becoming an adventuring PC are yours and yours alone.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 15, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> No, I think that the distinction stands. The ability scores may be enablers that affect how well the character performs their class' functions, but that is not the same as actually being class functions.
> Of course. most characters of the wizard class will have a reasonably high intelligence, and many characters of the barbarian class will have a decent strength. But that is not the same as claiming that having a score that synergises with some of the core mechanics of the class is the same as having and using those core class mechanics in the first place.
> 
> What error? The concepts posited in this example are within the given boundaries of the suggested game. The issue being examined is the clash of concepts. (Wanting to play the strongest starting human vs. another character happening to have the same strength as you do.)
> ...



In my current 5e campaign as a player, my inventory is detailed into four distinct groups...
Stuff on person in clothes and pouches
Stuff in on duty backpack (short mission)
Stuff in long duty sack
Stuff in other sacks generally stored.

Within each, it's broken down into containers and positions. Coins also divided.

It's a preference of mine carried over from older school days when that's how we did it.

I did not insist other players do that (not required by GM or rules) nor does it bother me that they didn't. Using normal 5e ruled could carried it all.

When we lost wagons, marked off the sacks cuz that's where they would been. No problem.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

Maybe it's best to ask when you hear someone say I dislike multiclassing whether they mean they just dislike doing it themselves or dislike playing in games where it's present.  Those are both two very valid preferences and it seems the one about disliking playing in games where it's present is being conflated with a dislike of doing it yourself which in turn is driving some to claim that the preference of disliking D&D games with multiclassing present is irrational, shouldn't matter to you if others multiclass as long as you aren't etc.  Basically the preference of not liking multiclassing to be a thing in a D&D 5e campaign is turning into a preference that no one can or should ever have because XYZ.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> ...
> 
> Remember that this discussion is about a clash of concepts between *players* within the game rules set by the DM. A DM would be within their authority to lay down the law about what sort of characters are allowed to use what classes, or what backgrounds must represent. What people have been arguing with you about is that a player shouldn't have the ability to tell another player that they can't play their concept due to the player's preferences.




I think you may be misunderstanding the disagreement.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 15, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe it's best to ask when you hear someone say I dislike multiclassing whether they mean they just dislike doing it themselves or dislike playing in games where it's present.  Those are both two very valid preferences and it seems the one about disliking playing in games where it's present is being conflated with a dislike of doing it yourself which in turn is driving some to claim that the preference of disliking D&D games with multiclassing present is irrational, shouldn't matter to you if others multiclass as long as you aren't etc.  Basically the preference of not liking multiclassing to be a thing in a D&D 5e campaign is turning into a preference that no one can or should ever have because XYZ.




Yes.  As said in another thread by Obliza:

“Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”

Until your build comes together other players are carrying you.  If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 15, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Yes.  As said in another thread by Obliza:
> 
> “Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”
> 
> Until your build comes together other players are carrying you.  If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.




Yep, in addition to impacts to character concepts, there's also the mechanical and game balance issues a person can dislike multiclassing being present in games.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 15, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Yes.  As said in another thread by Obliza:
> 
> “Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”
> 
> Until your build comes together other players are carrying you.  If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.



"Until your build comes together other players are carrying you. "

That seems to be implying a power balance problem?


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 15, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Yes.  As said in another thread by Obliza:
> 
> “Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”
> 
> Until your build comes together other players are carrying you.  If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.





That sounds like the common complaint about early-edition wizards.


At least the multiclass characters don't absolutely dominate the fighters once their build does come together.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 15, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Are the players of rapier-wielding Dex barbs *breaking the rules?* Would the appearance of a Dex barb cause that PC to be thrown out of the game because other players found the concept 'upsetting'?



Given that the description of a class is just as immutable a rule as its mechanics - which is to say, it isn't at all, but all changes are subject to DM discretion and approval - it is just as much against the rules for a barbarian to focus on a weapon inappropriate to their upbringing as it would be for them to wear armor they weren't proficient in. That is to say, you should definitely talk to your DM about it, because it's very weird.



Arial Black said:


> So, the game adding more options = the game _taking away_ options?



Since at least AD&D 1E, there's been a problem with some classes being over-defined and others being under-defined, in terms of conceptual narrative space. In the Basic game, whether you want to play an acrobat or an assassin, you can do that as a Thief. If you're playing AD&D with Unearthed Arcana, your acrobat should probably be a Thief-Acrobat and your assassin should really probably be an Assassin.

The same general problem got much worse under 3E, and I'm not just talking about the Samurai class which took the last remaining archetype from the Fighter. It became a major issue if you were using all of the supplements (as many 3E fans were inclined to do), that any cool thing you might want to do was locked behind some feat chain somewhere. If you were just using the PHB, you could try and fire an arrow in such a way as to pin someone to a wall; if you were using all of the supplements, then there was a specific feat chain for that maneuver, which meant you couldn't do it unless you planned it in advance and sacrificed your basic competency in order to pursue that feat.

So yes, adding more options does equate to the game taking away options. It's the exact same reason why I would rather play a game that had twelve skills, instead of a game with 400 skills.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 15, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Given that the description of a class is just as immutable a rule as its mechanics - which is to say, it isn't at all, but all changes are subject to DM discretion and approval - it is just as much against the rules for a barbarian to focus on a weapon inappropriate to their upbringing as it would be for them to wear armor they weren't proficient in. That is to say, you should definitely talk to your DM about it, because it's very weird.
> 
> Since at least AD&D 1E, there's been a problem with some classes being over-defined and others being under-defined, in terms of conceptual narrative space. In the Basic game, whether you want to play an acrobat or an assassin, you can do that as a Thief. If you're playing AD&D with Unearthed Arcana, your acrobat should probably be a Thief-Acrobat and your assassin should really probably be an Assassin.
> 
> ...



The archer pin etc... 

A thief class can have prof with pick locks, but just because its class feature doesn't mean its locked out of everybody else.

Often different gms will interpret the difference but it's not all that unusual for gm to allow "normal" maneuvers to be done even if better options apply to class.

In other words, rules provide frameworks that tie things together into a comprehensive fashion... but the gm can allow what he sees as reasonable regardless.

Lack of rules is not free than having rules you can choose to use or not. It just puts more on the GM for normal stuff.

The degree of consistency from ruling to ruling is up to the group.

---

That said I prefer a less than 400 skills too. At that point you have moved well into false precision - more complexity than needed given the fudgey elements involved. It's like weighing the salt to the 1000th of a gram and then adding a pinch of garlic.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Adventurers start at whatever age that player writes on their character sheet at beginning of play.




And in playing for more than 30 years with more than a hundred different players, I've seen that the overwhelming majority start young.  Late teens to early 20's. 



> Remember that this discussion is about a clash of concepts between *players* within the game rules set by the DM. A DM would be within their authority to lay down the law about what sort of characters are allowed to use what classes, or what backgrounds must represent. What people have been arguing with you about is that a player shouldn't have the ability to tell another player that they can't play their concept due to the player's preferences.
> 
> No, people have been talking about a street fighting character that uses the class mechanics of the barbarian class, and the 'Street Urchin' background as given in the PHB.
> Any implication that this must mean that they spent time in an outlander culture, or that they were a weak and malnourished child right up to the point of becoming an adventuring PC are yours and yours alone.



A clash of concepts between players may have been what the discussion started with, but it evolved and has been about DM and player for pages now.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A thief class can have prof with pick locks, but just because its class feature doesn't mean its locked out of everybody else.



I would actually be quite curious to hear how other AD&D groups handled the possibility of someone attempting to pick a lock if they didn't have that class feature, especially given how low the thief charts started out.



5ekyu said:


> Lack of rules is not freer than having rules you can choose to use or not. It just puts more on the GM for normal stuff.



I would argue that, if you can choose to not use a rule, then it isn't really a rule. You can have rules for naval combat (as an example), but if those rules aren't actually used to resolve naval combat when the situation arises, then they weren't _really_ the rules for naval combat.

The _real_ rules of the game are whichever rules are _actually_​ used to resolve things.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 15, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I would actually be quite curious to hear how other AD&D groups handled the possibility of someone attempting to pick a lock if they didn't have that class feature, especially given how low the thief charts started out.




We didn't allow it.  If you didn't have a thief to pick the lock, or the thief failed, there were other ways to get it open.  Knock, bashing, fireball, a key, etc.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 15, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I would actually be quite curious to hear how other AD&D groups handled the possibility of someone attempting to pick a lock if they didn't have that class feature, especially given how low the thief charts started out.
> 
> I would argue that, if you can choose to not use a rule, then it isn't really a rule. You can have rules for naval combat (as an example), but if those rules aren't actually used to resolve naval combat when the situation arises, then they weren't _really_ the rules for naval combat.
> 
> The _real_ rules of the game are whichever rules are _actually_​ used to resolve things.



So when one says "If you were just using the PHB, you could try and fire an arrow in such a way as to pin someone to a wall; if you were using all of the supplements, then there was a specific feat chain for that maneuver, which meant you couldn't do it unless you planned it in advance and sacrificed your basic competency in order to pursue that feat." 

One is not actually making a point about how published rules renove this or reduce that but simple observing that sometimes GMs choose rules one maybe doesnt like?

Well obviously thats true. 

If a gm chooses to use feat tree to represent pin shots or class only,lock downs for routine tasks - they do indeed risk not having all players overjoyed at that decision. 

That applies whether that core bookhas 12 rules or 100.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 15, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Given that the description of a class is just as immutable a rule as its mechanics - which is to say, it isn't at all, but all changes are subject to DM discretion and approval - it is just as much against the rules for a barbarian to focus on a weapon inappropriate to their upbringing as it would be for them to wear armor they weren't proficient in. That is to say, you should definitely talk to your DM about it, because it's very weird.



I've not heard of a group who take that attitude before. How much wiggle room outside of the flavour text does your group allow?

I think pretty much all my experience has been considerably different: outside of the "Will this character concept fit in your world?" you might ask the DM, they've never really assumed that level of control.
Could you possibly give a page reference for the rules about what weapons are appropriate for what upbringings? Outside of the proficiency rules, I can't recall any. By "upbringing", do you mean backgrounds? Are they in that section?


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I think you may be misunderstanding the disagreement.



OK. In what way?


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 16, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> OK. In what way?




It's typically not okay for a player to tell another how to play and what is acceptable etc etc.

So while the group that dislikes multiclassing is saying that if we have any input in our groups style of game we are going to give feedback / push / hope for no-multiclassing.  The other group is taking that and saying it's not right that you want to ban multiclassing for everyone because I prefer to have it and then acting like the middle ground is you just don't use it and I will.  That defeats the purpose, is ultimately telling us how to play (just to accommodate you) and doesn't give us the thing we actually prefer.

The issue is that some preferences are mutually exclusive and that either person on either side of that issue pushing / lobbying etc for their preference is pushing / lobbying against someone elses preference.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 16, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I've not heard of a group who take that attitude before. How much wiggle room outside of the flavour text does your group allow?
> 
> I think pretty much all my experience has been considerably different: outside of the "Will this character concept fit in your world?" you might ask the DM, they've never really assumed that level of control.
> Could you possibly give a page reference for the rules about what weapons are appropriate for what upbringings? Outside of the proficiency rules, I can't recall any. By "upbringing", do you mean backgrounds? Are they in that section?




Yeah.  I don't take it that far, either.  If someone wants their barbarian to use a scimitar, because his father took it off of a strangely dressed man who strayed into their territory, I'm fine with that.  If he wants to use full plate armor, because it works for the tin men from the south and he thinks it's good, so be it.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 16, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I think pretty much all my experience has been considerably different: outside of the "Will this character concept fit in your world?" you might ask the DM, they've never really assumed that level of control.



No, that's pretty much what I was getting at. The concept of a barbarian using a rapier might not fit the DM's world. 

I can imagine a player telling the DM that they had an idea for a barbarian who used a rapier, and a DM saying that it didn't really fit because barbarians were from region X and the rapier-using culture was way over by region Q, so a barbarian ending up with a rapier would require an interesting explanation, and then they'd work together to explain this aberration or the player would pick a new character concept.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 16, 2018)

In light of my OP...here is some "sage advice."  


Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> No, that's pretty much what I was getting at. The concept of a barbarian using a rapier might not fit the DM's world.
> 
> I can imagine a player telling the DM that they had an idea for a barbarian who used a rapier, and a DM saying that it didn't really fit because barbarians were from region X and the rapier-using culture was way over by region Q, so a barbarian ending up with a rapier would require an interesting explanation, and then they'd work together to explain this aberration or the player would pick a new character concept.



Barbarian knife fighter specializing in smaller blades and throwing blades (darts) instead of axes. Add rogue level(s) and decently savage warrior with decent enough AC with shield.

Plenty savage enough in these parts.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 16, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> In light of my OP...here is some "sage advice."
> 
> 
> Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.



Speaking of the druid class, once I saw someone online who completely redid the fluff for the druid to create a shaman class. All abilities exactly the same as the druid, but the fluff rewritten which made it feel like a different class.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> No, that's pretty much what I was getting at. The concept of a barbarian using a rapier might not fit the DM's world.
> 
> I can imagine a player telling the DM that they had an idea for a barbarian who used a rapier, and a DM saying that it didn't really fit because barbarians were from region X and the rapier-using culture was way over by region Q, so a barbarian ending up with a rapier would require an interesting explanation, and then they'd work together to explain this aberration or the player would pick a new character concept.



 Sorry. My bad for not being clear enough I think.

I wasn't talking about a 'barbarian culture' (lives outside civilisation, has beards, maybe tribal). While people in the game world would refer to them as barbarians, most wouldn't actually be barbarians in terms of the DnD game mechanics. Common depictions of such cultures may have unfortunate overtones, but them being less technologically developed is a common trope, and so making rapiers might be beyond them.

I meant a character using the barbarian class mechanics, as in the rules in the PHB: fast, tough, capable of intense periods of physical power. They would generally use whatever weapons they grew up with: The street tough who fights like a frenzied rat when cornered might use knives and rapiers, the holy zealot would probably use their deities favoured weapon, the Conan expy would use whatever weapon was superior at the time etc.

Of course there are some DMs who might ban rapiers from the game entirely. At which point neither the barbarian, nor anyone else would be allowed them.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Both intelligence and spellcasting are equivalents in this analogy.  ie. "Things that define a class"
> 
> Wizard's don't have to use spells.  Barbarians don't have to be strong.
> 
> Wizard's also don't have to be intelligent.  Barbarians also don't have to use weapons.




They are not equivalent.

Equivalent pairs here are:-

* intelligence/strength

* spell/weapon use

The reason these are different is that spell/weapons are how those classes interact with the game world. A wizard not using spells is pointless. A barbarian not using weapons is pointless.

Meanwhile, a wizard with only average intelligence and a barbarian with only average strength are perfectly viable. They will either be less _effective_ than those with higher scores in those stats OR will be built in such a way that they will be effective anyway, such as a Dex-based barbarian.

So it's wrong to suggest that barbarians with average strength would be as pointless as wizards who don't use spells! The barbarian may be less competent but his axe will still hurt you, OR he will be just as competent and his rapier will skewer you.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That's not the best way to word it.  Mechanics and concepts map to one another.  Adding mechanical options usually just changes some of the mappings (but not always).




The 'mapping' part is and always has been flexible. There is no 'One True Map' for 'strongest = fighter'.  



> So you can keep the concept of strongest and hardest to physically kill.  It's just that concept maps to a barbarian now.




No, now that you have the option of fighter OR barbarian, you can choose _either_ for your 'strongest in the party' concept.



> Likewise you have eliminated the concept of strongest and hardest to physically kill from the fighter class due to it's mechanics no longer respresenting that in the game world.




The barbarian is 'hard to kill' (concept) in a specific way (hit points, damage reduction), but you can have the same _concept_ using a different class (druid has many bags of hit points, fighters can have hit points AND full plate, Second Wind, re-roll failed saves, etc.).

So the new and interesting mechanics with the barbarian class do *not* have the result of lowering the number of concepts the fighter class mapped to.



> (Yes I know I've slightly changed definition of concept in this elaboration as I didn't really have a better word.  Concept definition 1 = class and identity intertwined.  Concept definition 2 = identity apart from class.)




Exactly!

Your house it built on shifting sand.

Let's go back to your concept: 'strongest'. Strongest what? Strongest PC in the party? That's not a character concept, that's something you might notice if you look at the character sheets of every PC and see which has the highest strength score. Even in OD&D there may have been two or more fighters. All it takes is four or more players playing a game with only three character classes, and any 'concept' of being the best 'X' in the party is no longer under your control.

Do you mean 'my class means I'm used to being the strongest in any group I belong to'? So all fighters and all barbarians are always the strongest in their group, and have grown so used to this that it is integral to their self image? How? That fighter, given the training rules in early editions, would have been trained from childhood by an adult fighter in a group of other children who all want to be fighters when they grow up. How can it be true for ALL of them that 'strongest in the group' is an inalienable part of their identity?

How can a barbarian, even if we conflate the game mechanics of class with the in world culture, have grown up with the idea that they are the 'strongest in the group'? He was raised in a culture where every single member of his tribe was stronger than every other member? That is literally absurd.

When these various 1st level PCs meet in their first tavern before their very first adventure, they cannot _previously_ have had 'I'm the strongest in my group' as part of their identity, and that cannot claim to be 'strongest in the group' before they know the strength scores of the other PCs.

It's really not a valid 'concept' at all! 'Strong' is a valid concept that you can certainly choose, but 'strongest' is not under your control because you are not in control of the strength scores of the other PCs.

'Strongest' was never a valid concept, so the appearance of another Str-based class cannot take away something that never existed in the first place.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe it's best to ask when you hear someone say I dislike multiclassing whether they mean they just dislike doing it themselves or dislike playing in games where it's present.  Those are both two very valid preferences and it seems the one about disliking playing in games where it's present is being conflated with a dislike of doing it yourself which in turn is driving some to claim that the preference of disliking D&D games with multiclassing present is irrational, shouldn't matter to you if others multiclass as long as you aren't etc.  Basically the preference of not liking multiclassing to be a thing in a D&D 5e campaign is turning into a preference that no one can or should ever have because XYZ.




And yet we, as a free society, recognise the line of demarcation. I get to choose my stuff, you get to choose your stuff. If you have an opinion about MY stuff, that may or may not interest me, but the final say on my stuff belongs to me. If I have an opinion about YOUR stuff, the final say remains with you.

Getting upset about the choices of others is not a successful 'happiness' strategy.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 16, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Yes.  As said in another thread by Obliza:
> 
> “Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”




Badly thought-out PC =/= multiclass PC.

There are badly built single class PCs. There are well built multiclass PCs.



> Until your build comes together other players are carrying you.  If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.




Equally true for badly built single class and multiclass alike.

Remember in 1e when the 1st level wizard was a 1/day mobile _sleep_ grenade, who was a liability for every single minute of every single day apart from that minute when they cast their one-and-only _sleep_ spell? But you had to keep them around so that they got a share of the XPs because when they got to higher levels they could change reality while the rest of us were still poking things with sharpened sticks?

What has 'multiclassing' got to do with that?


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Given that the description of a class is just as immutable a rule as its mechanics - which is to say, it isn't at all, but all changes are subject to DM discretion and approval - it is just as much against the rules for a barbarian to focus on a weapon inappropriate to their upbringing as it would be for them to wear armor they weren't proficient in. That is to say, you should definitely talk to your DM about it, because it's very weird.




The DM has already decided that rapiers exist, so the barbarian using one is just a matter of them coming across one and keeping it. Since 'barbarian = in world culture' and 'barbarian = game mechanic' are not exclusively connected, then my barbarian could easily have been raised in an area where rapiers are common.



> Since at least AD&D 1E, there's been a problem with some classes being over-defined and others being under-defined, in terms of conceptual narrative space. In the Basic game, whether you want to play an acrobat or an assassin, you can do that as a Thief. If you're playing AD&D with Unearthed Arcana, your acrobat should probably be a Thief-Acrobat and your assassin should really probably be an Assassin.
> 
> The same general problem got much worse under 3E, and I'm not just talking about the Samurai class which took the last remaining archetype from the Fighter. It became a major issue if you were using all of the supplements (as many 3E fans were inclined to do), that any cool thing you might want to do was locked behind some feat chain somewhere. If you were just using the PHB, you could try and fire an arrow in such a way as to pin someone to a wall; if you were using all of the supplements, then there was a specific feat chain for that maneuver, which meant you couldn't do it unless you planned it in advance and sacrificed your basic competency in order to pursue that feat.
> 
> So yes, adding more options does equate to the game taking away options. It's the exact same reason why I would rather play a game that had twelve skills, instead of a game with 400 skills.




Sooo....your DM gave your fighter the Rage game mechanic....but now that barbarians are a character class then your fighter no longer has that mechanical ability?

IF, and it is a big 'if', your original concept was 'raging barbarian' but the closest class was fighter because barbarian wasn't a class yet, you should be _ecstatic_ when they introduce the new class! Now you have the game mechanics to better realise your concept! Barbarian FTW!


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 16, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I wasn't talking about a 'barbarian culture' (lives outside civilisation, has beards, maybe tribal). While people in the game world would refer to them as barbarians, most wouldn't actually be barbarians in terms of the DnD game mechanics. Common depictions of such cultures may have unfortunate overtones, but them being less technologically developed is a common trope, and so making rapiers might be beyond them.
> 
> I meant a character using the barbarian class mechanics, as in the rules in the PHB: fast, tough, capable of intense periods of physical power.



Right, and I'm saying that they're the same thing. The barbarian class has the mechanics which it does, because it is trying to reflect the barbarian warrior archetype which it posits as existing in the world. When the DM is creating the setting, part of that is deciding which classes exist, and the next part is deciding how and where those classes fit into the world.

And the DM, when designing the world, can absolutely decide that it does make sense for the barbarian class mechanics to apply within an urban setting. Though it was not the original intent of the class, as written, it's certainly a change that the DM is capable of making. Likewise, they can say that barbarians are proficient in heavy armor but not martial weapons, or that their resistance while raging can be overcome by silver weapons. Both the fluff and the crunch are equally mutable to the DM, in the course of world-building.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 16, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Since 'barbarian = in world culture' and 'barbarian = game mechanic' are not exclusively connected, then my barbarian could easily have been raised in an area where rapiers are common.



Unless the DM tells you, flat-out, that the barbarian class mechanic is exclusively connected to the barbarian culture; which is entirely their prerogative, as world-builder.


Arial Black said:


> Sooo....your DM gave your fighter the Rage game mechanic....but now that barbarians are a character class then your fighter no longer has that mechanical ability?



If the barbarian class is not part of the game, then the best representation of a barbarian warrior is that is uses the fighter class. If the barbarian class does exist, then the best representation of a barbarian warrior is that it uses the barbarian class.

If your character concept is of a barbarian warrior, and the barbarian class exists, and you try to use the fighter mechanics to represent that character, then you're being disingenuous. The fighter class mechanics are not the best representation of the barbarian warrior concept, if the barbarian class exists, and everyone should know that.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2018)

Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player.

 [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are.  The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion.  But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find:



			
				PHB 5e said:
			
		

> ... You fought fiercely over food and kept a constant watch out for other desperate souls who might want to steal from you.  You slept on rooftops and in alleyways, exposed to the elements, and endured sickness without the advantage of medicine or a place to recuperate.  You survived despite all odds, and did so through cunning, *strength*, speed or some combination of each.




Huh, sounds like a high Str and Con barbarian would fit this background perfectly.  Surviving the elements, constantly fighting, and surviving through strength.  Sounds like a barbarian to me.

See, this is why I have such a problem with the argument that DM's put forth that "X doesn't fit in my setting".  Because, most of the time, they just haven't actually read what X is, and are just going with the gut reaction.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player.
> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are.  The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion.  But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find:
> 
> 
> ...



"Because, most of the time, they just haven't actually read what X is, and are just going with the gut reaction."

Who you gonna believe, your lying PHB or Dickens?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> And yet we, as a free society, recognise the line of demarcation. I get to choose my stuff, you get to choose your stuff. If you have an opinion about MY stuff, that may or may not interest me, but the final say on my stuff belongs to me. If I have an opinion about YOUR stuff, the final say remains with you.




If you're at my table at the restaurant, I have an interest in your table manners. If you're at some other restaurant, no.

So, different groups should do what they want. But people within a D&D group should aim for compatible behaviour. That can be aided by the GM setting some table rules. I don't like 5e multiclassing so as GM I don't allow it. If some other group elsewhere wants to use it, I don't care. Likewise I like and allow 5e Feats. If some other group disallows them, fine.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2018)

S'mon said:


> If you're at my table at the restaurant, I have an interest in your table manners. If you're at some other restaurant, no.
> 
> So, different groups should do what they want. But people within a D&D group should aim for compatible behaviour. That can be aided by the GM setting some table rules. I don't like 5e multiclassing so as GM I don't allow it. If some other group elsewhere wants to use it, I don't care. Likewise I like and allow 5e Feats. If some other group disallows them, fine.




To me, therein lies the difference.  You are being pretty up front here.  You don't like the multiclassing rules, so, you disallow them.  You're not trying to say that the rules are broken or bad or anything else.  Just expressing your preference.  Which is fine.  It would be helpful if more DM's were more upfront about their personal preferences instead of trying to justify them.

Heck, I just ran a campaign with no classes with cantrips.  Any class with a cantrip was off the table.  I was trying an experiment (and it worked pretty well too) and I made that very clear to the players - I wanted to see if 5e works as a low magic game.  It does.  That being said though, I did run into a LOT of resistance.  Three of the six players tried to "one off" caster characters as their concept.  It did get kinda frustrating.  And, in the end, because we wound up with like 3 rangers and a paladin, there was still a fair bit of spell casting going on.

I think if I wanted to run that experiment again, I would insist that everyone play caster up front.  That way when everyone tries to create non-casters, I win.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> To me, therein lies the difference.  You are being pretty up front here.  You don't like the multiclassing rules, so, you disallow them.  You're not trying to say that the rules are broken or bad or anything else.  Just expressing your preference.  Which is fine.  It would be helpful if more DM's were more upfront about their personal preferences instead of trying to justify them.




Yeah; I mean I have my reasons and I was talking about them yesterday with my Sunday group. But if people at another table get a thrill out of building optimised (or incapable) multi-class PCs, or whatever it is they like doing with that nonsense, it's no skin off my shin.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player.
> 
> @_*Maxperson*_ is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are.  The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion.  But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find:




And because they are pure city, while barbarians are all about being away from the city in a barbarian tribe.  An urchin that becomes a barbarian would need to have lived enough of his life in a barbarian tribe to remember it, before being taken or moving to the city and becoming an urchin.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "Because, most of the time, they just haven't actually read what X is, and are just going with the gut reaction."
> 
> Who you gonna believe, your lying PHB or Dickens?




What does Dickens have to do with this?  He didn't create street urchins or that stereotype.  He just wrote about them.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 17, 2018)

As far as street urchin background consider they Spartans would deliberately not give enough food to feed all children in training to teach them to be self sufficient and scrounge for their own.

The urchin stereotype is certainly mapped to small, quick, stealthy types, but it’s easy to alter it a little bit to something else.

I would consider the Boomerang Boy in The Road Warrior a street urchin even though he lived where there is no streets.

Urchin comes from the French word for hedgehog, probably because at that time kids in streets were like hedgehogs, they were small, wild and in large numbers.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> And because they are pure city, while barbarians are all about being away from the city in a barbarian tribe.  An urchin that becomes a barbarian would need to have lived enough of his life in a barbarian tribe to remember it, before being taken or moving to the city and becoming an urchin.




Ladies and gentlemen, I present Exhibit A.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 17, 2018)

S'mon said:


> If you're at my table at the restaurant, I have an interest in your table manners. If you're at some other restaurant, no.
> 
> So, different groups should do what they want. But people within a D&D group should aim for compatible behaviour. That can be aided by the GM setting some table rules. I don't like 5e multiclassing so as GM I don't allow it. If some other group elsewhere wants to use it, I don't care. Likewise I like and allow 5e Feats. If some other group disallows them, fine.




Exactly!

So if the DM says that multiclassing IS allowed, then another player has no business being upset if I choose to play a MC PC.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> As far as street urchin background consider they Spartans would deliberately not give enough food to feed all children in training to teach them to be self sufficient and scrounge for their own.




The Spartans didn't have urchins.  Those boys where expected to be fit as infants, entered military style programs at age 7, hazed and fought each other to build strength and ability, and while food was kept scarce, they were also expected to remain physically fit.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Exactly!
> 
> So if the DM says that multiclassing IS allowed, then another player has no business being upset if I choose to play a MC PC.




If that’s your point we agree.  Once the rule allowing multiclassibg gets established the. You don’t tell someone not to use that rule. 

Do do you agree that it would be wrong for a player that wants multiclassibg to ask he DM for it after the DM has stated no multiclassibg?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, I present Exhibit A.




Words mean something.  D&D uses many, many words that correspond to the real world.  Barbarian, cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue, sword, dagger, mace, spear, elf, dwarf, human, and on and on and on and...  Barbarian corresponds to the real world equivalent of barbaric tribes, Conan, etc.  At no time in the real world were street urchins considered to be barbarian hordes.

If you want to change the meaning for your game, have at it.  Enjoy.  For my games, I'm going to retain the intended meanings of those words.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 17, 2018)

I don't have a horse in the 5e MC race, but a Google for "street urchin savages" turned up this, citing a 1959 monograph on _The Victorian Child_:

half-savage children, street arabs, street urchins, mudlarks, and guttersnipes — filthy, ragged, lying, cursing, and hungry, roaming singly or in packs like young wolves, snatching stealing, stone-throwing, destructive, brutish, and cruel when not merely hopeless and lost.​
If D&D is somewhat anachronistically going to include a street urchin archetype - no doubt there were orphaned/homeless children in mediaeval towns and cities, but as a trope or archetype it fits more with mass urbanisation and industrial cities - there doesn't seem to be anything odd about taking the Victorian conceptions of "savage, destructive packs" seriously.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 17, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Unless the DM tells you, flat-out, that the barbarian class mechanic is exclusively connected to the barbarian culture; *which is entirely their prerogative, as world-builder.*




I have another point of view to that bolded part: no it bloody well isn't!

As I mentioned when I first posted in this thread some 600 pages ago, DMs have control over everything in their world EXCEPT the PCs!

The PC's fluff is the prerogative of the player, *not* the DM, where 'prerogative' = 'final word'. The player (ideally) knows enough about the DMs world in order to make sensible decisions (so no cyberware fluff in a world without cyberware, no werewolf fluff in a world with no lycanthropy), and the player has to obey the game RULES set down by the books and modified by the DM (so if the DM says the barbarian CLASS is not available, then that's the way it is).

But fluff = backstory here. That's up to the player, within the realms of possibility. For barbarian culture _fluff_, the only thing required is that there exists people with that culture in the DM's world. If the DM says that there are no barbarian _cultures_ in the world, then that's the way it is. But the lack of any barbarian _culture_ (which is a bit strange, bit this IS within the DM's purview) in no way prevents the use of the game mechanics of the barbarian CLASS, in and of itself. I could fluff my Bar 1 with (to take a popular example!) the urchin background. Certainly, not ALL urchins would use the barbarian class mechanic to represent them, but some would. Mine definitely does, and I know that because my fluff is up to me!

The only way a DM could prevent this is to ban the class AND the culture. But as long as the class is available, I can fluff it in any way that makes sense in the world. I could not fluff it as cyberware/lycanthropy without those things being in the world, but I have infinite idea space available to think of something that would apply.

Being raised on the mean streets is available, unless the DM's world has no mean streets on his world anywhere. Okay, no mean streets, no barbarian culture, but the class mechanics ARE available? Okay, I will steal my idea from the Deathstalker books, where Owen Deathstalker and the rest of his noble family have special organs which supply a special cocktail of adrenaline and other battle drugs at will, but they can only produce a limited amount per day. Maybe two lots at 1st level, three lots at 4th, you get the picture.



> If the barbarian class is not part of the game, then the best representation of a barbarian warrior is that is uses the fighter class. If the barbarian class does exist, then the best representation of a barbarian warrior is that it uses the barbarian class.
> 
> *If your character concept is of a barbarian warrior, and the barbarian class exists, and you try to use the fighter mechanics to represent that character, then you're being disingenuous*. The fighter class mechanics are not the best representation of the barbarian warrior concept, if the barbarian class exists, and everyone should know that.




Rubbish! Not every single person in the 'culturally barbarian' tribe will have levels in the barbarian _class!_ Some will be rangers, some druids, some fighters, maybe even a paladin (vengeance?), while most will be NPCs without a specific class. The idea that a player creating a PC from this culture without any levels in the barbarian _class_ is somehow being dishonest is an unmerited slur.

Other unmerited slurs include: if you play a MC PC then you must be:-

* powergaming, 

* trying to spoil MY fun

* trying to change MY world

* forcing the DM to make ALL urchins have levels in the barbarian class

* etc. etc. _ad nauseum_


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 17, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Words mean something.  D&D uses many, many words that correspond to the real world.  Barbarian, cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue, sword, dagger, mace, spear, elf, dwarf, human, and on and on and on and...  Barbarian corresponds to the real world equivalent of barbaric tribes, Conan, etc.  At no time in the real world were street urchins considered to be barbarian hordes.
> 
> If you want to change the meaning for your game, have at it.  Enjoy.  For my games, I'm going to retain the intended meanings of those words.




I say more power to you.  However, if you cling too tightly to your dictionary and the characters you have seen before, you are going to miss out on a lot.  In fact, if the only barbarians allowed are Conan with a different name and hair color, burn out is a real possibility if you are long in the hobby.  If you are a DM, you are going to straightjacket players with too much rigidity.

Again, from Sage Advice:

“Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.”

Obviously, you can set the limit if you are the DM.  Some limits need to be set.  However, for every “different idea” someone presents, you find an example of when such would not be possible.  Respectfully, renaming the Urchin may be what you want.  Perhaps running through the city and using thieves tools might not fit your idea of a half orc child.   Of course you could swap some skill and rename the package…

But you seem to be very wedded to a fiction someone else made and its not even class fiction but background!

Somewhere some player’s shenanigans must have ruined one of your games!  This is nothing to do with class balance.  Now this is about telling players their history is improbable?  They are heroes!  Their rise to first level is improbable!  OK, so you want some logic?  Agreed we need to explain some tales to understand them.

But the way this is going, only little rogues could have been urchins.  Barbarians?  Better have the outlander background, all of you!  Let people make things up.  If it is all is just what appeals to one person, the DM, it’s not about world building; it’s about control and restriction.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 17, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> If that’s your point we agree.  Once the rule allowing multiclassibg gets established the. You don’t tell someone not to use that rule.
> 
> Do do you agree that it would be wrong for a player that wants multiclassibg to ask he DM for it after the DM has stated no multiclassibg?




If the DM has already said that he is not allowing the MC rules, then I _might_ (if I felt so inclined) have a friendly conversation as to why, and might even ask if he would change his mind and lay out my case.

But I recognise it as his prerogative, and if he says no then I have no business being horrible to him about it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> If the DM has already said that he is not allowing the MC rules, then I _might_ (if I felt so inclined) have a friendly conversation as to why, and might even ask if he would change his mind and lay out my case.
> 
> But I recognise it as his prerogative, and if he says no then I have no business being horrible to him about it.




I can agree there as well. If I as a player that doesn’t like multiclassibg do the same thing but instead in favor of not multiclassing then do you find any fault with that?


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 17, 2018)

Ok, you really need to let this go...



Maxperson said:


> Words mean something.  D&D uses many, many words that correspond to the real world.  Barbarian, cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue, sword, dagger, mace, spear, elf, dwarf, human, and on and on and on and...




Yes, words do mean something. _And part of that meaning is always contextual_. As a trained linguist and a former professional translator, I appreciate that words have meaning as much as anyone here. But the reality is that the meaning of words is always at least somewhat contextual. Always. And in the present context, the meaning of the words in question is to designate D&D *classes.* Not culture. Not real world analogs. Not your strangely obsessive version of what an urchin _must_ be. In your example, you cited examples of "real world" words that apparently must have the "real world" meaning. This is your supposed support for your pedantic obsession with urchins and barbarians. Yet you blithely list "clerics" while having no problem ignoring that "real world" clerics have absolutely nothing to do with the D&D cleric class, nor has the word cleric _ever_ aligned with the D&D class. At best, the class should be called "clergy" rather than "cleric", and even then the association is fringe and tangental.  So if you are expecting to retain any credibility, then I expect that you will immediately remove any clerics from your game. Yet you haven't been arguing that. Which means you are willing to allow the D&D context to impact the meaning of the word "cleric." Your unwillingness to do the same with "barbarian" is a crystal clear demonstration that this is an obsessive personal bias rather than a cogent, reasoned point.



> Barbarian corresponds to the real world equivalent of barbaric tribes, Conan, etc.  At no time in the real world were street urchins considered to be barbarian hordes.




And if you hadn't already sacrificed credibility, this line would absolutely kill it. You mention how barbarian (_has to_) correspond to "real world equivalents", and immediately proceed to list Conan? Seriously? As if _anything _in the Conan books is representative of "real world" barbarian cultures?  For that matter, since you are so obsessed that the "real" meaning of words be retained against all reasoned arguments to the contrary, then perhaps you need to do the research to recognize that the term "barbarian" was applied by the Greeks to the ANE cultures, so if that is the case I expect that your game world does not include _any _barbarians that are not from a pseudo-Middle Eastern or Turkish culture.

And for the record, there have been _many_ times that groups of poor, homeless people have been described as living in "barbaric" conditions.



> If you want to change the meaning for your game, have at it.  Enjoy.  For my games, I'm going to retain the intended meanings of those words.




Ok... so we know your games will not include clerics and non-middle eastern barbarians. (And I haven't even approached the issues with bards, druids, et al.)...


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> So if the DM says that multiclassing IS allowed, then another player has no business being upset if I choose to play a MC PC.




Yup.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 17, 2018)

S'mon said:


> Yup.




Agree.  The other player would know that MC is allowed when he sits down and can make the choice to play or not.  If they choose to play, then they have no business being upset because of another player's choice to use MC.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 17, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Words mean something.  D&D uses many, many words that correspond to the real world.  Barbarian, cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue, sword, dagger, mace, spear, elf, dwarf, human, and on and on and on and...  Barbarian corresponds to the real world equivalent of barbaric tribes, Conan, etc.  At no time in the real world were street urchins considered to be barbarian hordes.
> 
> If you want to change the meaning for your game, have at it.  Enjoy.  For my games, I'm going to retain the intended meanings of those words.




Words have meaning, but that meaning is contextual. Consider that the word "spear" in D&D refers to a throwable weapon without reach, limiting it to a small subset of real-life weapons that can be described as "spears". Further, consider the word "elf" which refers to wildly different creatures in different contexts. One can't draw on what one knows of Tolkien or Rowling elves and use that to infer traits of D&D elves, which are described quite differently from either.

Similarly, I see no reason to assume that the class name "Barbarian" corresponds solely to the real world equivalent of barbarian tribes. Much of the text in the PHB talks about barbarians in an uncivilized, tribal sense, but it also allows for other possibilities, explicitly including dwarves, who are not described as tribal or uncivilized in any D&D-related context of which I am aware. Furthermore, that same text includes references to individual Barbarians' opinions of cities and civilization, which earlier you agreed can be freely ignored. The ability to frerly ignore some of the "fluff" text implies that the fluff can't be _categorically_ sacred at your table.

Certain parts of the fluff may still be sacred at your table by your decree, of course.  And in practice that is exactly what you are doing when you rely on an extrinsic definition of "barbarian" to decide which parts of the fluff shall be sacred and which can be freely ignored. Importantly, because the definition of "barbarian" is contextual, you can't expect your players (or anyone else) to know which parts of the fluff you consider sacred and which parts aren't unless you explain to them the particular definition you're relying on.

Frankly, I still don't know where you draw the line on Barbarians or Street Urchins. If I come to the table with a "brawny rogue" (explicitly allowed on PHB 11), am I forbidden from taking the Urchin background on the grounds that Urchins can't be brawny? The phrase "Street Urchin" has a meaning to you, but I don't know what that meaning is well enough to know if it prohibits a brawny rogue at your table. And I _can't_ know what that meaning is until you express it.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 17, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Counterpoint- No.
> 
> You keep asserting things that you believe should be true, and that you want to be true, and may be true for your game, but are not universal truths. How do I know this? Because that's not how I play. And given that I have also played for a fairly long time, and have a good time doing so, I'm okay with that!
> 
> ...




Yup... 

also to me the part that keeps hitting my GM "trigger wanring alert danger" is something like this "_The PC's fluff is the prerogative of the _player_, _*not the DM, where 'prerogative' = 'final word'. "*

Especially when coupled with a sort of stated "unless explicitly banned before i chose it."

This i have seen in the past as a setup... kind of like when a players asks you a seemingly obvious rules question but in a sort of indirect way with just a little bit of vagueness about the scope and you just know from experience there is another question that they are angling for and using this "obvious case" as a setup to get to what they really want.

leads to me always saying "why do you ask" or even "get to your real question" and emphasizing "case-by-case, depends on specifics and  circumstances" in my response to that kind of question.

The idea that the Gm has to provide a comprehensive list of everything they would object to or that everything illegal must be specifically banned etc is the playground of rules lawyers and has been since the dawn of rules.

no sense fighting uphill against that - it just sucks the life out of the game trying to corral it.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The PC's fluff is the prerogative of the player, *not* the DM, where 'prerogative' = 'final word'.



Only in the sense that if the DM shuts it down, your fluff, your decision is is find something acceptable or find another table.



> "The only way a DM could prevent this is to ban the class AND the culture. But as long as the class is available, I can fluff it in any way that makes sense in the world. I could not fluff it as cyberware/lycanthropy without those things being in the world, but I have infinite idea space available to think of something that would apply."
> 
> Being raised on the mean streets is available, unless the DM's world has no mean streets on his world anywhere. Okay, no mean streets, no barbarian culture, but the class mechanics ARE available? Okay, I will steal my idea from the Deathstalker books, where Owen Deathstalker and the rest of his noble family have special organs which supply a special cocktail of adrenaline and other battle drugs at will, but they can only produce a limited amount per day. Maybe two lots at 1st level, three lots at 4th, you get the picture.




If there is a barbarian class and no barbarian cultures, I am going to ask the DM what they have in mind for including the class just as I am would ask about the possibility of playing a non-traditional barbarian that grew up in civilized society, but relies upon rage rather than various trained maneuvers for his prowess if that was a concept I wanted to play.

As for your Deathstalker explanation, your ability to come up with an explanation never trumps my prerogative as  DM to deny it (and I would based upon the special organ).


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 17, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> Words have meaning, but that meaning is contextual. Consider that the word "spear" in D&D refers to a throwable weapon without reach, limiting it to a small subset of real-life weapons that can be described as "spears". Further, consider the word "elf" which refers to wildly different creatures in different contexts. One can't draw on what one knows of Tolkien or Rowling elves and use that to infer traits of D&D elves, which are described quite differently from either.
> 
> Similarly, I see no reason to assume that the class name "Barbarian" corresponds solely to the real world equivalent of barbarian tribes. Much of the text in the PHB talks about barbarians in an uncivilized, tribal sense, but it also allows for other possibilities, explicitly including dwarves, who are not described as tribal or uncivilized in any D&D-related context of which I am aware. Furthermore, that same text includes references to individual Barbarians' opinions of cities and civilization, which earlier you agreed can be freely ignored. The ability to frerly ignore some of the "fluff" text implies that the fluff can't be _categorically_ sacred at your table.
> 
> ...




Different folks draw different things to place degrees of emphasis or even rigid adherence to - even just a word. 

I read the urchin description (not just its background name and Dickens) and see any number of scavenger sub-class type characters from all sorts of fantasy and scifi stories - pretty much a variety of tropes over the years - and many of them do indeed seem very very barbaric and even tribal in their presentation and storylines.

The idea of a huge multi-generational "developed city" with this culture of dispossessed underworld class of tribalized outcasts is extremely fertile story telling ground and especially if one considers prior "town ruins" the current city is built upon.

maybe if they had used the term outcast or something more oblique like "Forgotten one"  instead of urchin some people would not be so rigin in their... wait no - who am i kidding - we would just be having a "discussion" over whether a character could be "forgotten" if anyone ever remembers them because since they are called "forgotten" they cannot have former family who remember who they were and are looking for them.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Words mean something.  D&D uses many, many words that correspond to the real world.  Barbarian, cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue, sword, dagger, mace, spear, elf, dwarf, human, and on and on and on and...  Barbarian corresponds to the real world equivalent of barbaric tribes, Conan, etc.  At no time in the real world were street urchins considered to be barbarian hordes.
> 
> If you want to change the meaning for your game, have at it.  Enjoy.  For my games, I'm going to retain the intended meanings of those words.




Funny, this reminds me of the "Geniuses with 5 Int" debate from two years ago, in which Max simply couldn't wrap his head around the idea.  He was stuck on the commonly accepted definition of "Intelligence", and couldn't see any distinction between that and a game stat with the same name.  Rather than see the fun to be had with a character who abided by the mechanical limitations of 5 Int without being bound by the most obvious interpretation of it, he insisted that 5 Int had one and only one meaning.

(EDIT: Actually, I want to amend that.  It wasn't just that he/they thought 5 Int had one meaning, they felt it had to be roleplayed in a specific way.  Or, more accurately, within a very, very narrow range of ways...which I assume they perceived as a wide range.  E.g., stupid and loud, stupid and meek, stupid and goofy, stupid and overly confident, etc. To paraphrase Henry Ford: "You can have it in any personality you want, as long as it's stupid.")

I got so frustrated with Max (and a few others) that I partially succumbed to the Dark Side and got myself banned from my own thread.  

Ah, good times.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 17, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Funny, this reminds me of the "Geniuses with 5 Int" debate from two years ago, in which Max simply couldn't wrap his head around the idea.  He was stuck on the commonly accepted definition of "Intelligence", and couldn't see any distinction between that and a game stat with the same name.  Rather than see the fun to be had with a character who abided by the mechanical limitations of 5 Int without being bound by the most obvious interpretation of it, he insisted that 5 Int had one and only one meaning.
> 
> I got so frustrated with Max (and a few others) that I partially succumbed to the Dark Side and got myself banned from my own thread.
> 
> Ah, good times.



Man, that thread was the best.  And I agree the controversies both here and in that thread are conceptually related.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> But as long as the class is available, I can fluff it in any way that makes sense in the world.



You never answered, but why do you believe this? Where in the PHB, or in the basic rules document, does it suggest that the description of a _class_ is any more optional than its mechanics? Is it something that you're bringing in from another game, or another edition? Is it just a local tradition, around the circles you grew up playing in?


Follow-up question: Who decides whether it makes sense in the world?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> The idea that the Gm has to provide a comprehensive list of everything they would object to or that everything illegal must be specifically banned etc is the playground of rules lawyers and has been since the dawn of rules.




Yes.

While as DM I would allow an 'urban savage' barbarian in most campaign settings (a few lack 
cities or the cities are too nice to produce 'barbarians'), I would appreciate the player clearing it 
with me first. I would tolerate it if they did not, but I would definitely not like a player telling me it was their prerogative to 'fluff their PC's background' however they wished. I think I would tell that player
 to move to another DM's group - David is nice.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

The Feral Kids in Mad Max 2 & Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome would make pretty good Barbarians. I think the one in MM2 Road Warrior is more an Assassin, though.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heck, I just ran a campaign with no classes with cantrips.  Any class with a cantrip was off the table.  I was trying an experiment (and it worked pretty well too) and I made that very clear to the players - I wanted to see if 5e works as a low magic game.  It does.  That being said though, I did run into a LOT of resistance.  Three of the six players tried to "one off" caster characters as their concept.  It did get kinda frustrating.  And, in the end, because we wound up with like 3 rangers and a paladin, there was still a fair bit of spell casting going on.




That reminds me of the time I pitched a low-magic, swords vs sorcery campaign, & asked for PCs 'like Conan' - so of course I got a Tiefling Warlock, a Revenant Warlock, a Goliath Warden... the only PCs that really worked were the two human Fighters I created as pregens.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> You never answered, but why do you believe this? Where in the PHB, or in the basic rules document, does it suggest that the description of a _class_ is any more optional than its mechanics? Is it something that you're bringing in from another game, or another edition? Is it just a local tradition, around the circles you grew up playing in?




Do you actually think that in 5e the fluff...or, rather, choosing from one of the various fluffs offered in each case...is non-optional?  That, by RAW, you must use their fluff?

Or are you just arguing this point...because?

You aren't asking me, but my answer would be "there is nothing in the rules that states you must use their fluff, thus it is not a rule."




> Follow-up question: Who decides whether it makes sense in the world?




This is a more sensible question.  I will disagree with those who say it's 100% the player, as well as with those who say it's 100% the DM.  I'll even go further and suggest that anybody who thinks they need to invoke 100% for either is probably at the wrong table.

This is really simple, guys:
Player: "Hey, I have this idea..."
DM: "Hmm, that won't really work because..."
Player: "Well, how about if I..."
DM: "Could you tweak it so that..."
Player: "Yeah, that works."
DM: "Cool."
Player: "Cool."

If your conversation does NOT resemble that, you are either playing with the wrong people or in the wrong hobby entirely.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 17, 2018)

Re: Comprehensive list of everything objected to .. 



S'mon said:


> Yes.
> 
> While as DM I would allow an 'urban savage' barbarian in most campaign settings (a few lack
> cities or the cities are too nice to produce 'barbarians'), I would appreciate the player clearing it
> ...




It's the place of the DM to provide a campaign primer so that players know what is explicitly allowed based on the story being told.  It is the place of the player to ask the DM if they look at the primer and don't see what they wish, if what they want to play is allowed.

Not providing players with enough information to logically ask questions is the playground of lousy DMs and has been since the dawn of DMs.

2c
KB


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 17, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I will disagree with those who say it's 100% the player, as well as with those who say it's 100% the DM.  I'll even go further and suggest that anybody who thinks they need to invoke 100% for either is probably at the wrong table.
> 
> This is really simple, guys:
> Player: "Hey, I have this idea..."
> ...



It's so simple, I wonder if there's anybody who actually is 100% either way.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 17, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> You aren't asking me, but my answer would be "there is nothing in the rules that states you must use their fluff, thus it is not a rule."



There's nothing in the rules that states you must use their mechanics, either. The mechanics are exactly the same degree of rule as the fluff. Whether you take that to mean both are sacrosanct, or both are just suggestions, the book treats them identically. Guidelines for changing both of them are in the DMG.


Elfcrusher said:


> If your conversation does NOT resemble that, you are either playing with the wrong people or in the wrong hobby entirely.



Agreed.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> It's the place of the DM to provide a campaign primer so that players know what is explicitly allowed based on the story being told.  It is the place of the player to ask the DM if they look at the primer and don't see what they wish, if what they want to play is allowed.
> 
> Not providing players with enough information to logically ask questions is the playground of lousy DMs and has been since the dawn of DMs.




In the real world, 95% of players don't read campaign primers, and players ask the GM about 
stuff they're interested in. GM then considers the question and gives a reasonable answer. I 
don't see players issuing diktats or telling GMs they're lousy GMs over something like this.

I'm one of the very worst players I know, and _even I _only get annoyed at GMs who - during play - 
nerf explicit class abilities, like telling a Rogue they can't shoot into melee with sneak attack (that was a mate of mine, I had to drop his game after that). 
I might want to play an urban thug barbarian modelled on Vinny Jones. I might even get slightly annoyed if the GM said no. I wouldn't call them a lousy GM though.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 17, 2018)

S'mon said:


> That reminds me of the time I pitched a low-magic, swords vs sorcery campaign, & asked for PCs 'like Conan' - so of course I got a Tiefling Warlock, a Revenant Warlock, a Goliath Warden... the only PCs that really worked were the two human Fighters I created as pregens.




That is why I am way always way more specific.  I specify that the races and cultures available and, along with brief descriptions of the cultures,  I include which classes (and/or subclasses) and backgrounds are appropriate for specific cultures. From there, people can pitch their character and ask about characters growing up in other cultures, having an unusual background for someone from their culture, etc.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> The 5e devs deliberately wrote out any power-removing mechanic (they have a power-_swapping_ option with Oathbreakers), because they have realised for years that it is inherently unfair for some players to be penalised just because their player chose one of the allowed classes, while other classes can do what they like and don't get punished in the metagame by removing the mechanical abilities of the class.
> 
> The devs *want* players to pick whatever class and available power for ANY class, not just the ones unconnected to a god/patron/whatever.
> 
> I *hate* DMs who slaver at the mouth when they hear that a player has chosen a cleric or a paladin because the DM thinks he has carte blanche to take the player's agency away using the threat of taking class abilities away.




From the Paladin class, "If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 17, 2018)

S'mon said:


> In the real world, 95% of players don't read campaign primers, and players ask the GM about
> stuff they're interested in. GM then considers the question and gives a reasonable answer. I
> don't see players issuing diktats or telling GMs they're lousy GMs over something like this.
> 
> ...




That's fair.  I guess I take exception to the term "real world" because it's dependent on the specific experiences of the person using the term.

In my real world, until I gave players a primer I'd say I was constantly answering scoping questions about the campaign world that were of the most mundane variety.  In many cases the answers were spread out enough that I would often enough contradict whatever the prior answer was.

In my opinion it's very important for a DM to be internally consistent and manage expectations of the player group.  Then the next thing is to manage the exceptions not the standards.  The rule books explain "all that is possible" inside the framework of the rules, not necessarily "all that is possible" for the players.  Assuming that the books are fully allowed is fine, but it's not necessarily a good idea.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 17, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Funny, this reminds me of the "Geniuses with 5 Int" debate from two years ago, in which Max simply couldn't wrap his head around the idea.  He was stuck on the commonly accepted definition of "Intelligence", and couldn't see any distinction between that and a game stat with the same name.  Rather than see the fun to be had with a character who abided by the mechanical limitations of 5 Int without being bound by the most obvious interpretation of it, he insisted that 5 Int had one and only one meaning.
> 
> (EDIT: Actually, I want to amend that.  It wasn't just that he/they thought 5 Int had one meaning, they felt it had to be roleplayed in a specific way.  Or, more accurately, within a very, very narrow range of ways...which I assume they perceived as a wide range.  E.g., stupid and loud, stupid and meek, stupid and goofy, stupid and overly confident, etc. To paraphrase Henry Ford: "You can have it in any personality you want, as long as it's stupid.")
> 
> ...




Nah, I agree strongly with you here -- fluff is malleable around mechanics especially for class/background -- but the idea of playing a 5 INT genius is like playing a 5 STR strongest man in the world -- it's farce, the mechanics don't support the fluff.  While I love respinning mechanics, whatever fluff that comes up shouldn't contradict the mechanic without good reason.  Most of the 'builds' you proposed in that scenario where 'geniuses' hobbled by crippling disabilities, which belies the concept of functioning genius when you can't actually do the INT things well.  So, I think there's room for 'refluff' and 'I don't think a 5 INT genius is a coherent concept'.  YMMV, and, obviously, did! 

Now, you can do farce, for sure, but I don't really prefer that much farce in my games.


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 17, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> You never answered, but why do you believe this? Where in the PHB, or in the basic rules document, does it suggest that the description of a _class_ is any more optional than its mechanics? Is it something that you're bringing in from another game, or another edition? Is it just a local tradition, around the circles you grew up playing in?




Although the question was not aimed at me, I hope you won't mind if I provide my take on it.

I consider the fluff of the class to be up to the player (within the constraints set by the DM's opinion of what fits in the setting) based on implication from the text in the PHB (and what it doesn't say), my experience with the D&D product across multiple editions, and a comparison with other game systems. I fully acknowledge that my interpretation is not the only one: the examples below are intended to explain the source of my interpretation, not to try to prove that my interpretation is the best one.

*From the PHB:*

Page 11: _"You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character." _ If the personality, appearance, and backstory described in the class fluff was meant to be a stricture, rather than a suggestion, I would expect this quote to instead say "you invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character within the boundaries set by your choices in the steps listed below". The lack of such limiting language along with the placement of such an expansive directive to "invent" in the very first paragraph of character creation suggest to me that the context of character creation is one of player-driven invention.

Page 11: _"Or you might be more interested in an unconventional character, such as a brawny rogue who likes hand-to-hand combat..."_. There is no mention of brawny rogues anywhere in the rogue class fluff. Instead, the fluff explicitly says that "_rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength_" (PHB 94). We know that brawny rogues are explicitly allowed by the text on page 11. Since the rogue fluff text does not make allowances for brawny rogues, I conclude that it is reasonable to infer that the class fluff text is more likely to be a series of examples and possibilities rather than strictures.

Page 11: _"Class broadly describes a character's vocation, what special talents he or she is most likely to employ when exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, or engaging in a tense negotiation"._ This passage says nothing about class determining personality, appearance, or backstory, even though most of the classes include fluff text that describe those things. Because they are uniquely emphasized in the introduction to choosing a class, I infer that that the "special talents" in the class description are more fundamental to each class than the fluff.

Page 45: _"Class shapes the way you think about the world and interact with it and your relationship with other people and power in the multiverse. A fighter, for example, *might* view the world in pragmatic terms of strategy and manuevering, and see herself as just a pawn in a much larger game."_ (Emphasis added.) The key word here is "might", which strongly implies that there are other possibilities. Also, there is no directive to see each class's entry for specifics (and the specific example given isn't found in the fighter class description). So while class is broadly relevant to how you interact with the world, the soecifics  appear to have been left up to the player.

Page 46: The first paragraphs of the Barbarian class fluff describe three example barbarians, only two of which are tribal. The rest of the fluff goes on to present a very tribal-centric description, which, if the fluff is mandatory, creates a contradiction with the non-tribal dwarf character that is explicitly allowed. This suggests to me that the fluff isn't intended to be mandatory.

Page 51: The first paragraphs of the bard description describe three possibilities: "_scholar, skald, or scoundrel_". Yet the "Learning from Experience" section describes bards only as entertainers, going so far as to describe that they "_liv[e] on the gratitute of audiences_". If you interpret the fluff as rules text,  would also have to be entertainers (and live on gratuities), even though that is in tension with the idea of scholar or skald bards. It seems more reasonable to me to treat the fluff text as suggestions, in which case the contradiction vanishes.

Page 82: "_Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil_." I see no way that quote can be rules text, because it contradicts other rules (the subclass choices) that permit paladins that haven't sworn oaths against evil. A clear example like this of fluff text that can't plausibly be a rule I believe supports the inference that fluff text isn't a set of rules in the first place.

Page 94: (See discussion for page 11 and pages 163-164.)

Pages 105-106, 108-109: This one is independently controversial, but I would note the tension between some of the text (arguably) assuming warlocks are obligated to their patrons and the possibility of Great Old One patrons to be unaware of their own warlocks. This suggests that the fluff text is not intended to be a stricture--if it we're, presumably more emphasis would have been put on avoiding apparent contradictions.

Pages 163-164: The multiclassing optional rules dramatically expand the number of character permutations, and include explicit rules on how to merge the mechanics of each class. There is no mention whatsoever about how to merge the fluff, even though the fluff is even more of a contradiction in many cases. For example, if class fluff was a binding stricture, a multiclass barbarian/rogue would be required to prioritize cunning over brute strength (PHB 94) which interferes with taking advantage of the barbarian's strength-based class abilities. Because the multiclass rules go into detail on class mechanics, but ignore class fluff, I think it is reasonable to infer that the class fluff must not require rules to reconcile, which it would if the fluff was itself a rule.

Broadly speaking, the language of the class fluff suggests to me possibilities rather than strictures. Where multiple options are explicitly provided (e.g. scholar, skald, scoundrel for bard on PHB 51) I read the language as inclusive rather than exclusive. By contrast, the mechanics sections use more definitive language

*Comparison to Recent Editions:*

Particularly since recent previous editions were quite explicit about the distinction between rules and fluff, had the designers intended the fluff text to be equivalent to rules text, I would have expected them to be quite blatant about saying so. It is true that 5e lacks the explicitness of recent editions in saying that fluff and rules are distinct. But I think it is more plausible that this lack implies a desire to make it easier for DMs to decide to enforce fluff as sacrosanct at their tables, rather than an unspoken 180 degree reversal from the idea that fluff is mutable.

*Comparison to Other Systems:*

If the designers had intended fluff to be sacrosanct, they could have been much more explicit about limiting player choices to those presented in the fluff text. Other games do this. For example, for Urban Shadows, after choosing an archetype, you pick your character's personality from a list of three class-specific, one-word adjectives. By contrast, see the broad language in the 5e PHB above about player invention suggests much more freedom.

Based on all of the above, I infer that class fluff is not intended by the designers to be rules text, and instead merely as possibilities and suggestions. DMs are, of course free to change that at their table, and the designers made it easier to do so in this edition.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 17, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> Page 11: _"Or you might be more interested in an unconventional character, such as a brawny rogue who likes hand-to-hand combat..."_. There is no mention of brawny rogues anywhere in the rogue class fluff. Instead, the fluff explicitly says that "_rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength_" (PHB 94). We know that brawny rogues are explicitly allowed by the text on page 11. Since the rogue fluff text does not make allowances for brawny rogues, I conclude that it is reasonable to infer that the class fluff text is more likely to be a series of examples and possibilities rather than strictures.



That doesn't change any of the fluff around the mechanical aspects of the class, though. Even if your particular rogue is an oddity among rogues, with a higher Strength than Dexterity, their sneak attack ability is still a precise strike made with a light weapon rather than a clobber over the head. That is to say, a class isn't the only aspect to a given character; your rogue may vary from other rogues, in ways that have nothing to do with your shared rogue aspect, but your rogue-ness is the same as their rogue-ness. There are different paths to the same power, but that power is the same regardless of who uses it.

Class descriptions are descriptions. They aren't definitions. They describe what members of that class are like. Scholars, skalds, and scoundrels all have something in common; and that commonality is part of what it means to be a bard. There are other types of people which also fit in with that description. It's natural language, and there's some interpretation required as to what exactly qualifies as a bard, but it's possible to play within that vaguely-defined sandbox without re-defining the class to cover something that it was never intended to cover.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 17, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Nah, I agree strongly with you here -- fluff is malleable around mechanics especially for class/background -- but the idea of playing a 5 INT genius is like playing a 5 STR strongest man in the world -- it's farce, the mechanics don't support the fluff.  While I love respinning mechanics, whatever fluff that comes up shouldn't contradict the mechanic without good reason.  Most of the 'builds' you proposed in that scenario where 'geniuses' hobbled by crippling disabilities, which belies the concept of functioning genius when you can't actually do the INT things well.  So, I think there's room for 'refluff' and 'I don't think a 5 INT genius is a coherent concept'.  YMMV, and, obviously, did!
> 
> Now, you can do farce, for sure, but I don't really prefer that much farce in my games.



Oh man, if we're going to rehash "Geniuses with 5 Int", let me know so I can order in tonight. 

Maybe we can move on to "Do you care about setting canon?" or "Fighter versus spellcasters" after that.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 17, 2018)

S'mon said:


> That reminds me of the time I pitched a low-magic, swords vs sorcery campaign, & asked for PCs 'like Conan' - so of course I got a Tiefling Warlock, a Revenant Warlock, a Goliath Warden... the only PCs that really worked were the two human Fighters I created as pregens.



That's the main reason I do very little prep work on the setting until we do a character creation session 0.  Most players I know already have an idea what they want to play way before the game actually starts; they're not really interested in looking at pages of house rules that make a lot of their ideas unusable.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> But I think it is more plausible that this lack implies a desire to make it easier for DMs to decide to enforce fluff as sacrosanct at their tables, rather than an unspoken 180 degree reversal from the idea that fluff is mutable.




Seems reasonable. Yes, they want to empower GMs to say "IMC all paladins are virtuous knights who strive to defeat Evil" - without wanting to ban the Paladin of Asmodeus some player AND HIS GM thinks is a cool idea.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Most players I know already have an idea what they want to play way before the game actually starts; they're not really interested in looking at pages of house rules...




That's certainly true!


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 17, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Isn't choosing to play a Paladin the rough equivalent of not only putting a "Kick Me" sign on your own back, but then spending the rest of the day trying to connect your foot with your posterior?



Not that i have seen.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 17, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> From the Paladin class, "If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."




Mist I have been saying that, but some responses have essentially been “Since it’s not specifically spelled out in the rules and fluff means nothing (if it’s bad for my idea) any DM that does it is being an unfair tyrant that won’t let me play my way!!”

I also pointed out that I don’t allow Oathbreaker from the beginning as you haven’t been a Paladin long enough to break your oath.  From the text it appears, but isn’t specifically said, that you start out as a Paladin of another bent then through your actions either be forced out of the class or into the oathbreaker.    

To me Oathbreaker means an alignment change also, where you used to lose levels IIRC except under certain circumstances, but then alignment has been tossed also.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 17, 2018)

S'mon said:


> That's certainly true!




They also have ideas about how the DM should play the game for their PCs also, or so it seems...


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 17, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> They also have ideas about how the DM should play the game for their PCs also, or so it seems...



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 17, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Nah, I agree strongly with you here -- fluff is malleable around mechanics especially for class/background -- but the idea of playing a 5 INT genius is like playing a 5 STR strongest man in the world -- it's farce, the mechanics don't support the fluff.  While I love respinning mechanics, whatever fluff that comes up shouldn't contradict the mechanic without good reason.  Most of the 'builds' you proposed in that scenario where 'geniuses' hobbled by crippling disabilities, which belies the concept of functioning genius when you can't actually do the INT things well.  So, I think there's room for 'refluff' and 'I don't think a 5 INT genius is a coherent concept'.  YMMV, and, obviously, did!
> 
> Now, you can do farce, for sure, but I don't really prefer that much farce in my games.




Ok, I'll bite:

The Strongest Man in the World became too proud and (insert some god) struck him down with debilitating joint pain.  He can barely lift a mug of beer without experiencing crippling agony.  So he doesn't.

The Strongest Man in the World accidentally killed (insert somebody he loved).  He swore an oath to never use his great strength again.

That's all I got off-hand.  Admittedly it's tougher to do this for attributes that have outwardly obvious, physical manifestations.

But, regardless, what's wrong with those character concepts?  While they _could_ be played farcically, I don't think they are inherently so.  As long as you trust your player to not suddenly say, "Ok, I guess I'll use my great strength" it's functionally equivalent to having 5 Strength.  (If I recall correctly, one of Max's objections was exactly this.  I.e., that players couldn't be trusted not to try to exploit the fluff as mechanics.)


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 17, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing.




To me its neither good or bad.

Its not uncommon that i ask players or encourage players to provide story hooks in even more explicit form than most games seem to suggest - down to even asking for "what kind of conflicts would this character come to life in?" not from a mechanical utility aspect but from a "things they are about".

But as always whether some preference or idea is good or bad comes down to execution and circumstances. if it comes across in a way that limits the game and the other players in it unduly and/or is presented with a lack of flexibility it can be a bad for the game as a whole.

A good example is a character whose "thing" is "hate magic, magic users and especially wizards and kill them whenever possible" or "devout follower of the true god Puff-n-Preach and i work against all other gods and non-believers" then having ideas as to how the Gm should be playing the game for this character might be a bit of a problem.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, I'll bite:
> 
> The Strongest Man in the World became too proud and (insert some god) struck him down with debilitating joint pain.  He can barely lift a mug of beer without experiencing crippling agony.  So he doesn't.
> 
> ...




They're backstory, maybe, but not a coherent character concept.  Neither of these can ever choose to overcome or ignore their built in faults and will always operate as weaklings.  When you're functionally a weakling, the claim to be the strongest man alive is farcical and incoherent.  You can do it, sure, but it's not in the same ballpark as a scrappy urchin background urban barbarian.  That concept refluffs around the mechanics -- it doesn't attempt to narrate against them but instead with them to provide a different story that still supports the mechanics.  The 5 STR strongest man is an exercise in narrating _against _the mechanics, as is the 5 INT "genius."  The story you're telling isn't of the strongest man or a genius, but of a magically or emotionally hobbled person that isn't whatever you're claiming them to be anymore, but is instead something different.  

Regardless, we hashed this in the other thread -- no need to relitigate.  My point is that you can be on your side for this topic, but not agree that 5 INT geniuses are the same thing as this topic.  More "staking out a middle position" and pointing out why rather than challenging you to reopen the 5 INT thread.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 18, 2018)

Speaking of relevant other posts, may I provide a link to one on this very topic, with a poll for anyone that hasn't yet to register an opinion and be counted?

Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Maybe we can move on to "Do you care about setting canon?" or "Fighter versus spellcasters" after that.



I'd rather do dissociated mechanics.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 18, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A good example is a character whose "thing" is "hate magic, magic users and especially wizards and kill them whenever possible" or "devout follower of the true god Puff-n-Preach and i work against all other gods and non-believers" then having ideas as to how the Gm should be playing the game for this character might be a bit of a problem.



I do think a valid point is that if you're willing to build a setting around the players' ideas, the players need to also be invested in coming up with workable, flexible ideas.  "Player empowerment" and "problem players" don't work well together.  There definitely exists a subset of players where stronger DM control is necessary to get a good roleplaying experience out of them.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 18, 2018)

Man, so much arguing over mechanical fluff. Are you all just white rooming this discussion? Because if not, then the fluff that is associated with the mechanics and the classes will naturally vary with the world setting being used. If you are playing in the Realms, then sticking more to how it is presented in the PHB makes sense, since the Realms is really the default world for 5E, whether Mearls and Co want to admit that or not. If you are not using the Realms, or another well-documented published world, then what the PHB says is much more malleable and can be shaped to match the DM's homebrew world.

For example, if I were running a world where lycanthropy did not exist at all, then the background created by Arial Black would be invalid. Or if I were running a world where the Powers are much more involved with the followers They give power to, multiclassing that involved getting powers from two different Powers, whether divine or arcane in source, would not be allowed.

I would also require common sense be used when modifying fluff or multiclassing. So I may allow a barbarian with the street urchin background, but only if said character was kidnapped from a city and raised by a barbarian tribe. Maybe that kid has barbarian ancestry and the raiders recognized it somehow and snatched him or her.

But back to the first point. Setting Matters. After all, just look at how much of the classes and backgrounds had to be modified by C7 in order for the 5E rules to fit Middle-Earth.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Man, so much arguing over mechanical fluff. Are you all just white rooming this discussion? Because if not, then the fluff that is associated with the mechanics and the classes will naturally vary with the world setting being used. If you are playing in the Realms, then sticking more to how it is presented in the PHB makes sense, since the Realms is really the default world for 5E, whether Mearls and Co want to admit that or not. If you are not using the Realms, or another well-documented published world, then what the PHB says is much more malleable and can be shaped to match the DM's homebrew world.
> 
> For example, if I were running a world where lycanthropy did not exist at all, then the background created by Arial Black would be invalid. Or if I were running a world where the Powers are much more involved with the followers They give power to, multiclassing that involved getting powers from two different Powers, whether divine or arcane in source, would not be allowed.
> 
> ...



"They give power to, multiclassing that involved getting powers from two different Powers, whether divine or arcane in source, would not be allowed"

Assumes facts not in evidence - specifically some form of opposition between the two.

Consider a divinity of magic also enlisting subordinate entities as more hands on tutors.

Sounds like cleric-warlock multi-class to me. 

I am also sure that patrons who choose pawns that will devote and pledge  them selves to a cause the patron wants to see supported is also workable as long as not opposing. Sounds like Warlock paladin to me.

Or heck, fey patron supporting druid... 

Any number of possibilities.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

Wonder if a player would take me up on this...

"I want the old one's patton that doesnt know i exist."

"Ok so when it comes to the patrons' bargains and services, you will become of its "needs" just like it does. When it gets hungry, you do. When it gets sleepy, you do. When it gets angry, you do. Basically you have tapped into it like say a flea and are subject to its "needs" that you will then either act on or not, just like any other warlock with similar outcomes. Wonder what turns on that entity/entities?"


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 18, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "They give power to, multiclassing that involved getting powers from two different Powers, whether divine or arcane in source, would not be allowed"
> 
> Assumes facts not in evidence - specifically some form of opposition between the two.
> 
> ...




Eh, whatever floats your boat in the worlds you create. If I am running a world with active spell/ability-granting Powers, just because a player says he will add a level of cleric to his existing class, does not always mean the deity he chose will accept him enough to give him the power he wants. Or if a cleric wants to try adding a level of warlock, you better believe the deity he follows will know about it and there is a good chance he would become an ex-cleric. And yes, I homebrew rules for that based on 1E and 2E AD&D.

Whether people like it or not, I do not always run using the 5e goal of anyone can be anything and everyone gets a gold star just for participating. To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie: in a world where everyone is special, no one will be.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 18, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Eh, whatever floats your boat in the worlds you create. If I am running a world with active spell/ability-granting Powers, just because a player says he will add a level of cleric to his existing class, does not always mean the deity he chose will accept him enough to give him the power he wants. Or if a cleric wants to try adding a level of warlock, you better believe the deity he follows will know about it and there is a good chance he would become an ex-cleric. And yes, I homebrew rules for that based on 1E and 2E AD&D.
> 
> Whether people like it or not, I do not always run using the 5e goal of anyone can be anything and everyone gets a gold star just for participating. To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie: in a world where everyone is special, no one will be.




Why do you run it that way?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Why do you run it that way?




Because the people I game with have more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat in the game. Gotta have those role-playing opportunities, after all.  And what someone wants to do with their character can turn into a quest for the whole party. But I think this has been pointed out before: mining a character's background or future plans for gaming ideas.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 18, 2018)

Part of me would want to multiclass a cleric into warlock just because the "God" will take away my powers. Guess I'm just a 1st level warlock with some extra proficiencies and hit dice now. It would be even better if I was the only one with any real healing or raise dead abilities.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I say more power to you.  However, if you cling too tightly to your dictionary and the characters you have seen before, you are going to miss out on a lot.  In fact, if the only barbarians allowed are Conan with a different name and hair color, burn out is a real possibility if you are long in the hobby.  If you are a DM, you are going to straightjacket players with too much rigidity.




Except that I have repeatedly said that I just require things to make sense and gave multiple examples of how you could go about creating an unusual barbarian.  So no, there isn't any sort of straightjacket or too much rigidity in my game.  I just don't play things so loose with definitions that they lose virtually all meaning.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Eh, whatever floats your boat in the worlds you create. If I am running a world with active spell/ability-granting Powers, just because a player says he will add a level of cleric to his existing class, does not always mean the deity he chose will accept him enough to give him the power he wants. Or if a cleric wants to try adding a level of warlock, you better believe the deity he follows will know about it and there is a good chance he would become an ex-cleric. And yes, I homebrew rules for that based on 1E and 2E AD&D.
> 
> Whether people like it or not, I do not always run using the 5e goal of anyone can be anything and everyone gets a gold star just for participating. To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie: in a world where everyone is special, no one will be.



Nowhere, not once did I say or imply just because player wants turns into the mocs go along with it.

Guess someone is sensitive or defensive.

That's why I listed explicit cases where divine and patron were in sync thematically or even straight up allies - first one patron is minion of the divinity.

If you in your games choose to limit your divinities sp that they cannot use minions as intermediaries to provide different types of abilities to their worshippers, that's on you and of course you can have your divinities as shackled and limited and held back as you choose.

But for me, my nods have more options than the, especially the ones called gods.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

"To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie: in a world where everyone is special, no one will be."

Since we are talking about PCs here, not the whole world of people, all I can say is I never set as a goal when I gm "not all of my pcs can be special" 

Quite the reverse actually.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Yet you blithely list "clerics" while having no problem ignoring that "real world" clerics have absolutely nothing to do with the D&D cleric class, nor has the word cleric _ever_ aligned with the D&D class.




They absolutely do have something to do with the D&D cleric class.  A real world cleric is a priest of a god or God.  A D&D cleric is a priest of a god.  Oh my!  It's the same!!  



> So if you are expecting to retain any credibility, then I expect that you will immediately remove any clerics from your game. Yet you haven't been arguing that.




Why would I do that?  They directly correspond to to real world priests.  The word cleric evokes that image and it holds up.



> Which means you are willing to allow the D&D context to impact the meaning of the word "cleric." Your unwillingness to do the same with "barbarian" is a crystal clear demonstration that this is an obsessive personal bias rather than a cogent, reasoned point.




I give the exact same leeway to both.  Both correspond to real world imagery, yet also have in game mechanical differences.  It's not my fault if you can't understand that.



> And if you hadn't already sacrificed credibility, this line would absolutely kill it. You mention how barbarian (_has to_) correspond to "real world equivalents", and immediately proceed to list Conan? Seriously? As if _anything _in the Conan books is representative of "real world" barbarian cultures?




I can't believe you've never heard of Conan, a real world book about barbarians that Gygax and others drew from.  Drawing from it is no different than drawing on other myths for wizards.  You should Google Conan and learn something.



> And for the record, there have been _many_ times that groups of poor, homeless people have been described as living in "barbaric" conditions.




So what.  First, describing something as barbaric in conditions just likens it a bit to how barbarians lived.  Second, people misuse that term and many others a lot.  Like calling someone who rescued a cat from a branch a hero.  You probably watch the news a lot.  They are notorious for playing up words incorrectly in order to make things seem more dramatic than they are.  



> Ok... so we know your games will not include clerics and non-middle eastern barbarians. (And I haven't even approached the issues with bards, druids, et al.)...




Only because of your inability to understand what is being discussed here.  If you spend some time at it, you might understand and be able to give a response to what I'm saying, and not what you want me to have said.  Just about everything in your post is waaaaay off as a response to me.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> For your consideration .... Disintegrate v. Wildshape.
> 
> Not only was it the best ever, but its awesomeness increased after the rules were clarified, and people STILL ARGUED.
> 
> That's ... well, that's the forum for you.




And as it turned out in the Sage Advice, I was right about RAW.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> It's so simple, I wonder if there's anybody who actually is 100% either way.



Certainly not me.  I've already said that I try to say yes and will work with the players to come up with something that works.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> Although the question was not aimed at me, I hope you won't mind if I provide my take on it.
> 
> I consider the fluff of the class to be up to the player (within the constraints set by the DM's opinion of what fits in the setting) based on implication from the text in the PHB (and what it doesn't say), my experience with the D&D product across multiple editions, and a comparison with other game systems. I fully acknowledge that my interpretation is not the only one: the examples below are intended to explain the source of my interpretation, not to try to prove that my interpretation is the best one.
> 
> ...




Here's the thing.  All of that is subject to.

Page 4 of the DMG: "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, *but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM and you are in charge of the game*."  That includes anything in the PHB.

Page 4 of the DMG: "*The world is yours to change as you see fit *and yours to modify as your explore the consequences of the players' actions."  That includes any fluff dealing with classes, and would also include any fluff the players come up with for classes.  It would also included the PCs' backgrounds as they are part of the game world.

The DM has a great deal of power, so he has to be careful not to abuse it.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, I'll bite:
> 
> The Strongest Man in the World became too proud and (insert some god) struck him down with debilitating joint pain.  He can barely lift a mug of beer without experiencing crippling agony.  So he doesn't.




That concept doesn't work with the game mechanics, though.  Your phrase "So he doesn't." implies that he can, but he can't, because he only has a 5 strength.  



> The Strongest Man in the World accidentally killed (insert somebody he loved).  He swore an oath to never use his great strength again.




See above.  

What happens if the PC is charmed or dominated and the NPC(who doesn't know the backstory reasons for the PC's choice) and required to use that visibly tremendous strength that each of those PCs possess?  Those concepts are mechanically broken.  Much like your 5 int geniuses.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 18, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Because the people I game with have more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat in the game. Gotta have those role-playing opportunities, after all.  And what someone wants to do with their character can turn into a quest for the whole party. But I think this has been pointed out before: mining a character's background or future plans for gaming ideas.




I was asking specifically about a cleric adding a level of warlock.  Why do you play that as being something impossible in your world?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That concept doesn't work with the game mechanics, though.  Your phrase "So he doesn't." implies that he can, but he can't, because he only has a 5 strength.  <br>
> 
> 
> See above.
> ...




If everybody at the table is on board with the concept (read: "not being a douche") then not only are there always solutions to any situation you can contrive, but finding and roleplaying those solutions is part of the fun. It's only when somebody at the table is determined to prove that another player is having badwrongfun that things gets difficult.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here are simply emotionally scarred from playing with selfish, uncooperative rules lawyers, and are now afraid of anything that might give those players an opening to be disruptive.

Anyway, let's look at what happens:
 - Evil NPC charms/dominates strongman who refuses to use his strength
 - Evil NPC orders strongman to tear open the bars
 - Strongman rolls, with his -4 penalty, and fails. (Or possibly succeeds, in which case the whole table erupts in cheers.) 
 - Evil NPC first mocks the PC ("I thought you were this Colossus?"), and finally rages impotently against these useless puppets he wastes his precious time dominating.

Where's the problem?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> If everybody at the table is on board with the concept (read: "not being a douche") then not only are there always solutions to any situation you can contrive, but finding and roleplaying those solutions is part of the fun.




I play NPCs and PCs by doing what they would do in situations they come across, not by contriving unbelievable scenarios in order to preserve broken concepts.  I wouldn't go out of my way to use your strength(read:not being a douche) that exists, yet does not exist(read:Schrodinger's Strength), but I wouldn't avoid it, either.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I play NPCs and PCs by doing what they would do in situations they come across, not by contriving unbelievable scenarios in order to preserve broken concepts.  I wouldn't go out of my way to use your strength(read:not being a douche) that exists, yet does not exist(read:Schrodinger's Strength), but I wouldn't avoid it, either.




Good on you.  Read my edits.

Oh, one more step:
 - Player narrates how his sorrow over his lost love is so powerful that some tiny portion of his self resists the spell, and that's why he was able to avoid helping the bad guy.

The DM does the right thing in having the NPC act that way, because the NPC would look at this musclebound hero and assume he can use that strength.  So the player's originality and creativity and...yes...silliness in creating this character ended up giving the heroes a benefit without altering any of the game mechanics.  I think that's awesome, but YMMV.

EDIT: 
And I have to re-quote this:


Maxperson said:


> I play NPCs and PCs by doing what they would do...




Saelorn says stuff like that, too, and I think it's utter nonsense.  NPCs and PCs are not real people, so there's no such thing as "what they would do", and if they were real people it would be impossible to know for certain what they would do, especially in the sort of novel, unpredictable, high-stress situations heroes get themselves into.  So what you are really doing is _what you want them to do_.  Maybe you _think_ you're choosing the most probable course of action, but it is _your_ brain, influenced by all sorts of factors, many of which you are not even aware, making that decision.

Me, I try to choose a course of action that will lead to the most fun, as long as it's reasonably justifiable and in-character.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> If everybody at the table is on board with the concept (read: "not being a douche") then not only are there always solutions to any situation you can contrive, but finding and roleplaying those solutions is part of the fun. It's only when somebody at the table is determined to prove that another player is having badwrongfun that things gets difficult.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here are simply emotionally scarred from playing with selfish, uncooperative rules lawyers, and are now afraid of anything that might give those players an opening to be disruptive.
> 
> ...




"Anyway, let's look at what happens:
- Evil NPC charms/dominates strongman who refuses to use his strength
- Evil NPC orders strongman to tear open the bars *or lift a 160 pound sack of potatoes, which anyone with a strength of 8 or higher would find easy as pie*.
- Strongman rolls, with his -4 penalty, and fails. (Or possibly succeeds, in which case the whole table erupts in cheers.) 
- Evil NPC first mocks the PC ("I thought you were this Colossus?"), and finally rages impotently against these useless puppets he wastes his precious time dominating."

Why'd you stop at tearing open bars?  Why not make it lifting a mountain or other such feat of strength?  As long as you were going to make a ridiculous example, you might as well have gone completely over the top.  There are tons of feats of strength that your character would fail at, that would require no roll whatsoever for anyone with an 8 or higher strength, and yet you're concept fails because it is broken.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh, one more step:
> - Player narrates how his sorrow over his lost love is so powerful that some tiny portion of his self resists the spell, and that's why he was able to avoid helping the bad guy.




If you want to create a house rule where players can negate portions of spells because they feel it violates their concept, go for it.  There is no such step in RAW.



> Saelorn says stuff like that, too, and I think it's utter nonsense.  NPCs and PCs are not real people, so there's no such thing as "what they would do", and if they were real people it would be impossible to know for certain what they would do, especially in the sort of novel, unpredictable, high-stress situations heroes get themselves into.




When I play a character(NPC or PC), I treat is as if it were a real person to the best of my ability.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Me, I try to choose a course of action that will lead to the most fun, as long as it's reasonably justifiable and in-character.




Me, I roll a d6. Possibly 2d6, if it's a Morale or Reaction check.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Good on you.  Read my edits.
> 
> Oh, one more step:
> - Player narrates how his sorrow over his lost love is so powerful that some tiny portion of his self resists the spell, and that's why he was able to avoid helping the bad guy.
> ...



Count me in the "npcs are characters I run as gm, not pawns on my chessboard" camp. 

I have found over time that helps me create setting and characters the players and characters can understand and expect, not just fools for whatever the gm sees needed for the next act to come off.

I would also refer you to many many authors who have commented that some of their best most interesting and enjoyable characters and moments came when they saw their character basically refuse to do what the author had planned - since you seem to want to dismiss this idea as nonsense wait mo "utter nonsense",


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> If you want to create a house rule where players can negate portions of spells because they feel it violates their concept, go for it.  There is no such step in RAW.
> 
> 
> 
> When I play a character(NPC or PC), I treat is as if it were a real person to the best of my ability.



This make me recall those power gaming days where in HERO one built susceptable to being controlled or otherwise mind controlled - 3d6 stun per phase.

You got like 20 pts for bigger powers for the disad and when the inevitable "charmed/compelled to do bad, you knocked yourself out in under a minute thwarting the controller trying to use your ability" 

"My character would like to run from your fear spell, but he thinks he can only run 5 feet."


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> the people I game with have more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat in the game.



This doesn't really seem relevant to the question of whether or not MCing is allowed (either in general, or of clerics with warlocks with paladins).

I mean, I've never heard it suggested that someone would (say) forbid the players playing PCs who hail from Greyhawk City because _the game is more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat_. The two things seem completely orthogonal to one another.



Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Whether people like it or not, I do not always run using the 5e goal of anyone can be anything and everyone gets a gold star just for participating. To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie: in a world where everyone is special, no one will be.



The only game system I know that uses gold stars is Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant, and they're not an award "just for participating".

But anyway, how does your table decide which of the players does and which doesn't get to play a "special PC"?


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This doesn't really seem relevant to the question of whether or not MCing is allowed (either in general, or of clerics with warlocks with paladins).
> 
> I mean, I've never heard it suggested that someone would (say) forbid the players playing PCs who hail from Greyhawk City because _the game is more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat_. The two things seem completely orthogonal to one another.
> 
> ...



Regarding choosing who gets the special and who gets "the rest" it can fit certain rpg/setting.

Buffy rpg had clear distinctions between the slayer and white hats. Very different roles. Very different mechanics.

Similarly, Ars magica had its "minions" (frogs? I forget) basically muggles and each player had one mage and one or more minions and any given arc might only have one or two playing mages and the rest muggles and it rotates around as arcs end and new ones start ( oversimplified).

But I doubt that's what the poster actually meant by the sound byte.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Similarly, Ars magica had its "minions" (frogs? I forget) basically muggles and each player had one mage and one or more minions and any given arc might only have one or two playing mages and the rest muggles and it rotates around as arcs end and new ones start ( oversimplified).
> 
> But I doubt that's what the poster actually meant by the sound byte.



"Grogs" in Ars Magica.

I'm not sure which version of Ars Magica I'm thinking of, but in my recollection the grogs are more like common property. But players might alternate between playing mages or "companions".

But I agree that I don't think the poster had that sort of "troupe" play in mind.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> "Grogs" in Ars Magica.
> 
> I'm not sure which version of Ars Magica I'm thinking of, but in my recollection the grogs are more like common property. But players might alternate between playing mages or "companions".
> 
> But I agree that I don't think the poster had that sort of "troupe" play in mind.



It's been too many years to be sure and I am certain the grogs by rule could go either way, tied to player or covenant resources.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Saelorn says stuff like that, too, and I think it's utter nonsense.  NPCs and PCs are not real people, so there's no such thing as "what they would do", and if they were real people it would be impossible to know for certain what they would do, especially in the sort of novel, unpredictable, high-stress situations heroes get themselves into.  So what you are really doing is _what you want them to do_.  Maybe you _think_ you're choosing the most probable course of action, but it is _your_ brain, influenced by all sorts of factors, many of which you are not even aware, making that decision.



Of course they aren't real, but the premise of a role-playing game is that you pretend they are real. It is literally the entire point of the hobby. What would they do if they _were_​ real? You imagine that you're really in their situation, and try to figure out what they would do, because it's fun to pretend to be someone else for a while.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> This make me recall those power gaming days where in HERO one built susceptable to being controlled or otherwise mind controlled - 3d6 stun per phase.
> 
> You got like 20 pts for bigger powers for the disad and when the inevitable "charmed/compelled to do bad, you knocked yourself out in under a minute thwarting the controller trying to use your ability"
> 
> "My character would like to run from your fear spell, but he thinks he can only run 5 feet."




I honestly don't know what any of that had to do with what I said.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]: I'm distinguishing between asking the question "What would this character do?", which I think is totally fine, and stating, "Action X is what the character would do," as if it's the one action among all the possibilities which is the most likely.  It's the latter that I think is nonsense.  People do unexpected, improbable, irrational things _all the time_.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> If you want to create a house rule where players can negate portions of spells because they feel it violates their concept, go for it.  There is no such step in RAW.




Here I think you are completely failing to understand the "roll then narrate" concept.  

The Strongman failed his Strength test, and so made up the bit involving his backstory in order to explain the roll.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I honestly don't know what any of that had to do with what I said.



Character concept trumping spells. 

Once the rule gets into play, you get concepts that get chosen for their spell proofing.

Why chose halfling and brave for advantage on fright checks if my concept include trumping fear effdcts.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Here I think you are completely failing to understand the "roll then narrate" concept.




The player doesn't get to narrate, and the DM narrates the entire effect.  At no time without a house rule, is character concept allowed to have a mechanical effect.



> The Strongman failed his Strength test, and so made up the bit involving his backstory in order to explain the roll.




There is no roll.  It's an automatic success for anyone above a strength of 5.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The player doesn't get to narrate, and the DM narrates the entire effect.  At no time without a house rule, is character concept allowed to have a mechanical effect.



I would never play in a game run this way, and would never GM a game like this.

Here are some simple examples to explain what I mean:

(1) A player says "I draw my sword" or "I extend my hand in greeting." Those events take place in the fiction, in virtue of the player narrating them. I could never play in, or GM, a game in which these are simply suggestions to the GM, or requests, that the GM narrate a certain thing.

(2) A player's concept is "dwarven leader". The PC build, plus the way play has unfolded, gives effect to this. At a certain point, the player declares that his/her PC gives a rousing address to the local dwarven community. The effect of the address is determined by way of a CHA check. That check should receive an advantage (eg in 4e that would be a +2 bonus; in 5e it might be advantage in the technical sense) to reflect the established fiction. I don't want to GM, nor play in, a game in which this sort of fiction is irrelevant to how resolution unfolds.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2018)

Threads like this remind me of the hours that I wasted playing terrible games with terrible DM's.  *shudder*

Does make me thankful for the group I have though.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I would never play in a game run this way, and would never GM a game like this.




I know, but you play an untraditional game, where D&D is geared towards traditional games.  You can run it in an untraditional manner, and it even gives a few blurbs on how to do that, but the game as a whole is not built in that direction.



> (1) A player says "I draw my sword" or "I extend my hand in greeting." Those events take place in the fiction, in virtue of the player narrating them. I could never play in, or GM, a game in which these are simply suggestions to the GM, or requests, that the GM narrate a certain thing.




I wouldn't even bother to narrate anything in those circumstances.  They would simply just happen automatically.  Narration comes from me when there is something outside the character that is happening, such as pouring oil on someone or something.  

What I meant in the context(here's that context thing again) of "roll then narrate", is that players cannot narrate the roll.  Context is important to understanding things.  Yet you never seem to understand it in your replies to me.  When trying to determine the  context of a post, you need to look at the quote that the person is responding to.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Threads like this remind me of the hours that I wasted playing terrible games with terrible DM's.  *shudder*
> 
> Does make me thankful for the group I have though.




Good!  You should be happy with the group you play with.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Good!  You should be happy with the group you play with.




Does make me feel bad though for the RPG refugees I keep having to give shelter to after they have such incredibly poor experiences at some tables.    And it's such a PITA having to treat their gamer PTSD and get them to realize that D&D is a shared game where everyone at the table is equal.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Does make me feel bad though for the RPG refugees I keep having to give shelter to after they have such incredibly poor experiences at some tables.    And it's such a PITA having to treat their gamer PTSD and get them to realize that D&D is a shared game where everyone at the table is equal.




Yep!  Makes me grateful that my players don't try to pull ridiculous shenanigans like a 5 int genius or a 5 strength strongest man in the world.  The trauma that sort of thing causes has given me many players over the years.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 18, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing.




It is when they dictate to the DM “this is how it should be played because it’s not strictly forbidden by the RAW.”  Then get pissy for the rest of the session.

There is this idea floating around these boards and others and games that players have an inalienable right equal to or greater then the DM to run the game, especially when it comes to rules decisions about their PCs.  While the DM and the PC have to have a back and forth, it is always a DMocracy.

That’s why I have and always will have a PC building session as session 1.  You will roll your abilities right there in front of everyone, and you will go back and forth with the DM and group with your PC concept and backstory (brief) and what your ideas are.  

Today of course with email this gets done through that, one of the great benefits of easier 
communication.  

This makes everything easier down the road, especially when 5 players realize “hey, wait, we are all the same class and/or race.  We need to branch into different classes to get all the bases covered.”  It’s made even easier when I tell them what general type of enemies you will face.

Everyone can get their PCs started and get an adventure in to clear level 1 or maybe even level 2 after the pizza delivery.  After that players can flesh out their backstory and make any adjustments needed.

As a DM myself, and as an argument FOR MC, I will allow just about anything if your backstory and RP is good enough.  I don’t care about the MC requirements either, if you have a good story and plan it’s ok by me as long as it isn’t a blatant min/max power grab.  Even those are fine with the right sort of player and backstory and concept, but most who propose something along those lines and are adamant about it are poison for the table long term.  

Really good backstories and concepts are great and if they require a MC with or without a DM rule bend they should be encouraged.  I once had a player play a dwarf fighter/sorcerer (with a 7 wisdom) with a split personality, sometimes he woke up as a dwarf male fighter, sometimes as a dwarf female sorcerer.  He would flip personalities in the middle of an adventure or combat in response to something, sometimes the player rolled randomly each round to determine what personality would be in front.

I put in magical traps that would force alignment and/sex changes to PCs, which of course would have no affect on that PC.  Any attempt to mind control the PC would result in a confusion type affect, as you can’t control both personalities at once.  Everyone had a great time.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> What I meant in the context(here's that context thing again) of "roll then narrate", is that players cannot narrate the roll.  Context is important to understanding things.  Yet you never seem to understand it in your replies to me.  When trying to determine the  context of a post, you need to look at the quote that the person is responding to.



I understood. You're objecting to a player narrating how it is that his/her PC made a saving throw, or failed to perform a commanded feat. Whereas on this issue I have the same view as [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]. If players want to narrate their PC's successes, that's fine by me.



smbakeresq said:


> There is this idea floating around these boards and others and games that players have an inalienable right equal to or greater then the DM to run the game, especially when it comes to rules decisions about their PCs.  While the DM and the PC have to have a back and forth, it is always a DMocracy.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This is another example of an approach that is pretty much antithetical to what I'm looking for as GM or player.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'm distinguishing between asking the question "What would this character do?", which I think is totally fine, and stating, "Action X is what the character would do," as if it's the one action among all the possibilities which is the most likely.  It's the latter that I think is nonsense.  People do unexpected, improbable, irrational things _all the time_.



When I imagine myself in the place of a character, and ask my brain what they would do in that situation, I care about the answer my brain gives back. It's not because this is the one true answer which would actually align with reality if that reality was real, though; it's because this is the one best answer that my brain gives, and the whole point of this exercise is for my brain to generate answers. Choosing some other answer, just because it's plausible and I have no way to know better, is going against the premise.

Maybe they would really do something else, given unknown factors that I'm not accounting for, but that's immaterial. This is a role-playing game, and the point of a role-playing game is to see where we get through role-playing.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 18, 2018)

Pemerton,

Which part is antithetical?  Do you believe players should run over the DM, or that I am to liberal with MC if the players puts in a good effort?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The player doesn't get to narrate, and the DM narrates the entire effect.  At no time without a house rule, is character concept allowed to have a mechanical effect.




Ah, ok, so you're also with Saelorn in the "The players never get to narrate" camp.  I guess I didn't fully understand that.  

Personally I have no interest in playing D&D that way, but it's certainly a technically valid, if limiting, way to play.  And, yes, that would make it tough for people to create character concepts that require ongoing narration to avoid breaking the mechanical rules.

It's funny how high-level rules/philosophy disputes often turn out to be manifestations of the same recurring low-level differences in how the game is played.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> When I imagine myself in the place of a character, and ask my brain what they would do in that situation, I care about the answer my brain gives back. It's not because this is the one true answer which would actually align with reality if that reality was real, though; it's because this is the one best answer that my brain gives, and the whole point of this exercise is for my brain to generate answers. Choosing some other answer, just because it's plausible and I have no way to know better, is going against the premise.
> 
> Maybe they would really do something else, given unknown factors that I'm not accounting for, but that's immaterial. This is a role-playing game, and the point of a role-playing game is to see where we get through role-playing.




Ok, but will you admit that there are many...countless...possible answers, all of which are equally valid?  

It would have been perfectly valid for Bilbo to refuse to go on the Erebor Quest, because after all he's a Hobbit and that's "what a Hobbit would do".

It's also perfectly valid for Bilbo to go on the quest, because he's also part Took, and that is (sometimes) what Tooks do.

So there are two diametrically opposed outcomes, both can be equally defended as cases of "would do".  (Or, if anything, the "stay home" answer probably has better arguments in its favor, because if the Tookish side was dominant he wouldn't have made it this far in life without having done SOMETHING less respectable.)  

So what does one do in that case?  Personally, I go with a choice that I think will make for a better story.

In game terms, when that situation comes up, if I think going on the quest will make a better story, I want the option to say, "Well, yeah, most Hobbits would say no.  But my mother was Belladonna Took, and the Tooks are famous for doing very un-Hobbitlike things."

I hope the DM doesn't reply, "Let me see your backstory.  Was that already in there?  Because you can't just narrate new stuff into your backstory whenever you want."   If he does, then clearly we have dramatically different ideas of what makes RPGs fun, and I'm going to find a different table.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I hope the DM doesn't reply, "Let me see your backstory.  Was that already in there?  Because you can't just narrate new stuff into your backstory whenever you want."



"Uh, my backstory, yeah, well, umm . . . I took the outlander (guide) background . . . is that what you mean? I hope that's what you mean, cause I got nothing else."

That's how my table roles.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, but will you admit that there are many...countless...possible answers, all of which are equally valid?
> 
> It would have been perfectly valid for Bilbo to refuse to go on the Erebor Quest, because after all he's a Hobbit and that's "what a Hobbit would do".
> 
> It's also perfectly valid for Bilbo to go on the quest, because he's also part Took, and that is (sometimes) what Tooks do.



Sure, there are lots of things that Bilbo might do in that situation. What I decide that Bilbo would do may well be different from what you decide that Bilbo would do, and neither of us is wrong as long as we're both being honest with ourselves and our interpretations of that characters.


Elfcrusher said:


> So what does one do in that case?  Personally, I go with a choice that I think will make for a better story.



That's meta-gaming, though. You're making a decision about what Bilbo would do, based on information outside of the game world, that he couldn't possibly take into consideration. It goes against the first step, where you make an honest interpretation of the character.

If your real reason for having him take that action is that you think it will make for a better story, then it doesn't matter how well you try to rationalize it as something he would do, because your bottom line is already written.

Of course, this specific example just highlights the need to create a functional character before the game begins. If the game won't move forward for a hobbit who doesn't accept the quest, then it's important that you create a hobbit who does have a good reason to accept the quest, so that your role-playing decision won't grind the game to a halt when you get there. Likewise, you probably shouldn't make a character who is a loner that goes off on their own, because role-playing that character authentically would probably mean splitting the party and making players sit out for long periods of time.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 18, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I am also sure that patrons who choose pawns that will devote and pledge  them selves to a cause the patron wants to see supported is also workable as long as not opposing. Sounds like Warlock paladin to me.





Well, your statement clearly indicates that you believe the PC is a pawn with a clear implication that if the PC/Pawn does something to oppose the patrons cause then the patron is in the position to and will react accordingly.

That sounds like the DM, who controls the patron, determines what the patrons goals and desires are and can dictate what actions are in accordance with its goals and desires and can withhold powers granted to assure compliance. 

I said that 70 pages ago and was ridiculed for following "fluff" language that wasn't actual a "rule."

I am in agreement with you though, what you say is correct.  Unmentioned but assumed is that the paladin part of the equation, the divine being that grants you spells and other abilities, probably wants a say in the matter also.

I will say, without actual "rules" evidence, that that patron and divine being are many orders of power more intelligent and wiser then the PCs, with eons of experience in dealing with their "pawns" such that pulling a fast one on them probably has a very low probability of succeeding.   In game terms, don't let the PC's bully you into something for their character, make them explain it somehow.  If they cant make it sound reasonable to a powerful entity with vast resources, it probably isn't.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The only game system I know that uses gold stars is Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant, and they're not an award "just for participating".
> 
> But anyway, how does your table decide which of the players does and which doesn't get to play a "special PC"?




Alright, you must either not be from the US or are intentionally playing dumb if you do not get my real world reference about getting rewarded just for participating.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I was asking specifically about a cleric adding a level of warlock.  Why do you play that as being something impossible in your world?




Because if I am using a world with active deities, they might the jealous kind who do not like being cheated on by the people they grant powers. Worlds with more active deities tend to also be worlds with more conflicts between the deities, so trying to get powers from two different sources could be more dangerous than just becoming an ex-cleric or whatever. If it is a world with distant deities, then it is more likely I would allow a good character concept that used more than one divine source for powers. And in a world with very distant, or missing deities, then the powers available would be limited in level.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 18, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Because if I am using a world with active deities, they might the jealous kind who do not like being cheated on by the people they grant powers. Worlds with more active deities tend to also be worlds with more conflicts between the deities, so trying to get powers from two different sources could be more dangerous than just becoming an ex-cleric or whatever. If it is a world with distant deities, then it is more likely I would allow a good character concept that used more than one divine source for powers. And in a world with very distant, or missing deities, then the powers available would be limited in level.



I don't know if it was this thread that inspired me or another recent one, but I recently read someone's tale of two sphinx courting by play-by-messenger chess. It has inspired me to add in an very long running chess match between Bahamut and an ancient white dragon known as the Ice Queen.

Bahamut, a good god, lives in the city above the megadungeon and readily available if the players want to talk to him. The Ice Queen is as evil as any white dragon, and is available as a warlock patron. The Ice Queen's warlocks are primarily used to deliver notes back and forth between the two. Because of this arrangement, a player seeking to multiclass into a warlock with the Ice Queen as patron can do so most easily by visiting Bahamut - indeed, Bahamut actively recruits warlocks for the evil dragon - and the god will help the PC with the rituals needed to make the mystical connection with their patron.

Then, as long as the warlock delivers a message (eventually), the god and patron really don't care what the PC does.

(This idea is probably also inspired by those people here who seemingly insist there's no way a good god could accept their clerics making pacts with evil patrons.)


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 18, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> (This idea is probably also inspired by those people here who seemingly insist there's no way a good god could accept their clerics making pacts with evil patrons.)



I would argue that anyone who goes around recruiting warlocks into the service of an evil dragon is probably not a good person, let alone the Ultimate Embodiment of Good. It could make sense if it's just a minor deity, though, like Hercules; he may be a decent guy, but he's still just a dude, and nobody is perfect.

I guess it's the difference between a good god, and a God of Good. (My settings tend more toward the latter than the former.)


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> That's meta-gaming, though.




Ah, right.  You're one of the posters who thinks that all metagaming is bad.  I have lines I try not to cross (for example, I'll let new players figure out that trolls regenerate) but if I think, "Hey, it seems like the DM is putting a plot hook in front of me" I won't agonize over whether or not my character _would_ follow that hook.  Instead I'll try to think of a reason _why_ my character would follow that hook.  Maybe that's not pure enough for you, but if so, man, your way sounds rigid and un-fun to me.  Like I'm getting scored for technical points in my roleplaying or something.



> Of course, this specific example just highlights the need to create a functional character before the game begins. If the game won't move forward for a hobbit who doesn't accept the quest, then it's important that you create a hobbit who does have a good reason to accept the quest, so that your role-playing decision won't grind the game to a halt when you get there. Likewise, you probably shouldn't make a character who is a loner that goes off on their own, because role-playing that character authentically would probably mean splitting the party and making players sit out for long periods of time.




Yeah, I pretty strongly disagree with this, too.  I'd rather start with a sketch and then let the character form and evolve while I play.  Again, it requires the kind of player narration that a few of you find so heretical.  Whatever.  Game on.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Maybe that's not pure enough for you, but if so, man, your way sounds rigid and un-fun to me.  Like I'm getting scored for technical points in my roleplaying or something.



The only one who really knows whether you're role-playing, or just rationalizing, is yourself. Personally, I'm not going to take a shortcut, because that would defeat the reason for why I'm playing the game in the first place. If other people at the table are secretly rationalizing their own actions, then I'll never know, so I try to not worry about it. I'm not going to second guess their motivations, for much the same reason that I'm not going to watch their dice.

But as far as 5E is concerned, meta-gaming is explicitly called out by the rules as being a bad thing, so I'm also not going to advocate for anyone following that path.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 18, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Well, your statement clearly indicates that you believe the PC is a pawn with a clear implication that if the PC/Pawn does something to oppose the patrons cause then the patron is in the position to and will react accordingly.
> 
> That sounds like the DM, who controls the patron, determines what the patrons goals and desires are and can dictate what actions are in accordance with its goals and desires and can withhold powers granted to assure compliance.
> 
> ...



To be clear as i said about oatron choosing pawn - thst was a patton pov, not mine. You seem to have jumped from npc to gm.

Some patrons will see their warkocjs as pawns. Some may see them as business partners. Some may see them as allies in a common cause.

No matter what, those patrons are NPCs not pets and not power vending machines.

Its just to me as much a nonsensical a notiin to declare all patron divine combos are going to cost you levels or powers or that gods can use minions for cleric-warlock support as it is ti insist the patron-divine side has no power in the deal.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 18, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> But as far as 5E is concerned, meta-gaming is explicitly called out by the rules as being a bad thing, so I'm also not going to advocate for anyone following that path.



Stranger things have happened, of course, but I'd be surprised if Mearls, Crawford, et al, consider "post hoc rationalization of a choice motivated by drama" to be the bad sort of metagaming.


----------



## jamesstreissand (Sep 18, 2018)

I actually did a pretty lengthy video on the "well it has to make sense for the CHARACTER" nonsense that falls flat for virtually anything but fiend warlock/divine caster mix.

TLDW: Your character in the vast majority of games is someone whose life depends on their efficiency in combat. Anything done towards improving (as the character sees it) their competence in combat, or other high-stakes situations is ALL YOU NEED to justify their multiclass.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 18, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> The only one who really knows whether you're role-playing, or just rationalizing, is yourself. Personally, I'm not going to take a shortcut, because that would defeat the reason for why I'm playing the game in the first place. If other people at the table are secretly rationalizing their own actions, then I'll never know, so I try to not worry about it. I'm not going to second guess their motivations, for much the same reason that I'm not going to watch their dice.
> 
> But as far as 5E is concerned, meta-gaming is explicitly called out by the rules as being a bad thing, so I'm also not going to advocate for anyone following that path.




To be clear, the DMG says:
"Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: "What do your characters think?" You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive."

If your character can justify something like, taking a plot hook, so be it.  Game on!




TwoSix said:


> Stranger things have happened, of course, but I'd be surprised if Mearls, Crawford, et al, consider "post hoc rationalization of a choice motivated by drama" to be the bad sort of metagaming.




Agreed.  All metagaming is not equal if one is going to paint the definition with a broad brush.

Some seem to claim that it is bad metagaming for a PC to take a DMs plot hook unless, and only unless, the PCs backstory was crafted perfectly for that particular plot hook.  If a DM's job was to cry "Bad Metagaming!" when a PC takes a plot hook with weak reasoning, there'd be a lot of empty tables methinks.  Needing to craft the perfect plot hooks (for me as the DM) and needing to construct the perfect PC motivations each and every session based on chargen (for the players at our table) is tiresome at best and perhaps even, by same definition, metagaming in and of itself!

If you are so inclined, Angry has something to say here...
[FONT=&quot]"The issue is that it is IMPOSSIBLE not to metagame. I don’t mean that it’s hard. I mean that it is literally an impossible thing for a human being to do. "[/FONT]


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> The only one who really knows whether you're role-playing, or just rationalizing, is yourself. Personally, I'm not going to take a shortcut, because that would defeat the reason for why I'm playing the game in the first place. If other people at the table are secretly rationalizing their own actions, then I'll never know, so I try to not worry about it. I'm not going to second guess their motivations, for much the same reason that I'm not going to watch their dice.




The part that astonishes me about this is that after all the times we have been around the circle on this, whenever you end up talking about roleplaying you _still_ make assertions as if your particular variant/definition of "roleplaying" is still the only one, or the only valid one.



> But as far as 5E is concerned, meta-gaming is explicitly called out by the rules as being a bad thing, so I'm also not going to advocate for anyone following that path.




I will bet you $1,000 right now, in public, that when WotC talks about metagaming they don't mean "taking the plot hook because you know that's what it is."  Accept my bet and we'll start Tweeting to JC.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 18, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> I actually did a pretty lengthy video on the "well it has to make sense for the CHARACTER" nonsense that falls flat for virtually anything but fiend warlock/divine caster mix.




XP - great audio voice.
Content was interesting too


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 18, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The part that astonishes me about this is that after all the times we  have been around the circle on this, whenever you end up talking about  roleplaying you make assertions as if your particular variant/definition  of "roleplaying" is still the only one, or the only valid one.



I will never concede that meta-gaming is a good thing, and I'm still waiting for anyone out there to offer any definition of role-playing that is substantially different from "making decisions from the perspective of the character".


Elfcrusher said:


> I will bet you $1,000 right now, in public, that when WotC talks about metagaming they don't mean "taking the plot hook because you know that's what it is."  Accept my bet and we'll starting Tweeting to JC.



Even I have stated that players should create characters who are willing to go along with whatever issue the campaign is going to be about, and I don't trust Twitter as a medium to sufficiently convey the distinction. 

WotC is not some monolithic entity which is capable of independent thought, but if you are curious as to the opinion of any particular designer, feel free to ask whether it technically counts as meta-gaming if you only follow a plot-hook because you know it's a plot-hook. I would be interested to see how anyone can rationalize that against the examples of meta-gaming which are actually given in the book.


----------



## jamesstreissand (Sep 18, 2018)

Sadras said:


> XP - great audio voice.
> Content was interesting too




Much appreciated <3


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2018)

I'm trying to remember just how long [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]elorn has had me on ignore because of the spanking received for pushing the ludicrous notion that all meta gaming is bad and cheating.  Fun to see the points being repeated in quotes being spanked just as hard.  

It's just so toxic to the hobby.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 18, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I will never concede that meta-gaming is a good thing, and I'm still waiting for anyone out there to offer any definition of role-playing that is substantially different from "making decisions from the perspective of the character".




"Experiencing the same/similar emotions as your character."



Saelorn said:


> feel free to ask whether it technically counts as meta-gaming if you only follow a plot-hook because you know it's a plot-hook.




No, not whether it _technically_ can be considered metagaming, but whether that's the sort they had it mind when they warned against metagaming.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2018)

_Roleplaying_, in the context of a RPG, means _making moves in the game by way of descriptions of fictional events that are initiated by, or otherwise concern, a distinct character/persona under the control of the player_.

The actual words are mine, but the general thrust is not something I came up with (obviously!).

There are corner cases. Is generating a PC roleplaying? In D&D, generally not - it's a precursor to roleplaying. In Classic Traveller, though, generating a PC via the lifepath mechanics does involve making moves that are initiated by (eg enlistment) or otherwise concern (eg survival) a distinct character, and this therefore probably does count as roleplaying (a lot of people certainly enjoy generating Traveller PCs - some even think it's the most fun part of the system!).

Likewise equipping PCs - in my D&D games that is generally prep; but others approach it as roleplaying, involving events in the fiction initiated by a distinct persona (ie a character buying stuff from NPCs).

The reason for _initiated by or concerning_ is because quite a bit of roleplaying doesn't involve _literal_ actions of the PC. (Eg in [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s example, deciding "I'd do this crazy thing because I have a wacky great-aunt whom I take after" is partyl an action of the PC - making a decision - but is also partly about events in the fiction that concern the PC but weren't initiated by him/her, such as ancestry.)

Arbitrary stipulations that RPGing must be more narrow than this - eg that the _initiated by_ or _constrained by_ elements must be more tightly circumscribed - are made in ignorance of the actualy history and diversity of the hobby, from the earliest days (eg a paladin calling for a warhorse, in AD&D, establishes fiction that goes beyond event initiated by the PC) through every decade of its development up to the present day.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2018)

Playing an RPG is utimately a form of conversation, establishing a shared fiction, although in many cases that conversation may be heavily mediated by rules (and props that support those rules, like dice and maps) for what and how ideas become part of the shared fiction.

Conversation has multiple "orders" of reasoning happening at the same time - there is first order assertion and response, but also second order considerations like whether or not some utterance is being phrased properly, or might be expressed better; and second order considerations of a different sort, too, like whether or not some question or some response is socially appropriate given the context. All this is done in real time, as the conversation takes place.

Just as a conversation is not, for most people, a "run time" implementation of a pre-prepared script or program, so there's no reason to think that RPGing should be like that either. Nor that it would be good if it were - part of the pleasure of conversation (as opposed to, say, a job interview, or taking a class) is the spontaneity and exploration of the moment, and RPGing exhibits similar features.

If I'm playing a FRPG, and the GM tells me "You see an orc not far away and coming towards you - what do you do?", then in thinking about what answer I give I will factor in a range of considerations: _how does my PC feel about orcs?_ _what sorts of things is my PC good at?_ _what do other people at the table, whose PCs are also in this situation, want to do?_ _how many hit points do we have left?_ etc.

Some of those are obviously metagaming - eg wondering what the other players want to do. Some may be metagaming at some tables (eg wondering about hp remaining; knowing what my PC is good at, if some of that capability takes the form of "fate points" or similar) but not at others (some people treat hp as "meat", or as in-fiction knowable "life force remaining"; some tables treat all resources recorded on the PC sheet as known, in-fiction properties of the PC).

None of them is antithetical to playing a RPG.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> "Experiencing the same/similar emotions as your character."



Okay, this is the first time I've ever heard anything like that before. It goes against every definition of the term I've ever seen. Where are you getting it from, and why should anyone adopt that definition, rather than continuing to use the definition which is overwhelmingly prevalent both within the hobby and without?

Why should I believe that you are actually debating in good faith, when you make such a bold and unfounded assertion?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Alright, you must either not be from the US or are intentionally playing dumb if you do not get my real world reference about getting rewarded just for participating.



As it happens, I'm not from the US. As I understand "gold stars" or "elephant stamps" from teachers (normally to primary school students), they're minor awards for good work. This is the logic that is then applied to their use in the Prince Valiant RPG.

But in any event, I'm not sure in what way you think 5e states a goal of "everyone gets a gold star just for participating", unless by "gold star" you mean "has a good time", in which case I think that would be a pretty basic goal for any leisure activity.

(I don't know what you think the win condition for 5e D&D is - I'm _guessing_ you think that it is gaining levels. In 5e, unlike 4e, PCs don't gain levels just for participating - they gain levels by getting XP, which, by default, are earned by killing/defeating foes in combat encounters. Personally I prefer the 4e system of gaining levels for particpating, which stops them being a reward, which turns the focus of play and "win conditions" onto other stuff.)

Anyway, I'm also curious about the answer to the question "how does your table decide which of the players does and which doesn't get to play a special PC'?"



smbakeresq said:


> Pemerton,
> 
> Which part is antithetical?  Do you believe players should run over the DM, or that I am to liberal with MC if the players puts in a good effort?



Both. The equation of _players are equal contributors to the shared fiction_ with "players should run over the DM" is antithetical to what I'm looking for as a GM or player. And so is the idea that the GM will judge whether or not a player is putting in a "good effort" or is making a "blatant min/max power grab" and on that basis open up or close down mechanical options within the game.

It's antithetical to my preferred techniques as GM and as player. And it also strongly suggests a broken system which isn't fit for purpose.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I'm trying to remember just how long [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]elorn has had me on ignore because of the spanking received for pushing the ludicrous notion that all meta gaming is bad and cheating.  Fun to see the points being repeated in quotes being spanked just as hard.
> 
> It's just so toxic to the hobby.



He's not even really listening to the counterpoints, because he can't even conceive of a universe where his opinion is not the objective truth. If anyone else gets tired of him, the easiest way to get him to ignore you is to suggest that the Belgariad might not be particularly good.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 19, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> He's not even really listening to the counterpoints, because he can't even conceive of a universe where his opinion is not the objective truth. If anyone else gets tired of him, the easiest way to get him to ignore you is to suggest that the Belgariad might not be particularly good.




Eh. He's far from the worst offender in this thread. Give him a break. He's nowhere near max level.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I understood. You're objecting to a player narrating how it is that his/her PC made a saving throw, or failed to perform a commanded feat. Whereas on this issue I have the same view as @_*Elfcrusher*_. If players want to narrate their PC's successes, that's fine by me.




Your examples were not the kind that indicated that you understood.  Anyway, the player narrating the results of a roll is contrary to the rules of 5e.  I understand that you run an unconventional game, and it appears that he does as well.  It's a house rule to allow it, though.  The rule is that the players state the actions of the PCs and the DM narrates the results.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ah, ok, so you're also with Saelorn in the "The players never get to narrate" camp.  I guess I didn't fully understand that.




Per the 5e rules, the players do not get to narrate the results of a roll.  Especially when it comes to altering mechanics the way your example does.  A failed save is absolute.  It has an effect and you are altering that effect to make it a partially failed save.  When a save is failed there is no partial success that allows a bit of resistance to what the caster intends.  Not without a house rule anyway.



> Personally I have no interest in playing D&D that way, but it's certainly a technically valid, if limiting, way to play.  And, yes, that would make it tough for people to create character concepts that require ongoing narration to avoid breaking the mechanical rules.




Which is fine.  There's no need for you to play the traditional way.



> It's funny how high-level rules/philosophy disputes often turn out to be manifestations of the same recurring low-level differences in how the game is played.




When you run a game that goes contrary to the rules, you are going to run into these sorts of disputes.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Per the 5e rules, the players do not get to narrate the results of a roll.  Especially when it comes to altering mechanics the way your example does.  A failed save is absolute.  It has an effect and you are altering that effect to make it a partially failed save.  When a save is failed there is no partial success that allows a bit of resistance to what the caster intends.  Not without a house rule anyway.
> 
> Which is fine.  There's no need for you to play the traditional way.
> 
> When you run a game that goes contrary to the rules, you are going to run into these sorts of disputes.




What fascinates me is why, whenever we get to this point, you insist on trying to make it very clear and explicit that ELFCRUSHER IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!!!!!  (An assertion I disagree with, by the way.)

Why can't you just say, "Oh, that's interesting.  You and I do this differently."?  Why is it so important to you that your version is "by the rules" and my version is not?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Okay, this is the first time I've ever heard anything like that before. It goes against every definition of the term I've ever seen. Where are you getting it from, and why should anyone adopt that definition, rather than continuing to use the definition which is overwhelmingly prevalent both within the hobby and without?
> 
> Why should I believe that you are actually debating in good faith, when you make such a bold and unfounded assertion?




1) I don't really give a rat's fart what you believe, or if you think I'm debating in good faith.  You make up your own mind on that one.  

2) I don't agree that your definition is "overwhelmingly prevalent".  I hear it from you and a very few others on places like Enworld.

3) All that aside, I've argued quite extensively on this forum and elsewhere that I believe what distinguishes RPGs from, say, board games is that you experience emotions similar to what your character would be feeling.  That's the more meaningful "immersion" in my opinion; not rigid adherence to acting.  That's the 'high' I'm looking for in RPGs.

The most obvious example is fear: when your DM drops The Demogorgon figure on the table, you should feel terror.  But also the mysteriously alluring yet vulnerable NPC should draw your attention and affection, and then when he/she betrays you to the BBEG you should feel shock and anger.

Trying to make the decisions my character would, while harmless in itself, does nothing to contribute to this.

One hypothetical example I've suggested in the past, just to illustrate this form of immersion, is what to do if a character gets amnesia.  I think it would be amazing to get all the other players in on a prank: everybody change the details of their characters in small ways, and likewise change details about the setting.  Then play as normal, and everybody look at the one player like he's crazy when he says, "Wait...I thought your character's name was Leon not Leo."  After a couple of hours that player would be truly immersed. 

Maybe he's also no longer your friend, let alone in your gaming group, but it would be worth it.  You'd be telling the story at Cons for decades.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Why can't you just say, "Oh, that's interesting.  You and I do this differently."?  Why is it so important to you that your version is "by the rules" and my version is not?



It's supposed to be common courtesy, but if you want to contribute to a discussion about a game, you should first acknowledge which rules you are changing before you try and impress your opinion on anyone. Nobody cares about the bizarre rulings you apply to your bizarre homebrew game, when they only follow from a nonsensical premise that nobody else has bought into.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> What fascinates me is why, whenever we get to this point, you insist on trying to make it very clear and explicit that ELFCRUSHER IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!!!!!  (An assertion I disagree with, by the way.)
> 
> Why can't you just say, "Oh, that's interesting.  You and I do this differently."?  Why is it so important to you that your version is "by the rules" and my version is not?




Mostly because you usually come off as arrogant and dismissive of my style of play when you disagree with me.  It's irritating, and I tend to respond to people how they act towards to me.  There are other posters here who I have great conversations with, because even if we disagree, it's just a discussion.  I much prefer that sort of thing.  

Here you imply that I'm a douche if I don't agree with that sort of concept.




> If everybody at the table is on board with the concept (read: "not being a douche") then not only are there always solutions to any situation you can contrive, but finding and roleplaying those solutions is part of the fun. It's only when somebody at the table is determined to prove that another player is having badwrongfun that things gets difficult.




Here you imply that I emotionally scar players.




> Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here are simply emotionally scarred from playing with selfish, uncooperative rules lawyers, and are now afraid of anything that might give those players an opening to be disruptive




Here you dismiss the way I play as "utter nonsense"




> Saelorn says stuff like that, too, and I think it's utter nonsense. NPCs and PCs are not real people, so there's no such thing as "what they would do", and if they were real people it would be impossible to know for certain what they would do, especially in the sort of novel, unpredictable, high-stress situations heroes get themselves into.




If you want people to treat you differently and just have enjoyable conversations, try not posting in the manner you do with them.  In the past you and I have clashed like this, but occasionally you don't act that way and we've had decent conversations.  It's really up to you.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

Good post.



Maxperson said:


> Mostly because you usually come off as arrogant and dismissive of my style of play when you disagree with me.  It's irritating, and I tend to respond to people how they act towards to me.  There are other posters here who I have great conversations with, because even if we disagree, it's just a discussion.  I much prefer that sort of thing.
> 
> Here you imply that I'm a douche if I don't agree with that sort of concept.



Hmm.  I was trying to suggest it's douchey to actively try to undermine it at the table, not necessarily to disagree with it in principle.  E.g., a DM who said, "Ok, so now I've set up a situation, and decided what my NPC 'would' do, so that you're going to get mind controlled and have to pick up a weight that just happens to be exactly what is needed to make it hard to maintain the fiction you've invented..." is definitely being a douche. 



> Here you imply that I emotionally scar players.



That comment was in response to what was effectively "I'm glad I get all these players who flee from tables like Elfcrusher's"




> Here you dismiss the way I play as "utter nonsense"



Ok, probably not my most gracious phrasing.  However I'm not referring to the way you play (that would be "horrendously dull and uninteresting*") but to the assertion that there's one course of action that is what any person, fictional or otherwise, "would" do in a given situation.

*and _that_ was meant to be funny...



> If you want people to treat you differently and just have enjoyable conversations, try not posting in the manner you do with them.  In the past you and I have clashed like this, but occasionally you don't act that way and we've had decent conversations.  It's really up to you.




Yeah, that's completely fair and valid.  I will say that in general I try to avoid attacking people for their opinions about the game.  But if somebody wants to attack _me,_ even (especially?) indirectly, I'm not going to turn the other cheek.  If somebody were to ask me to recount what happens in threads like these, I'd probably say, "I'm trying to have this discussion, that I think is really interesting, about roleplaying and immersion, and these other posters either a) act like only their version is real roleplaying or b) claim they're playing by the rules and I'm not.  And, as my pappy says, those who beat their swords into plowshares end up ploughing for those who do not, so..."

If, in some cases, I am in fact instigating, it's probably because I'm remembering other threads, and maybe treating it as one big conversation with interludes.

And, yeah, in some cases maybe I'm already in a bad mood and I'm the one who draws first.  My bad.

So, anyway, I think we each think we're responding to the other person being nasty first.  Or maybe Saelorn pissed me off and I hit back and you took collateral damage.  Not sure.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2018)

From the Basic PDF, p 3:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

*1. The DM describes the environment.* The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves . . .

*2. The players describe what they want to do.* . . .

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

*3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.* Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.​
So the first thing I notice about this is that it is incomplete: what happens if the result of the adjudication doesn't lead to a decision point? Does that mean the game is over?

The second thing I notice is another element of incompleteness: taken literally, it implies that players are only ever allowed to declare actions for their PCs in relation to the environment the GM describes, but I've never played a RPG that operates under that constraint and can't imagine doing so. For instance, in every RPG I've ever played, Player A is fully entitled to ask Player B "Are you (ie your PC) wearing a hat? If you are, can I (ie my PC) borrow it?" And Player B is fully entitled to answer "Yes, I am, and yes, you can - I pass my cap to A!"

This triggers step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.

Another type of action which is part of many RPGs is the player declaring something that does not engage the immediate environment but something more spiritual or ethereal: "I remember all the dead we left behind us, and pray for their souls." Or "I try to see if I can remember the secret number that the sage told us when we met her months ago!" These appear to trigger step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.

Another thing that I notice is that, read literally, _the players never establish anything about the game_. Read literally, all the players ever do is _make suggestions_ about what might happen in the shared fiction - "I want to walk across the room and open the door" - but what actually happens in the fiction is _always_ the GM's decision, with the GM perhaps using dice to manage this.

If that's true, then the other 100 pages of rules are all just suggestions to the GM as to how s/he might exercise his/her power to make those decisions. But I can't imagine _anyone_ actually playing 5e that way. To do so would make a complete farce of most of the rules for PC-building (especially all the equipment and spell descriptions), and would contradict all the rules in the sections on ability checks and combat.

So once we recognise that the description of step 2 is, taken literally, false; then we can also see that step 3, taken literally, is probably false as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine a table in which _all_ results of declared actions are narrated _only_ by the GM. Here's just one example:

GM: You see an owlbear.
Player [of a wizard who has prepared Magic Missile and has some unused spell slots]: I blast it with a Magic Missile.
GM: OK, roll for damage.​
I reckon stuff like that happens _all the time_ at 5e tables; and in that sort of episode, the player is narrating a result - namely, that the owlbear has been blasted with a Magic Missile - and the player is licensed to do so by the rules for spell preparation, spell casting and the text of the Magic Missile spell which says that "[e]ach dart hits a creature of your choice".

 [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s claim that it is "houseruling" and "non-traditional" for a player to narrate results is without foundation.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> From the Basic PDF, p 3:
> The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
> 
> *1. The DM describes the environment.* The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves . . .
> ...




The reason it is not comprehensive and complete is because it is a small quick summary in the intro of "basic pattern" of how things tend to play out. its not meant to be a hard coded straightjacket ultimate MUST DO shackle for all DnD play.

Some tend to see it as some form of clear denial of anything that violates this summary. 

i see it as the quick outline for new players and to set the feel, little more than that - all illuminated and expanded upon  by the hundreds of pages that follow.

But thats me.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> From the Basic PDF, p 3:The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
> 
> *1. The DM describes the environment.* The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves . . .
> 
> ...




No, of course it doesn't mean the game is over.  It just mean that you are back at step 2.  If they are in an environment and step three doesn't lead to a new environment, you are still in step two after the DM narrates. That's why step 3 only states that it OFTEN leads back to step 1. Example.

DM describes a room with a desk.

Player: I tap my foot.
DM: Okay, you tap your foot.  Now what?
(still in step 2)
Player: I go over and open the top drawer of the desk.
DM: Okay. (describes the new environment of the contents of the top drawer)
(back to step 1)



> The second thing I notice is another element of incompleteness: taken literally, it implies that players are only ever allowed to declare actions for their PCs in relation to the environment the GM describes, but I've never played a RPG that operates under that constraint and can't imagine doing so. For instance, in every RPG I've ever played, Player A is fully entitled to ask Player B "Are you (ie your PC) wearing a hat? If you are, can I (ie my PC) borrow it?" And Player B is fully entitled to answer "Yes, I am, and yes, you can - I pass my cap to A!"
> 
> This triggers step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.




This isn't true.  Without step 1, the PCs are in limbo and exist nowhere to pass the hat.  The DM first has to describe some sort of environment at the very beginning of the first session.  At that point the PCs can begin to interact with each other by declaring actions in step 2, like passing a hat.  

Nothing in part 2 requires that actions be about the environment described, but there must be an environment for the PCs to do something.  Once the initial environment is described, there will always be a step 1 that has happened, allowing step 2 actions like passing the hat or examining the desk drawer.



> Another type of action which is part of many RPGs is the player declaring something that does not engage the immediate environment but something more spiritual or ethereal: "I remember all the dead we left behind us, and pray for their souls." Or "I try to see if I can remember the secret number that the sage told us when we met her months ago!" These appear to trigger step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.




Again, no.  Step 1 has already happened or the PCs would be in limbo prior to game play in the 1st session.  Unless you alter how the game is played and give the players the ability to do step 1, the DM must describe the initial step 1 before anything in step 2 can happen.  Once that happens, there is always an environment that has preceded step 2 for the players to declare things like that.



> Another thing that I notice is that, read literally, _the players never establish anything about the game_. Read literally, all the players ever do is _make suggestions_ about what might happen in the shared fiction - "I want to walk across the room and open the door" - but what actually happens in the fiction is _always_ the GM's decision, with the GM perhaps using dice to manage this.




This is not true.  If the player says that his character walks over to the bar, the DM is not within his rights to just say "No you don't", that's just a suggestion and I'm not allowing it.  Barring an in game reason like the PC's feet are stuck to the floor, the DM must narrate the results of that action.  He has no choice that isn't an abuse of DM authority.  The result of that kind of abuse is that his players would leave the game.  Under the steps above, the players can establish all kinds of things about the game.  They just can't create secret doors by looking for one, unless you have changed the rules to allow for that sort of game play.



> So once we recognise that the description of step 2 is, taken literally, false; then we can also see that step 3, taken literally, is probably false as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine a table in which _all_ results of declared actions are narrated _only_ by the GM. Here's just one example:




As I demonstrated above, your arguments here do not show that step 2 taken literally is false.


> GM: You see an owlbear.
> Player [of a wizard who has prepared Magic Missile and has some unused spell slots]: I blast it with a Magic Missile.
> GM: OK, roll for damage.





> I reckon stuff like that happens _all the time_ at 5e tables; and in that sort of episode, the player is narrating a result - namely, that the owlbear has been blasted with a Magic Missile - and the player is licensed to do so by the rules for spell preparation, spell casting and the text of the Magic Missile spell which says that "[e]ach dart hits a creature of your choice".




You're going to have to provide a much better example.  That's nothing but a player declaring an action and the DM narrating the result.  The player did not narrate the owelbear having been blasted.  He only declared that he was casting magic missile at the owlbear.  For all the player knows, the owlbear was wearing a magic item that prevents magic missiles from working.  The DM by narrating "OK, roll for damage." is the one who described the owlbear as having been blasted.  Prior to that narration, the magic missiles had not actually hit.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I can agree there as well. If I as a player that doesn’t like multiclassibg do the same thing but instead in favor of not multiclassing then do you find any fault with that?




Yes. In the case of a player persuading the DM to allow MCing, the player is trying to play the PC they want.

But in the case of a player persuading the DM to change from allowing MCing to banning it, then that player is not trying to get permission to play what PC they want to play (because they are already playing a single class PC themselves), they are trying to get the DM to ban _another_ player's PC. That is _not_ okay!

Unless, of course, the campaign rules are such the all players are *required* to play MC PCs. But...who does *that?*


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

Greg K said:


> Only in the sense that if the DM shuts it down, your fluff, your decision is is find something acceptable or find another table.




Which is exactly the sense I mean



> As for your Deathstalker explanation, your ability to come up with an explanation never trumps my prerogative as  DM to deny it (and I would based upon the special organ).




Which supports what I've been saying all along: the *player* invents the fluff for their own PC, the DM can, _if they have a valid reason_, say no.

If the DM says no for an invalid reason, the player has the final say by either playing a different PC or leaving that table.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 19, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Which supports what I've been saying all along: the *player* invents the fluff for their own PC, the DM can, _if they have a valid reason_, say no.



I imagine different posters are going to have different takes as to what a "valid reason" is.  The poster who labeled their game as a "DMocracy" is probably going to have a more expansive take on valid reasons than you or I might.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> This is a more sensible question.  I will disagree with those who say it's 100% the player, as well as with those who say it's 100% the DM.  I'll even go further and suggest that anybody who thinks they need to invoke 100% for either is probably at the wrong table.
> 
> This is really simple, guys:
> Player: "Hey, I have this idea..."
> ...




I totally agree that this conversation is how the game actually works in practice.

My point has never been that it's 100% player or DM when talking about how the game actually occurs at real tables. My point is about who comes up with the PC's fluff, player or DM. It's the player. The DM doesn't create it, the player does.

Let me put it this way: at the start of the campaign the DM says words to the effect of, "Here's my campaign/world; what do you think?" Sure, the player might have some _suggestions_ about tweaking stuff, but it's the DM's creation. What does *not* happen is that the _player_ creates the world/campaign!

What happens after the DM presents the world/campaign is that the players create a PC to play in that campaign/world. So they cannot player cyberware in a world without cyberware.

Then the player presents their PC, crunch and fluff, to the DM. The player says words to the effect of, "Here's my PC; what do you think?" Sure, the DM might have some _suggestions_ about things like personality, events in the backstory, whatever. The DM might also say no to some things, _and tell the player *why* they object to that thing_, so that they can tweak it.

But what I've been saying all along (although perhaps I could have been clearer) is that what does *not* happen is that the *DM* creates the PC's backstory, personality, etc.

Unless the campaign is using pre-gens, but even then the expectation is that the player gets to adjust the pre-gen's fluff.

I'm not saying it's _impossible_ to do it another way, I'm saying that the expectation of the hobby is that:-

* the DM creates the world/campaign's fluff

* the player creates their own PC's fluff, within the idea space of that world/campaign

This agency to create their own PC is just as crucial to the hobby as their agency to control their own PC.

Imagine this:_

Player: I attack the evil mage!
DM: No you don't. You attack his henchman, because that's the kind of thing your PC would do.

NO! _I_ decide what _my_ PC does, within the realm of the possible. Can you imagine the player saying, "No, the evil mage doesn't cast _disintegrate_, he attacks me with his dagger instead. Because that's what he would do."

Lines of demarcation. The _player_ controls their own PC, The DM controls the everything else!

And this principle extends to character creation fluff.

Player: my new PC is a bit arrogant.
DM: no he isn't, he's quite sweet actually.

NO! _I_ decide my own PC's personality, not the DM!

How about this:_

Player: my new rogue has a wide array of skills, but has never actually stolen anything in his life.
DM: no, you are not allowed to take levels in the rogue class unless you steal things.

NO! _I_ choose what my PC does, not the DM.

Are these silly examples? Yes. But no more silly than the idea that PCs are not allowed to take levels in the barbarian class if they can read/wear any more than a leather posing pouch/_were raised in a city_.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> From the Paladin class, "If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."




Thank you for posting the evidence which supports my claim.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> Although the question was not aimed at me, I hope you won't mind if I provide my take on it.
> 
> I consider the fluff of the class to be up to the player (within the constraints set by the DM's opinion of what fits in the setting) based on implication from the text in the PHB (and what it doesn't say), my experience with the D&D product across multiple editions, and a comparison with other game systems. I fully acknowledge that my interpretation is not the only one: the examples below are intended to explain the source of my interpretation, not to try to prove that my interpretation is the best one.
> 
> ...




Thank you for posting this! This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time!


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Wonder if a player would take me up on this...
> 
> "I want the old one's patton that doesnt know i exist."
> 
> "Ok so when it comes to the patrons' bargains and services, you will become of its "needs" just like it does. When it gets hungry, you do. When it gets sleepy, you do. When it gets angry, you do. Basically you have tapped into it like say a flea and are subject to its "needs" that you will then either act on or not, just like any other warlock with similar outcomes. Wonder what turns on that entity/entities?"




No, that would be unutterably wrong!

What this DM is trying to do is control what the PC does using their perfectly valid choice of class to take the player's agency away. This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do.

The _player_ decides what their PC does. Not the DM, and not the DM hiding behind the excuse of 'the patron made me do it'!


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 19, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> No, that would be unutterably wrong!




As an aside, "unutterably" is my new favorite word. I can't think of a single usage that isn't (in a superficial sense) hilariously self-contradictory. It's like "unspeakably" on steriods. Thank you for introducing me to this gem.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Because if I am using a world with active deities, they might the jealous kind who do not like being cheated on by the people they grant powers. Worlds with more active deities tend to also be worlds with more conflicts between the deities, so trying to get powers from two different sources could be more dangerous than just becoming an ex-cleric or whatever. If it is a world with distant deities, then it is more likely I would allow a good character concept that used more than one divine source for powers. And in a world with very distant, or missing deities, then the powers available would be limited in level.




Which goes back to the original point of this thread (at last! ).

Some DMs forbid some multiclass combinations (read: paladin/warlock) for what they claim are 'fluff reasons'.

The *reason* that this approach is absurd is because they are pre-banning PCs *before* they even know what this particular PC's fluff actually *is!*

They are _assuming_ that the as-yet unknown fluff will include two gods/patrons/powers that will not allow their 'servant' to serve two masters! Sure, that would be a valid reason to ban a PC....IF that was the situation!

But it might not be that situation! The 'green knight' Pal/War (ancients paladin/fey patron) is just one example from the PHB which doesn't need a 'you MUST be a powergamer' explanation, and there is no reason to automatically assume that god/patron could not work together, or even that god and patron cannot be one and the same being.

My first Pal/War PC's fluff was that The Fiend was *pretending* to be Odin, in order to corrupt the young paladin. So, Pal 2 to start, then MC to fiendish warlock 3, becoming a chainlock to an imp which ALWAYS kept it's raven form in front of my PC, _pretending_ to be Odin's raven Huginn! But, although my PC _believes_ that his abilities (both from the paladin class AND the warlock class, although 'class' is a purely metagame construct and has no place in the in-game reality of my PC who is just a person with a list of special abilities granted by 'Odin') come from Odin, ALL his special abilities in fact come from The Fiend.

With _that_ fluff, "the paladin/warlock multiclass is banned *because* the god would not allow their servant to serve two masters" simply does not apply.

Pre-banning something for 'fluff reasons' makes no sense because you don't know what the fluff is yet. The player creates the fluff for their own PC, not the DM.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

Xetheral said:


> As an aside, "unutterably" is my new favorite word. I can't think of a single usage that isn't (in a superficial sense) hilariously self-contradictory. It's like "unspeakably" on steriods. Thank you for introducing me to this gem.




Not self-contradictory. What 'unutterably' means in this context is:-

"I can tell you that it's wrong, but the words do not exist that could accurately allow me to convey just how wrong it is!"


----------



## Xetheral (Sep 19, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Not self-contradictory. What 'unutterably' means in this context is:-
> 
> "I can tell you that it's wrong, but the words do not exist that could accurately allow me to convey just how wrong it is!"




That's why I said it was self-contradictory in a superficial sense. I agree that the underlying meaning isn't self-contradictory.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

Ha!  And it looks like Saelorn blocked me.  I guess he was afraid to take that bet.

P.S. And in a D&D forum we should be using "ineffably" instead of "unutterably".


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 19, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> No, that would be unutterably wrong!
> 
> What this DM is trying to do is control what the PC does using their perfectly valid choice of class to take the player's agency away. This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do.
> 
> The _player_ decides what their PC does. Not the DM, and not the DM hiding behind the excuse of 'the patron made me do it'!



Not one of these controlled what the player did. Each of them applied an external influence. Each of them provided an opportunity to role play - not an order to be followed. 

The external influence would come from a source voluntarily accepted at chargen in GM Player discussion ". Work with your DM to determine how big a part your pact will play in your character’s adventuring career." 

Indeed, the same section discusses some of various ways the patron communication happens- includes dreams and waking visions and mystical messages that only the character can see.

But "your character is hungry" is according to you "This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do." and an attempt tp control what they do even tho it was stated in the agreement "_that you will then either act on or not,"_

I can hear it now at tables running under such new era player agency...

DM: Well the trek thru the north has been tough and the going bleak. You haven't had food in days. Each of the NPCs with you is griping about the cold, lack of food and how hungry they are. But as an enlightened GM in the Eravof Player Agency Extreme I won't dare to say your PC is hungry in hope you choose to use it as a role playing opportunity. That would be unutterable wrong."

Thanks for again providing such a clear example.

EDIT TO ADD

Apparently now not providing a case for each of the three is cherry picking, so in deference to the response and claim below i will add in further examples.

DM: Well your trek has been hard and you haven't slept in many days. Each of the NPCs with you is griping about lack of sleep and are quite irritable and on edge, even angry at times from the effects of sleep deprivation.. But as an enlightened GM in the Era of Player Agency Extreme (PAX - tho pronounced like "pox" not "packs" because - pretentious) I won't dare to say your PC is sleepy or angry from the lack of sleep in hope you choose to use it as a role playing opportunity. That would be unutterable wrong."

Now, maybe this time, all cherries are left untouchers by the pickers.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 19, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> No, that would be unutterably wrong!
> 
> What this DM is trying to do is control what the PC does using their perfectly valid choice of class to take the player's agency away. This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do.
> 
> The _player_ decides what their PC does. Not the DM, and not the DM hiding behind the excuse of 'the patron made me do it'!




I agree with you to a point.  Where that line is drawn is dependent on how transactional the DM and player relationship is.

In a highly transactional relationship, I'd expect that the player decides what the PC does and the world as controlled by the DM presents the valid choices based on what's available.  This is no different from the real world where a person could have the potential to be the greatest pirate the world has ever seen, but if they grow up in America where pirates are less common, he or she will grow up to become a lawyer.

In a highly empathetic relationship, I'd expect that the player will have vast amounts of agency and be what he or she wants to be when they grow up.

Neither of these relationship types are wrong.  My opinion is that players who started playing before 1991 are likely used to the former and those after 1991 are likely used to more of the latter.

The rules support both styles of play and it's a social matter, not a game rules matter.

Be well
KB


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> But "your character is hungry" is according to you "This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do."




You DID also include "sleepy" and "angry", and of the three "hungry" is the least offensive.  So you're cherrypicking quotes in order to make his reaction seem outrageous.  (And perhaps he should have been more careful to differentiate in his post.)

Yeah, sure, the DM can tell me I'm hungry.  That's a physical condition.  He can even impose mechanical penalties because of it.

But he CANNOT tell me how I feel about being hungry, or what I'm going to do about it.  Or that I'm angry.*

*Standard caveat: "unless magic".

EDIT: However, upon further consideration, maybe this situation is ok after all.  If the reason he's angry is because of the link with the patron, then, yeah, it's kind of like being under a Charm spell.  However, in that case I would support his other argument: it's not fair to take a perfectly legal class or class combination and impose additional roleplaying requirements/penalties.  Hopefully the player would think it's a cool idea and WANT to do it, but if he disagrees then maybe the DM and Player aren't really well suited for each other.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 19, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Which goes back to the original point of this thread (at last! ).
> 
> Some DMs forbid some multiclass combinations (read: paladin/warlock) for what they claim are 'fluff reasons'.
> 
> ...




pretty much sums up several of my posts on the subject but does leave out one point.

it only makes sense to pre-ban combos for fluff if the setting/world forbids such fluff.

As i have said in my other post, it seems incredibly limiting to one's divinities to say they are not capable ever of using intermidiary lesser beings for a variety of purposes - including serving as go-between and as patrons.  it seems extremely limiting to decide your campaign "gods" of magic cannot actually use an intermediary being to provide more access to magical abilities to their followers most devout to further serve their cause - as cleric-warlocks. 

A Gm could rule in his setting that all his divinities are so limited they cannot or will not do this even tho it helps them - even though the divinity itself is using the intermediary to do the light work etc - not a case of some other player getting in the game.

In which case, well, that would likely need to show in a lot of other ways thu the game like very very strict dogma to be followed and clearly established conflicts/rivalries/competitions between the gods being a major thing in the world - at least as strong as the influences found in the greek myth. In the greek lore, and myth the gods were active, constant players in affairs - but even they were willing to send lesser beings and intermediaries to work with and act as go betweens. So whatever this world is where the gods wont or cant - wow, might be even worse.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> You DID also include "sleepy" and "angry", and of the three "hungry" is the least offensive.  So you're cherrypicking quotes in order to make his reaction seem outrageous.  (And perhaps he should have been more careful to differentiate in his post.)
> 
> Yeah, sure, the DM can tell me I'm hungry.  That's a physical condition.  He can even impose mechanical penalties because of it.
> 
> ...




Again, it was explicit that it was due to the link with the patron. 

When did cherry picking become not covering every single case listed?

Can't tell players they are sleepy?

Again, explicitly said in post and in agreement they can choose to act on it or not.

And also made it clear it was an offer to the player as what their pact relationship with entity not knowing they exist was...

not enough for some to not see it as control.

Hilarious.

As for player and Gm not being on the same page - again this is part of the discussion between player and Gm about the relationship and an offer.

if the player rejects the offer, as Gm if they haven't provided a better offer for a patron who doesn't know they exist, then "well, your warlock to-be did not find a patron of that type that was "in agreement. maybe they do not exist or are so far removed you cannot tag them." Any other ideas or avenues you want to try?" 

Likely that violates the agency too.

EDIT - In deference to the Cherry Pickers union, i added to the original post sleepy and angry description.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 19, 2018)

Hmmm....should someone tell the White Wolf designers for their WoD Games VtM and WtA that their games (which are in no small part role-playing driven by the PCs having both hunger and rage influences of a supernatural nature acting on their characters) are examples of  "_trying to do is control what the PC does using their perfectly valid choice of class to take the player's agency away. This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do."_ 

Funny thing is, in the vtM campaigns i ran, it seemed like the players liked that sort of thing and did not see it as the most horrible thing a DM could do. how could i have missed their misery for all those years?


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 19, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I would argue that anyone who goes around recruiting warlocks into the service of an evil dragon is probably not a good person, let alone the Ultimate Embodiment of Good. It could make sense if it's just a minor deity, though, like Hercules; he may be a decent guy, but he's still just a dude, and nobody is perfect.
> 
> I guess it's the difference between a good god, and a God of Good. (My settings tend more toward the latter than the former.)



Yeah, I'm treating my deities more like they're Greek gods, where not even the good ones are the embodiment of Good. 

I don't want Bahamut to be perfect, since the PCs can actually talk to Bahamut and even adventure with him like Xena did with Aphrodite and Natalie Portman did with Thor. (And yes, that Aphrodite is a god in my setting alongside that Thor.)


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Hmmm....should someone tell the White Wolf designers for their WoD Games VtM and WtA that their games (which are in no small part role-playing driven by the PCs having both hunger and rage influences of a supernatural nature acting on their characters) are examples of  "_trying to do is control what the PC does using their perfectly valid choice of class to take the player's agency away. This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do."_
> 
> Funny thing is, in the vtM campaigns i ran, it seemed like the players liked that sort of thing and did not see it as the most horrible thing a DM could do. how could i have missed their misery for all those years?




Honestly, when I made my observation about the 1991 cutoff between transactional and empathetic relationship options, I was specifically referring to when TWoD hit the shelves.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> When did cherry picking become not covering every single case listed?




When the one that the author refuses to address is the one that most undermines his point.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Which goes back to the original point of this thread (at last! ).
> 
> Some DMs forbid some multiclass combinations (read: paladin/warlock) for what they claim are 'fluff reasons'.
> 
> ...




How is your Paladin getting his special Paladin abilities from The Fiend?  It seems to me you are so desperate to get in a Paladin/warlock combo you took it upon yourself to fluff The Fiend into a divine entity to support your Paladin or for the Fiend to be able to grant divine Paladin abilities, while at the same time a god in the campaign does nothing about The Fiend impersonating said God.

Did you clear that with your DM?  Would you go the that effort with a elf fighter/rogue combo, or it that not powerful enough to bother with?


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> How is your Paladin getting his special Paladin abilities from The Fiend?  It seems to me you are so desperate to get in a Paladin/warlock combo you took it upon yourself to fluff The Fiend into a divine entity to support your Paladin or for the Fiend to be able to grant divine Paladin abilities, while at the same time a god in the campaign does nothing about The Fiend impersonating said God.
> 
> Did you clear that with your DM?  Would you go the that effort with a elf fighter/rogue combo, or it that not powerful enough to bother with?




It's pretty simple really.  He's confusing "divine" with "infernal" or taking a really holistic definition of divine to include infernal because why should the actual English definition of "divine" meaning "sacred" be taken to not mean "of hell or sacrilegious"?

I can see his point because popular media has made the point of questioning the lens that we look at good through since at least the 60s, (one popular example being Return of the Sith, Anakin's "I think the Jedi are Evil" approach).  

That said, the DM's world view of what English vocabulary means in the context of the rules is a social issue, not a rules issue.  My own point of view is that English vocabulary is interpreted the way it's supposed to be, not the way media colors it.

KB


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> How is your Paladin getting his special Paladin abilities from The Fiend?  It seems to me you are so desperate to get in a Paladin/warlock combo you took it upon yourself to fluff The Fiend into a divine entity to support your Paladin or for the Fiend to be able to grant divine Paladin abilities, while at the same time a god in the campaign does nothing about The Fiend impersonating said God.
> 
> Did you clear that with your DM?  Would you go the that effort with a elf fighter/rogue combo, or it that not powerful enough to bother with?



Because paladin abilities are simply abilities, and the concepts of arcane and divine carry no mechanical weight within the system.  

And fighter/rogue is arguably more powerful than paladin/warlock.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> How is your Paladin getting his special Paladin abilities from The Fiend?  It seems to me you are so desperate to get in a Paladin/warlock combo you took it upon yourself to fluff The Fiend into a divine entity to support your Paladin or for the Fiend to be able to grant divine Paladin abilities, while at the same time a god in the campaign does nothing about The Fiend impersonating said God.
> 
> Did you clear that with your DM?  Would you go the that effort with a elf fighter/rogue combo, or it that not powerful enough to bother with?



I was wondering for a moment why [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] had said the character would believe that all the divine paladin powers came from the fiend,  then I noticed that he switched out of paladin after 2nd level, so he never did select an Oath.

I thought it was awfully clever that he used the multiclass rules to model getting tricked into making a fiendish pact while thinking he was swearing a sacred oath.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> How is your Paladin getting his special Paladin abilities from The Fiend?  It seems to me you are so desperate to get in a Paladin/warlock combo you took it upon yourself to fluff The Fiend into a divine entity to support your Paladin or for the Fiend to be able to grant divine Paladin abilities, while at the same time a god in the campaign does nothing about The Fiend impersonating said God.
> 
> Did you clear that with your DM?  Would you go the that effort with a elf fighter/rogue combo, or it that not powerful enough to bother with?




I can't believe the nerve of some people!  Playing single classed characters just to get the goodies faster!  I bet they punch babies too!  Don't even get me started on their munchkin grab for ASIs!


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> When the one that the author refuses to address is the one that most undermines his point.




Already edited to add in both the sleepy and angry.

maybe that will get me out of the CPPD handcuffs with just time served and a million and 2 hours of community service.

After all, an agreed upon influence is certainly off-limits in RPGs these days.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> It's pretty simple really.  He's confusing "divine" with "infernal" or taking a really holistic definition of divine to include infernal because why should the actual English definition of "divine" meaning "sacred" be taken to not mean "of hell or sacrilegious"?
> 
> I can see his point because popular media has made the point of questioning the lens that we look at good through since at least the 60s, (one popular example being Return of the Sith, Anakin's "I think the Jedi are Evil" approach).
> 
> ...




While what you are saying is true about the English language, under Warlock it specifically states that Patrons are not gods.  Since they are not Gods, they cant grant divine powers, which is what fuels Paladin powers.  From the PHB:

"A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power com es as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god."

" The most important aspect of a paladin character is the nature of his or her holy quest. Although the class features related to your oath don't appear until you reach 3rd level, plan ahead for that choice by reading the oath descriptions at the end of the class. Are you a devoted servant of good, loyal to the gods of justice and honor, a holy knight in shining armor venturing forth to smite evil? Are you a glorious champion of the light, cherishing everything beautiful that stands against the shadow, a knight whose oath descends from traditions older than many of the gods? Or are you an embittered loner sworn to take vengeance on those who have done great evil, sent as an angel of death by the gods or driven by your need for revenge? Appendix B lists many deities worshiped by paladins throughout the multiverse, such
as Torm, Tyr, Heironeous, Paladine, Kiri-Jolith, Dol Arrah, the Silver Flame, Bahamut, Athena, Re-Horakhty, and Heimdall. How did you experience your call to serve as a paladin? Did you hear a whisper from an unseen god or angel while you were at prayer? Did another paladin sense the potential within you and decide to train you as a squire? Or did some terrible event—the destruction of your home, perhaps— drive you to your quests? Perhaps you stumbled into a sacred grove or a hidden elven enclave and found yourself called to protect all such refuges of goodness and beauty. Or you might have known from your earliest memories that the paladin’s life was your calling, almost as if you had been sent into the world with that purpose stamped on your soul. As guardians against the forces of wickedness, paladins are rarely of any evil alignment. Most of them walk the paths of charity and justice. Consider how your alignment colors the way you pursue your holy quest and the manner in which you conduct yourself before gods and mortals. Your oath and alignment might be in harmony, or your oath might represent standards of behavior that you have not yet attained."


I see "god" and "gods" and "holy" and "sacred" in there many times.  Also there is a clearly stated "Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work."  



As far as the instant example, of course it will be stated "that's just fluff and not an actual rule so its meaningless I will recreate my own fluff that is meaningful and overrides anything the DM says about his world and his gods and that's what I will use."
​


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 19, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Honestly, when I made my observation about the 1991 cutoff between transactional and empathetic relationship options, I was specifically referring to when TWoD hit the shelves.




Understandable. i Gmed my first game in 80 and ran my first WoD VtM 1st ed game within weeks of its release. I have observed how much it impacted RPGs at its release at a time when heavier and heavier crunch was the flavor of 800lb gorilla in vogue.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Because paladin abilities are simply abilities, and the concepts of arcane and divine carry no mechanical weight within the system.
> 
> And fighter/rogue is arguably more powerful than paladin/warlock.




Yes they do, read the PHB chapter.  Now if you ignore every single thing that doesn't fit in like this statement "By 2nd level, you have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does." (which to me indicates Paladins cast divine magic as a cleric does (a plain reading)) or the name of the power "Divine Smite" then sure it carries no weight what so ever. 

I don't really think any MC is enough difference in power to be worried about one way or the other.  

Except no one puts as much emphasis on re-flavoring fluff to fit their narrative on a fighter/rogue.  Maybe they do but I haven't seen 77 pages on how to MC a fighter/rogue in some plausible way to convince people its not a power grab it was just a concept that they had for ages but never told anyone until the Hexblade came out.   

There is another thread on the hexblade/paladin MC build itself where there author(sorry I forgot your name) just flatly states its done only because they min/max all their PC and its how they have fun and all other considerations are irrelevant.  At least that author was forthright with himself and the boards.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Yes they do, read the PHB chapter.  Now if you ignore every single thing that doesn't fit in like this statement "By 2nd level, you have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does." (which to me indicates Paladins cast divine magic as a cleric does (a plain reading)) or the name of the power "Divine Smite" then sure it carries no weight what so ever.



Sure.  All I'm saying is that the words "divine" and "arcane" don't DO anything in 5e.  Look it up.  If you changed every reference in the cleric or paladin class with the word "divine" to the word "arcane", the class would play exactly the same.  Contrast with previous editions, and mechanics like arcane spell failure, scroll use, etc.

If you want to weight those terms with certain setting-building constraints because of dictionary definitions or nostalgia or what have you, that's fine and dandy.  



smbakeresq said:


> I don't really think any MC is enough difference in power to be worried about one way or the other.



Other than possibly sorlock, I don't either.



smbakeresq said:


> Except no one puts as much emphasis on re-flavoring fluff to fit their narrative on a fighter/rogue.  Maybe they do but I haven't seen 77 pages on how to MC a fighter/rogue in some plausible way to convince people its not a power grab it was just a concept that they had for ages but never told anyone until the Hexblade came out.



Sure, but that's because fighter and rogue have so little built in fluff that there's really no need to refluff it at all.



smbakeresq said:


> There is another thread on the hexblade/paladin MC build itself where there author(sorry I forgot your name) just flatly states its done only because they min/max all their PC and its how they have fun and all other considerations are irrelevant.  At least that author was forthright with himself and the boards.



I don't know if that was me, but it sounds like me.  I'm pretty open about being a powergamer.  I build characters from a mechanical perspective first, and then I build supporting fluff to make the character cohesive and intriguing.  MC builds are simply more interesting to refluff because you have to weave more disparate concepts together.  I make no apology for finding MC martial/warlock builds more interesting because of Hexblade.  (side note: I'm actually playing a Hexblade Warlock right now, no multiclassing.  It's plenty powerful enough even without MCing!)


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> I can't believe the nerve of some people!  Playing single classed characters just to get the goodies faster!  I bet they punch babies too!  Don't even get me started on their munchkin grab for ASIs!




Remember though these MC are carefully chosen and designed to be better on balance then getting those things through a single class.  The Optimization forum is full of the analysis.  That's why its done, and having something well thought out and planned should be encouraged and worked out with the DM first to smooth over any troubles.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Already edited to add in both the sleepy and angry.
> 
> maybe that will get me out of the CPPD handcuffs with just time served and a million and 2 hours of community service.
> 
> After all, an agreed upon influence is certainly off-limits in RPGs these days.




You might want to re-read your last few posts, with the word "hyperbole" in mind.  Yeah, Arial also was a little hyperbolic when he said it was the "worst thing ever" or something like that, but that just makes two of you whose lame rhetorical techniques are unpersuasive.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I don't know if that was me, but it sounds like me.  I'm pretty open about being a powergamer.  I build characters from a mechanical perspective first, and then I build supporting fluff to make the character cohesive and intriguing.




As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think mechanical shenanigans are any less valid as a source of inspiration for character concept than, say, drawing inspiration from movies or novels.  

Let's say that you've discovered that there's huge synergy between Spore Druid, Mastermind Rogue, and Kensai Monk.  It seems to me that the challenge of writing a coherent story for that is kind of like getting an essay assignment to "compare and contrast skateboard culture to Pathan tribes along the Afghan/Pakistan border", or randomly drawing improv acting cues that throw together a neurotic housewife, a serial killer, and a Brazilian ranch-hand.  It's an opportunity for creativity and novelty.  (Much, dare I say it, like rolling 5 Int and deciding that you're going to play a genius.)

Now, to be sure, LOTS of players don't do that.  They figure out the synergistic multi-class build and then just enjoy throwing tons of dice at the table.  But that's on them, not the multi-class.  If you don't let them play their overpowered tri-class aberration it's not like they're going to suddenly discover the joy of character development.

Cause and correlation, folks.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Remember though these MC are carefully chosen and designed to be better on balance then getting those things through a single class.  The Optimization forum is full of the analysis.  That's why its done, and having something well thought out and planned should be encouraged and worked out with the DM first to smooth over any troubles.




Some--many of them? are but not all of them.  All but a few combinations are less powerful than a single class character.  

Our assumptions shape a great deal.  What if someone just likes to play a fighter/magic-user?  Ahem, wizard?  Is that terrible too?  The fear of someone gaming the system can ruin it for the rest of us if we allow it to do so.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Sure.  All I'm saying is that the words "divine" and "arcane" don't DO anything in 5e.  Look it up.  If you changed every reference in the cleric or paladin class with the word "divine" to the word "arcane", the class would play exactly the same.  Contrast with previous editions, and mechanics like arcane spell failure, scroll use, etc.
> 
> If you want to weight those terms with certain setting-building constraints because of dictionary definitions or nostalgia or what have you, that's fine and dandy.
> 
> ...





Divine and Arcane do plenty, but I guess your DM doesn't care about it.  Its all over the books as being from a different source, doing different things, etc.  I would like hand wave DM too, I don't have that nor am I like that either.  As far as a strict sentence in the rules regarding the difference you 

Fighter and rogue have plenty of fluff, they just don't have any fluff that appears to be limiting therefore must be declared blasphemous and done away with.  

Its fine to be a power gamer, although I think that means you miss out of stuff in the game over the last 35 years.  But then you don't care about it because you see it a mechanical construct that you need to make a box to fit it in, so you don't miss anything.  You are at least open about it.  The game does have an art and drama component to it also, its very good.  

Every power gamer I know who played old module A4 loved it and it changed their style.  In that module, you start with no equipment and little clothes and nothing else and must get out of the prison before a Volcano explodes and kills you.  Its strictly good gameplay and imagination to not die.  Look it up and read the module, you might like it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Divine and Arcane do plenty, but I guess your DM doesn't care about it.  Its all over the books as being from a different source, doing different things, etc.  I would like hand wave DM too, I don't have that nor am I like that either.  As far as a strict sentence in the rules regarding the difference you
> 
> Fighter and rogue have plenty of fluff, they just don't have any fluff that appears to be limiting therefore must be declared blasphemous and done away with.
> 
> ...




The converse could be said to hard core role-players: the math/logic puzzle of optimization has been part of the game since its inception, and adds a deep and enjoyable dimension to gameplay.  There's nothing wrong with exercising _both_ sides of your brain while playing RPGs.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> That's why its done, and having something well thought out and planned should be encouraged and worked out with the DM first to smooth over any troubles.



This kinda jibes weirdly with how you responded to the multiclassed character Arial presented. It's been well thought out and planned, so he's doing his half of what you want, but your response is to just shut him down, find ways it doesn't work without any suggestion of how to smoothe over any troubles. It looks like you're open to a player multiclassing . . . but not if it's a warlock. 

Or if it looks like powergaming. It really looks like you hate powergamers and immediately suspect anyone who multiclasseses is doing it to powergame, and you immediately raise your shields as though a Klingon cruiser just decloaked in front of you.

Can you see any way to smoothe over your troubles with that paladin/warlock tricked into thinking his fiendish pact was a sacred oath ?


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Some--many of them? are but not all of them.  All but a few combinations are less powerful than a single class character.
> 
> Our assumptions shape a great deal.  What if someone just likes to play a fighter/magic-user?  Ahem, wizard?  Is that terrible too?  The fear of someone gaming the system can ruin it for the rest of us if we allow it to do so.




Some just do and its great! As DM they should be encouraged in every way, especially if they build in a draw back to use as a hook for development and adventure. 

But there are some who just do it strictly to exploit the rules in some way shape or form and will brook absolutely no other interpretation of anything that interferes with their PC.  You ask them about their PC backstory and they say "Far Traveler so I can get Perception since its great for my PC."  There is no art/drama ask to them, they don't even pay attention at the table when you are describing a scene to them, they don't really get the RPG aspect of the game.  I have never liked that player and they will always cause problems at the table eventually. 

But to each his own.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Some just do and its great! As DM they should be encouraged in every way, especially if they build in a draw back to use as a hook for development and adventure.
> 
> But there are some who just do it strictly to exploit the rules in some way shape or form and will brook absolutely no other interpretation of anything that interferes with their PC.  You ask them about their PC backstory and they say "Far Traveler so I can get Perception since its great for my PC."  There is no art/drama ask to them, they don't even pay attention at the table when you are describing a scene to them, they don't really get the RPG aspect of the game.  I have never liked that player and they will always cause problems at the table eventually.
> 
> But to each his own.




breaking news Sometimes people are "bad" where "bad" is defined in this context as "not doing things the way we like."

film at 11.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Let's say that you've discovered that there's huge synergy between Spore Druid, Mastermind Rogue, and Kensai Monk.  It seems to me that the challenge of writing a coherent story for that is kind of like getting an essay assignment to "compare and contrast skateboard culture to Pathan tribes along the Afghan/Pakistan border", or randomly drawing improv acting cues that throw together a neurotic housewife, a serial killer, and a Brazilian ranch-hand.  It's an opportunity for creativity and novelty.  (Much, dare I say it, like rolling 5 Int and deciding that you're going to play a genius.)



Damn it, now I'm going to be turning that over in my head for the next hour while I'm supposed to be working.  Thanks a lot.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Some just do and its great! As DM they should be encouraged in every way, especially if they build in a draw back to use as a hook for development and adventure.
> 
> But there are some who just do it strictly to exploit the rules in some way shape or form and will brook absolutely no other interpretation of anything that interferes with their PC.  You ask them about their PC backstory and they say "Far Traveler so I can get Perception since its great for my PC."  There is no art/drama ask to them, they don't even pay attention at the table when you are describing a scene to them, they don't really get the RPG aspect of the game.  I have never liked that player and they will always cause problems at the table eventually.
> 
> But to each his own.




Maybe it's an opportunity to draw the player into the storytelling.  Come up with the backstory FOR them, and then have it keep popping up during the game, so that the backstory becomes relevant.  Not in a way that tries to limit/control them, but to make them feel like they are an integral part of the game world.  Far Traveler in particular offers some fertile ground for doing that.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 19, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Damn it, now I'm going to be turning that over in my head for the next hour while I'm supposed to be working.  Thanks a lot.



Suggestion: The spores are midichlorians


Extra Credit: Make it awesome enough that your DM doesn't yell BANNED the moment you mention midichlorians.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Divine and Arcane do plenty, but I guess your DM doesn't care about it.  Its all over the books as being from a different source, doing different things, etc.  I would like hand wave DM too, I don't have that nor am I like that either.  As far as a strict sentence in the rules regarding the difference you



I don't really care about it when I DM, and my DMs trust me enough to let me run my characters in the flavor I like.

And as I said, my statement was purely about mechanical weight.  There's no rules element in the game that's modified if the class you're playing is arcane or divine.  In the DMG, for example, traditionally "divine" items like Staff of the Python are restricted by class specifically (cleric or druid only), not with reference to divine as a rules element.



smbakeresq said:


> Fighter and rogue have plenty of fluff, they just don't have any fluff that appears to be limiting therefore must be declared blasphemous and done away with.



Yea, fighter and rogue are generic enough to refluff easily, heavily flavored classes like paladin and warlock are more of a challenge.  The PHB fluff is like the instructions in a Lego set.  Sure, I can use it, or I can throw it away and build whatever I want with the pieces I've been given.




smbakeresq said:


> Its fine to be a power gamer, although I think that means you miss out of stuff in the game over the last 35 years.  But then you don't care about it because you see it a mechanical construct that you need to make a box to fit it in, so you don't miss anything.  You are at least open about it.  The game does have an art and drama component to it also, its very good.



Well, I've only been playing for 28 years, so I guess I've missed pretty much everything. 

And honestly, thinking that I can't be simultaneously interested in the mechanical aspects of the game AND the narrative aspects of the game is an example of your biases showing.  My own RPG credo is very simple; "Play towards conflict."  My characters have hooks.  They have room to grow and change.  If I see the DM offering a hook, I take it.  If we're not sure what to do, I pick something and go towards it.  Always be making story.



smbakeresq said:


> Every power gamer I know who played old module A4 loved it and it changed their style.  In that module, you start with no equipment and little clothes and nothing else and must get out of the prison before a Volcano explodes and kills you.  Its strictly good gameplay and imagination to not die.  Look it up and read the module, you might like it.



I've played very few modules over the years, I've usually made up my adventures from scratch.  I'm not sure if that sounds up my alley, exploration and puzzle play is probably my least favorite aspect of D&D.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Some just do and its great! As DM they should be encouraged in every way, especially if they build in a draw back to use as a hook for development and adventure.
> 
> But there are some who just do it strictly to exploit the rules in some way shape or form and will brook absolutely no other interpretation of anything that interferes with their PC.  You ask them about their PC backstory and they say "Far Traveler so I can get Perception since its great for my PC."  There is no art/drama ask to them, they don't even pay attention at the table when you are describing a scene to them, they don't really get the RPG aspect of the game.  I have never liked that player and they will always cause problems at the table eventually.
> 
> But to each his own.





Fair enough.  My preference is for a CHARACTER to have character and multiclassing or not is secondary.  As for starting the thread and my arguments afterwards, I am actually in the camp of preferring minimal cheese and all of that.  

However, I am not immune to some desire for power or ability.  For example, i thought of playing a ranger/druid and really enjoying the ability to swing a big hammer while fighting alongside some conjured creatures.

Here, it just happens that I want to be able to fight.  I guess there is some RP element to it--I was thinking of playing a former solider who no longer believes in fighting for honor and coin but rather survival and friends.  BUT I did not want to do it with a scimitar or staff.  Just preferred a big hammer.  Seemed fun, 2d6 is nice, whatever.

There are many reasons to play an MC character that I think are valid and do not get in the way of immersion.  I don't think it screams cheese or ridiculous even though I clearly want to swing martial weapons...

(then again, not optimized per se with many screaming about the risk of losing concentration and so forth with the druid spells...)...


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Suddenly, it all becomes as clear as an unmuddied stream.




What kind of paladin do _you_ like to play, Lowkey?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> How is your Paladin getting his special Paladin abilities from The Fiend?  It seems to me you are so desperate to get in a Paladin/warlock combo you took it upon yourself to fluff The Fiend into a divine entity to support your Paladin or for the Fiend to be able to grant divine Paladin abilities, while at the same time a god in the campaign does nothing about The Fiend impersonating said God.
> 
> Did you clear that with your DM?  Would you go the that effort with a elf fighter/rogue combo, or it that not powerful enough to bother with?




* we know that The Fiend is capable of granting 9th level spells

* we know that arcane/divine are not rules terms in 5e

* we know that some fiends, like Lolth for example, are both fiend AND god

* Odin doesn't know about this fiend messing with this paladin; gods are not omniscient in D&D

* paladins don't necessarily gain their abilities from a god

* I go into similar levels of detail for EVERY PC I create. I explain whatever abilities they have, and the ideas come from me.

* the DM loved my idea. In theory, he _could_ have said no, and explained why. I would work with him to address any perceived problem, but if we were unable to come to an agreement then I would feel forced to abandon that character and save the idea for another campaign. Depending on how unreasonable I thought he was being, I might decide that his table was not the table for me. It also may have been that I thought his explanation was perfectly reasonable, and adjust my PC or choose a new one.

We can all worry about jerk DMs and/or jerk players, but neither extreme advances the debate about who gets to choose the PC's fluff. So, assuming both reasonable players AND reasonable DM, the player comes up with their PC's fluff and the DM may come up with reasonable objections. Note that "I wouldn't have chosen that fluff myself" is not an actual objection to my fluff, and would be an *un*reasonable excuse to ban a PC.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 19, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Why, my favorite kind, of course!
> 
> A dead one.
> 
> ...




So your virulent objections to other people's paladin or MC paladin PC is based on bias rather than reason?

That being the case, why would the player of any paladin or MC paladin care what you thought about it, one way or the other?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 19, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 19, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Sure.  All I'm saying is that the words "divine" and "arcane" don't DO anything in 5e.  Look it up.  If you changed every reference in the cleric or paladin class with the word "divine" to the word "arcane", the class would play exactly the same.  Contrast with previous editions, and mechanics like arcane spell failure, scroll use, etc.




You have just made me realise that the restriction on casting in armour that you aren't proficient with also applies to clerics. I never considered it before because it was more prevalent with wizards and sorcerers who have no armour proficiencies.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 19, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> You have just made me realise that the restriction on casting in armour that you aren't proficient with also applies to clerics. I never considered it before because it was more prevalent with wizards and sorcerers who have no armour proficiencies.



Yep.  One of the things I like about 5e is that it plays to familiar tropes but doesn't hardcode them.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Maybe it's an opportunity to draw the player into the storytelling.  Come up with the backstory FOR them, and then have it keep popping up during the game, so that the backstory becomes relevant.  Not in a way that tries to limit/control them, but to make them feel like they are an integral part of the game world.  Far Traveler in particular offers some fertile ground for doing that.




I have tried over the years, most just are not interested.  The same type of personality that breeds the die hard power gamer also makes them resistant to any outside influence, it’s socially dominant authoritarianism.  They consider the DM “against” them as opposed to referee and theatre director.

I am talking about adults by the way, not kids who are a blast to DM for.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> * we know that The Fiend is capable of granting 9th level spells
> 
> * we know that arcane/divine are not rules terms in 5e
> 
> ...




The way I see it is this:

You - “Hey DM I got a PC concept.  Ok what I did was reflavor Paladin so it’s divine smite and divine spells are from a non-divine source, so I changed that, however they keep their effectiveness.  I am leaving that class after I get the level 2 features that are important, divine smite and fighting style.  I will go into warlock so I can use CHR for my main attack stat and my Patron will the Fiend.  Now I reflavored the Fiend to be able to give me all abilities of a Paladin and also all the warlock stuff, even though patrons are not divine, so I changed that also. Since the Fiend is tricking me into believing he is Odin the God, I need you to rule that Odin wouldn’t mind at all.  Also, I can’t run into any people who actual worship Odin because they might realize something is amiss as the Fiend probably wont be a perfect imitation of Odin.  Also this has nothing to do power gaming my PC it’s all story driven even though I didn’t work it out with you first.

Also, you can’t disagree with me at all since it’s my Pc and I control all aspects related to my Pc and I reflavored everything you could object to, so if you did it would greatly unfair.”

Does that about sum it up?

If it works for you and your DM great.  I don’t see it, but ok, it’s not my table.  At least it’s not the guy who rolled at home for stats and has thee 18’s.

BTW The Fiend is a singular entity, it’s capitalized, as opposed to fiend, a type of creature.

And you are correct, divine and arcane are not specific rules terms in D&D, that means the DM defines exactly what they are in his game.  They are all over the rules in a consistent way, but since they are not explicitly defined some will of course exploit that as much as possible.  It is what is.￼


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 19, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> What are you talking about? Of course it's based on reason. The reason is that Paladins suck.
> 
> Q: Hey, Lowkey, what Paladins are you railing against?
> 
> A: Whadda you got?




I think Paladins are very good and great fun to play with the right DM.  By right I mean enforces your Oath and alignment and pushes you into moral dilemmas for which you need to find creative solutions for or are stripped of powers and forced to quest to atone for ( a personal dangerous adventure.)


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 19, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Since the Fiend is tricking me into believing he is Odin the God, I need you to rule that Odin wouldn’t mind at all.  Also, I can’t run into any people who actual worship Odin because they might realize something is amiss as the Fiend probably wont be a perfect imitation of Odin. ￼




I'll let someone else rebut the other points, but I couldn't let this pass. At no point was this ever hinted or suggested in any way, shape, or form. In fact, should he meet a "real" worshiper of Odin, that just exploded an entire world of opportunity for roleplaying, exploration (trying to figure out who he _really _works for), conflict, etc. More than likely, the player would _love _the plot points, since they show the DM is interacting with his backstory in a very tangible way.

Your claim that he somehow limited the DM on how s/he presents Odin is unsubstantiated by what was actually said.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 19, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Let's say that you've discovered that there's huge synergy between Spore Druid, Mastermind Rogue, and Kensai Monk.  It seems to me that the challenge of writing a coherent story for that is kind of like getting an essay assignment to "compare and contrast skateboard culture to Pathan tribes along the Afghan/Pakistan border", or randomly drawing improv acting cues that throw together a neurotic housewife, a serial killer, and a Brazilian ranch-hand.  It's an opportunity for creativity and novelty.  (Much, dare I say it, like rolling 5 Int and deciding that you're going to play a genius.)
> 
> Now, to be sure, LOTS of players don't do that.  They figure out the synergistic multi-class build and then just enjoy throwing tons of dice at the table.  But that's on them, not the multi-class.  If you don't let them play their overpowered tri-class aberration it's not like they're going to suddenly discover the joy of character development.




A coherent story on how your example would work together would mostly matter if you were creating a character at higher than 1st level that would already have levels in all those classes. If you are starting a character at 1st level and want your character to eventually have levels in all those classes, then the DM shares the responsibility with you to come up with a way that could happen within the context of the setting. That is, unless the group this player is part of does not care about it all making sense and fitting into the world. I have played in both kinds of groups: ones that only let you add a new class if it made sense and could be trained for, and ones that did not care at all about the combined classes making any story sense at all.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> So your virulent objections to other people's paladin or MC paladin PC is based on bias rather than reason?
> 
> That being the case, why would the player of any paladin or MC paladin care what you thought about it, one way or the other?




Now, to be perfectly fair, [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION] has never, ever tried to pass off his bias as objective truth.  Which, for myself, I give him MASSIVE props for.  It's so refreshingly honest.

And, as far as your Pal/War goes, FANTASTIC.  Well done you.  That's just handing the DM oodles of stuff to play off of.

Look, I get that some DM's are far, far more interested in the "ownership" of the game or campaign.  I'm not.  I get that some are.  I think that they are wrong, to be honest, because I think the game is very much improved when the DM can relax his or her ego enough to allow the players to shape the world too.  And, yes, I do think that it's an ego thing when the DM becomes so invested in a setting that changes are seen as challenges and not opportunities.

So, yup, I'm letting my bias flag fly too.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 20, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> I'll let someone else rebut the other points, but I couldn't let this pass. At no point was this ever hinted or suggested in any way, shape, or form. In fact, should he meet a "real" worshiper of Odin, that just exploded an entire world of opportunity for roleplaying, exploration (trying to figure out who he _really _works for), conflict, etc. More than likely, the player would _love _the plot points, since they show the DM is interacting with his backstory in a very tangible way.
> 
> Your claim that he somehow limited the DM on how s/he presents Odin is unsubstantiated by what was actually said.



Yep.  Anyone who's really interested in a player-driven narrative game would expect that their deceived paladin will eventually find out about the deception and have to make some hard choices as to what to do; that's literally the best reason to make that story in the first place.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 20, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> The reason it is not comprehensive and complete is because it is a small quick summary in the intro of "basic pattern" of how things tend to play out. its not meant to be a hard coded straightjacket ultimate MUST DO shackle for all DnD play.
> 
> Some tend to see it as some form of clear denial of anything that violates this summary.
> 
> i see it as the quick outline for new players and to set the feel, little more than that - all illuminated and expanded upon  by the hundreds of pages that follow.



I agree - both that it's a sketch or summary, not a total description of how the game works; and that there are some posters who treat it as if it were a statement of the rules for play.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> there are some who just do it strictly to exploit the rules in some way shape or form and will brook absolutely no other interpretation of anything that interferes with their PC.  You ask them about their PC backstory and they say "Far Traveler so I can get Perception since its great for my PC."



To me, that doesn't look like _exploiting_ the rules. Why would a player choose a background that gives abilities they _don't_ want?

And how is it "powergaming" to choose proficiency in Perception? What skill choices _aren't_ powergaming?



smbakeresq said:


> Every power gamer I know who played old module A4 loved it and it changed their style.  In that module, you start with no equipment and little clothes and nothing else and must get out of the prison before a Volcano explodes and kills you.  Its strictly good gameplay and imagination to not die.  Look it up and read the module, you might like it.



A4 is an interesting idea in the context of a game that emphasises PC equipment load outs and spell load outs as the main suites of player resources. So it was interesting in the context of classic D&D.

But there are a lot of approaches to RPGing in which the main action of play is not about managing those sorts of resources, and in which setting up a situation which is all about turning stalactites into makeshift spears is just tedious rather than fun play.



Arial Black said:


> I totally agree that this conversation is how the game actually works in practice.
> 
> My point has never been that it's 100% player or DM when talking about how the game actually occurs at real tables. My point is about who comes up with the PC's fluff, player or DM. It's the player. The DM doesn't create it, the player does.
> 
> ...



Seeing as the thread seems to have moved to a point where posters are expressing their views about what makes for good RPGing, I'll express mine.

I think that, while you may be right about the default way to approach RPGing, I think it tends to make for mediocre RPG experiences, and is the source of a lot of the conflict that I seem to read about on these boards between players and their referees.

_Every decision a player makes about his/her PC_ - both in backstory, and in play - has implications for the wider gameworld. Eg if a player makes decisions about his/her PC's parentage, that is already determining that reproduction in the gameworld - both biological and social aspects - proceeds in ways similar to  the real world. If a player declares as an action "I look for a secret door" that forces the GM to confront the question of the forms that architecture takes in the gameworld.

So if we start from a premise that the GM controls "everything else", we're setting ourselves on a direct course for conflict, railroading, "player entitlement", etc.

Similarly, if the GM is never allowed to tell a player how his/her PC feels _unless a NPC uses a spell_, huge swathes of fiction are precluded. When Frodo feels weary in Morder, that's not because Sauron cast an Emotion spell on him. When Lancelot feels passion for Guinevere, or - in the movie version - when Aragorn feels shame before Arwen about his human heritage - those aren't magical effects.

And it's hardly a feature of new-fangled systems that they allow for non-magical emotional consequences to occur to PCs. In Classic Traveller (1977) PCs are subject to morale checks. In the early 90s, when we player Rolemaster, either I as GM or the players for their PCs would call for rolls on the Depression critical table (RMC III) when a PC experienced some sort of trauma like the death of a loved one.

As I posted upthread, the heart of RPGing is collectively establishing a shared fiction, with the players contributing by declaring moves for and about their PCs. If everyone agrees with a proposal as to how the fiction changes ("I walk across the room and open the door") then lo-and-behold!, that's now true in the shared fiction. If there is some sort of contention, then the rules of the game tell us how to sort it out. If those rules give unilateral power to the GM, then it's not a game that I want to play, but let's be upfront about that and not pretend that the players also have some sacrosacnt sphere of power. But if the rules don't just say "GM fiat", then I can't see any way in which they're going to preserve some sort of "players control PCs, GM controls the world" demarcation.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I imagine different posters are going to have different takes as to what a "valid reason" is.  The poster who labeled their game as a "DMocracy" is probably going to have a more expansive take on valid reasons than you or I might.




One day I'd like to run a dMOCKracy game.  It ought to be fun for everyone.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> No, that would be unutterably wrong!
> 
> What this DM is trying to do is control what the PC does using their perfectly valid choice of class to take the player's agency away. This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do.
> 
> The _player_ decides what their PC does. Not the DM, and not the DM hiding behind the excuse of 'the patron made me do it'!




You and I have agreed on most things here, but I'm going to disagree with you on this one.  @_*5ekyu*_ stated that he was wondering if a player *would take him up* on that idea.  If the player agrees to that idea, 1) the player is probably going to enjoy it or he wouldn't be taking him up on it, and 2) has given the DM permission to influence the PCs actions in that manner, making that influence no different than a mind control spell of some sort.  This is a totally fine way to play in my opinion.

As an aside, I do find it ironic that you declared something dealing with the Old Ones as unutterably wrong.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You and I have agreed on most things here, but I'm going to disagree with you on this one.  @_*5ekyu*_ stated that he was wondering if a player *would take him up* on that idea.  If the player agrees to that idea, 1) the player is probably going to enjoy it or he wouldn't be taking him up on it, and 2) has given the DM permission to influence the PCs actions in that manner, making that influence no different than a mind control spell of some sort.  This is a totally fine way to play in my opinion.
> 
> As an aside, I do find it ironic that you declared something dealing with the Old Ones as unutterably wrong.



And you also chose to see influence not control which I thought the explicit statement of them being free to act on the event or not (like other warlocks) made clear.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I have tried over the years, most just are not interested.  The same type of personality that breeds the die hard power gamer also makes them resistant to any outside influence, it’s socially dominant authoritarianism.  They consider the DM “against” them as opposed to referee and theatre director.
> 
> I am talking about adults by the way, not kids who are a blast to DM for.




So you are triggered by your bad experience of players. So are some others in this thread.

To be fair, some are triggered by their bad experience of DMs. I'm one of them.

But what we should ALL be wary of is assuming that the player (or DM) WILL be a jerk!

The quote above is typical of that attitude. It shows that you believe that ANY MC of paladin and warlock MUST be a powergame exploit, and ANY fluff is merely an excuse to get away with it! There's no _way_ that such a player is actually an honest _role_-player!

This tells us more about *you* than it does about them.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The way I see it is this:
> 
> You - “Hey DM I got a PC concept.  Ok what I did was reflavor Paladin so it’s divine smite and divine spells are from a non-divine source, so I changed that, however they keep their effectiveness.  I am leaving that class after I get the level 2 features that are important, divine smite and fighting style.  I will go into warlock so I can use CHR for my main attack stat and my Patron will the Fiend.  Now I reflavored the Fiend to be able to give me all abilities of a Paladin and also all the warlock stuff, even though patrons are not divine, so I changed that also. Since the Fiend is tricking me into believing he is Odin the God, I need you to rule that Odin wouldn’t mind at all.  Also, I can’t run into any people who actual worship Odin because they might realize something is amiss as the Fiend probably wont be a perfect imitation of Odin.  Also this has nothing to do power gaming my PC it’s all story driven even though I didn’t work it out with you first.
> 
> ...




And here you go again!

Yeah, you _could_ view my PC's background through a cynical lens of "ALL Pal/War players are powergaming munchkins and their fluff only exists to try and excuse badness", but again, that says more about you than it does me.

Yes, I went into a lot of detail. It's what I do, even with single class PCs.*

But here's the rub: I didn't have to go to _any trouble at all_ in order to get that Pal/War. I know that all the PHB classes are available, I know that MCing is allowed in this campaign, therefore the only 'excuse' I need is to show up with a RAW Pal/War. Job done. No 'excuses' necessary.

* players who play single class PCs are only doing so as a powergame exploit. ANY fluff is _obviously_ just a ploy to excuse their power-grabbing badness, transparently reaching for that Capstone power. [/deadpan]


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I think Paladins are very good and great fun to play with the right DM.  By right I mean enforces your Oath and alignment and pushes you into moral dilemmas for which you need to find creative solutions for or are stripped of powers and forced to quest to atone for ( a personal dangerous adventure.)




Any DM who sees the word 'paladin' on a character sheet who is then triggered to do their utmost to try and strip their RAW abilities away is showing themselves to be the *wrong* DM!


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> So you are triggered by your bad experience of players. So are some others in this thread.
> 
> To be fair, some are triggered by their bad experience of DMs. I'm one of them.
> 
> ...




I agree.  In the current 5e game that I am playing in, I play an Oath of the Ancients Paladin, as that fit best for the god that he follows, not so much for the fey aspect.  The DM is running a story that he got from a book that he read, and in it are some artifacts that are needed for the quest.  One of them is a chalice that I drank from that allowed me to basically form the equivalent of a pact with an angel of the god that I follow, and that pact gave me a few nifty unique abilities. 

I could completely see warlock fitting as a multiclass option for my PC based purely on the RP that has gone down already.  The pact wouldn't conflict with my being a paladin, but would instead just be an extension of it.  I'm not going to do that, since I'm still learning 5e as a player and I do that best by focusing on one class at a time until I know it well, but it's still there as an option that has nothing to do with power gaming whatsoever.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 20, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> I'll let someone else rebut the other points, but I couldn't let this pass. At no point was this ever hinted or suggested in any way, shape, or form. In fact, should he meet a "real" worshiper of Odin, that just exploded an entire world of opportunity for roleplaying, exploration (trying to figure out who he _really _works for), conflict, etc. More than likely, the player would _love _the plot points, since they show the DM is interacting with his backstory in a very tangible way.
> 
> Your claim that he somehow limited the DM on how s/he presents Odin is unsubstantiated by what was actually said.




The idea was that The Fiend wanted to corrupt the paladin, but only slowly. Corrupting the paladin too quickly means a corrupted 3rd level guy. The fiend wants to (finally) corrupt him when he's a _high_ level guy. So much more tasty!

So the imp (disguised as Odin's raven) has to subtly influence to PC into darker and darker solutions to his problems. Since the PC has the pirate background and is impersonating his own dead pirate captain (by wearing his magical full plate and using Mask of Many Faces to chilling effect when the visor is open), and pretending to be an *evil* pirate who is eliminating other pirates because he doesn't want the competition, while actually being a _good_ pirate who is out to eliminate the _real_ pirates, especially the one's who murdered the guy my PC now pretends to be, the raven/imp will have plenty of opportunities to do that subtle nudging toward evil.

Plenty for me and the DM to work with. What's more, the DM is free to do whatever he wants. He could even totally ignore that backstory and have the party delve dungeons for no reason.

For me, the work I do on the backgrounds of ALL my PCs (not just the Pal/War variety!) has value for me as a player and potentially for the DM, if they want. I like that better than just turning up with a Pal/War (or ANY PC) with no backstory named, er, Bob, because I don't care, I just want to kill imaginary goblins and steal imaginary gold pieces.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To me, that doesn't look like _exploiting_ the rules. Why would a player choose a background that gives abilities they _don't_ want?
> 
> And how is it "powergaming" to choose proficiency in Perception? What skill choices _aren't_ powergaming?
> 
> ...




How this fits into what I'm saying; first, cooperation is best, no-one disagrees with that.

Second, sure the DM can say "you feel angry". But I, the player of that PC, can say "Actually, I was expecting this so I don't feel angry, but I'll pretend to, just to let him think he's riled me".

Or, I can go with it.

It's up to me.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 20, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> And you also chose to see influence not control which I thought the explicit statement of them being free to act on the event or not (like other warlocks) made clear.




I must admit that when I read it I understood it as 'DM control'. That's what got the 'worst thing a DM can do' response.

Perhaps I misunderstood.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 20, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> I must admit that when I read it I understood it as 'DM control'. That's what got the 'worst thing a DM can do' response.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstood.




Basically, he's saying that when the being he has a pact with gets angry, he tells the warlock "You feel angry right now."  It's then completely up to the player how he roleplays that.  He can sulk in a corner.  Yell at someone.  Punch a wall.  Seethe in silent anger.  Bury it so no one knows.  And on and on.  

As I mentioned above, as there is an in game reason for that influence(like charm, etc.), and as the player had buy-in for it to be a part of this warlock, there's nothing bad about this idea.

I think you got triggered by the bad DM experience you mentioned and didn't fully take in what he was saying.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To me, that doesn't look like _exploiting_ the rules. Why would a player choose a background that gives abilities they _don't_ want?
> 
> And how is it "powergaming" to choose proficiency in Perception? What skill choices _aren't_ powergaming?
> 
> ...





Many good points.  Let me start with this:

"*Gamesmanship* is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport. It has been described as "Pushing the rules to the limit without getting caught, using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end".  It may be inferred that the term derives from the idea of playing for the game (i.e., to win at any cost) as opposed to ​sportsmanship, which derives from the idea of playing for sport."​

I posted in another thread but the idea is the same.  There is this idea among some players that D&D is a competition, of which the only goal is to win, and gamesmanship is completely applicable.  "Anything that gives my PC an advantage that is not specifically prohibited by the rules is fair game and necessary on my path to victory."  We all see these people, the people who believe the "DM should be completely neutral and just follow the rules" but completely miss the long hold rule (and most other stuff that's bad for them) that its the DM call and its final.  It isn't a competition, players don't "beat" the DM.  Technically the DM never "wins:" if the group survives and finishes the adventures the DM played the losing side, if the DM kills them all the group has to start over (a loss for everyone) and if the DM miscalculates something and it results in a TPK the players say "What the hell was that?"

In addition, its not a "rule" but the PHB states in its "fluff" text "There’s no winning and losing in the D u n g e o n s & D r a g o n s game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the D M and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."  To some it seems "I made a decision about my PC without any DM input and therefore the DM must allow it otherwise he is gaining an advantage on me to win."   The DM is the director and set manager of a improv theatre, the players are all actors and assistant directors.  Your DM isn't trying to beat you, he isn't the enemy, every single advantage isn't needed against the DM since the DM isn't against you.  If a DM makes a decision adverse to your PC it isn't a slight, or insult, or the DM trying to get the upper-hand. This game is about sportsmanship:

*"Sportsmanship* is an aspiration or ethos that a ​sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for ​fairness, ​ethics, ​respect, and a sense of ​fellowship with one's competitors."​
How many times have you played and see the DM miss something that bad for your PC and you stepped in to remind the DM?  For example you see the DM roll a single d20 and state "The giant attacks you, he misses" and the PC reminds the DM "Wait, that attack should have been with advantage due to my condition, you should roll twice."  its a group game

What I see here in some cases is players MC to gain a perceived advantage in a competition that doesn't exist against an enemy that isn't there.  If you want to optimize your PC go ahead, but remember from the PHB "Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation."  I understand that is not a "rule" as it is in the preface, but it is still relevant.  If you come up with a great idea, the collaborate.  If the DM doesn't see it your way he isn't trying to screw you.

Like I said I would allow and break MC rules for an MC idea as long as you have a good backstory and good idea on how it all fits together.  I don't think players should think of a perfect mechanical, optimized build and then try to shoe horn a 5 minute backstory to justify something, especially if utterly resistant to all input from their DM.  I am not against the hexblade builds at all (I don't think they are OP) what I am against is "I heard this build is great so I am going to play it and I don't care how its fits into the DMs world."  In all these pages I have yet to see any really good ideas on the backstory and creation of the infamous hexblade/paladin builds, and in a specific thread on hexblade/paladin MC the author flatly stated they just don't care about any backstory or RP its all about the optimizing the power levels.

Arial Blacks idea was actually the closest to a plausible idea.  The biggest problem I had was the Player is "in" on the PC deception, he knew from the beginning his PC was being deceived and tricked and used that to get the MC he wanted without any repercussions of course.  To me that's like starting off as a Paladin and just planning your downfall without consulting your DM just so you can get into the Oathbreaker oath, which is DM controlled: "At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide."  It seems to me the DM needs to be in on that from the very beginning, starting with "I want to try out the Oathbreaker option, what are the ideas that fit into the campaign so we can make this work for everyone."

Its mostly just stylistic differences, but to me its more important in a MC build, which is a big decision in a PC life.  If you tell your DM in advance, he can have a triggering event that can help the class switch along and be plausible.  As an example, look at Conan the Barbarian movie, he starts off as a Barbarian, gets captured and sold into slavery and then gets formal weapon training (dipping into fighter class) and then in his travels meets a witch who leads him to meet a rogue archer, who appears to teach him some roguish ways.  There are myriad examples of this in literature and in peoples minds also.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 20, 2018)

"There is this idea among some players that D&D is a competition, of which the only goal is to win, and gamesmanship is completely applicable. "Anything that gives my PC an advantage that is not specifically prohibited by the rules is fair game and necessary on my path to victory." "

One of my opening schticks is "Don't come to this game seeing it as if you are competing with me. i am not competing with you. its not that type of game where i win if you lose. You should by all means have your characters compete with some of my characters. heck some of my characters are going to be trying to kill you, others to rob you, others to use you, others to get to what you are after first and others to just do stuff you do not want to see done. I also hope you will have your characters cooperate with some of my characters. Some will be trying to help you, others to hire you others will need you and so on. All those should be done in character and choices made that way. Which way you go is up to you."

"But,  if you are looking for beating me then you are likely not going to be happy. Many of the "fights" wont be even matches. Some will be and some will be very tough. but a lot will be easier than "competitive" and others might be harder than "competitive" and hopefully you can choose the right ones at the right time in the right way."


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> I'll let someone else rebut the other points, but I couldn't let this pass. At no point was this ever hinted or suggested in any way, shape, or form. In fact, should he meet a "real" worshiper of Odin, that just exploded an entire world of opportunity for roleplaying, exploration (trying to figure out who he _really _works for), conflict, etc. More than likely, the player would _love _the plot points, since they show the DM is interacting with his backstory in a very tangible way.
> 
> Your claim that he somehow limited the DM on how s/he presents Odin is unsubstantiated by what was actually said.




Really?  This was said  

"_* we know that The Fiend is capable of granting 9th level spells_

_* we know that arcane/divine are not rules terms in 5e_

_* we know that some fiends, like Lolth for example, are both fiend AND god_

_* Odin doesn't know about this fiend messing with this paladin; gods are not omniscient in D&D_

_* paladins don't necessarily gain their abilities from a god_

_* I go into similar levels of detail for EVERY PC I create. I explain whatever abilities they have, and the ideas come from me._​
You are correct that he didn't explicitly state that.  But he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.)  He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC. 

You don't think that's limiting on how the DM presents Odin?


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Warpiglet said:


> Fair enough.  My preference is for a CHARACTER to have character and multiclassing or not is secondary.  As for starting the thread and my arguments afterwards, I am actually in the camp of preferring minimal cheese and all of that.
> 
> However, I am not immune to some desire for power or ability.  For example, i thought of playing a ranger/druid and really enjoying the ability to swing a big hammer while fighting alongside some conjured creatures.
> 
> ...




Correct  Your preference for Characters to have Character is to be applauded and rewarded at the table.  In your posts you always have an RP idea first, then build from there.  IMO this is the best way.  Others think different.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Really?  This was said
> 
> "_* we know that The Fiend is capable of granting 9th level spells_
> _* we know that arcane/divine are not rules terms in 5e_
> ...



_

_Which has nothing to do with Odin, so my point remains.

_



			* Odin doesn't know about this fiend messing with this paladin; gods are not omniscient in D&D
		
Click to expand...


_
Which is pretty much standard. But it's worth noting that he only mentioned that there is nothing inherently within D&D that says that Odin must know, and only said this in response to your allegation, not as a part of the core presentation/paradigm.

_



			* paladins don't necessarily gain their abilities from a god
		
Click to expand...


_


> _* I go into similar levels of detail for EVERY PC I create. I explain whatever abilities they have, and the ideas come from me._



Back to having nothing to do with Odin, which is what I was calling you out on. ​


> You are correct that he didn't explicitly state that.  But he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.)  He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC.




Again, as pointed out above, he only said this responsively. Which means it was part of a conversation. It was not part of the core paradigm.

So yeah.. you are definitely being disingenuous if you really want to claim that his core backstory as presented (prior to the -for-tat dickering that followed) was "forcing" the DM to present Odin in a particular way. And even if it was, it certainly was not forcing the presentation of Odin that you originally claimed in your post that I was responding to.  Good conversations require integrity, not disingenuity.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> You are correct that he didn't explicitly state that.  But he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.)  He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC.
> 
> You don't think that's limiting on how the DM presents Odin?



I think the crux of the disagreement is if I go the DM and say "Hey, I have an idea of a character with background X, and that background would need these certain ideas to be implemented in the campaign setting," there's nothing wrong with creating the background with the presumption that the DM will be willing to play along.  You should be ready, willing, and able to write a backstory that references setting elements that you've created out of whole cloth.  

Now, the DM might have a conflict.  Maybe an element you referenced directly contradicts an important part of his overall concept.  Or there's an element of play the DM would like to highlight that would align well with your background if you change a few details.  That's all well and good.  But gameplay is overall improved for everyone if the DM takes ideas the players present and says "Yea, I can run with this" even if it means he has to change some details of his headcanon.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> You are correct that he didn't explicitly state that.  But he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.)  He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC.
> 
> You don't think that's limiting on how the DM presents Odin?



 That raises an interesting question. Are there any published D&D settings around in which the gods like Odin _are _omniscient?


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> [/I][/FONT][/COLOR]Which has nothing to do with Odin, so my point remains.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_


Now you are insulting me and questioning my integrity and calling me out.   He presented those things as his CORE PARADIGM, as absolute statements of fact in the campaign.  Yes you modified your answer to delete those statements about Odin that I was %100 correct on and then claimed that you were making a general response, so NO your arguments do not stand.   THATS disingenuous.    

That's the end of it, don't respond anymore as it is relevant to the thread.  If you want to insult me do it in a PM so it doesn't derail the thread anymore.  If Black had a problem he would have mentioned it to me, he didn't.  Move on._


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I think the crux of the disagreement is if I go the DM and say "Hey, I have an idea of a character with background X, and that background would need these certain ideas to be implemented in the campaign setting," there's nothing wrong with creating the background with the presumption that the DM will be willing to play along.  You should be ready, willing, and able to write a backstory that references setting elements that you've created out of whole cloth.
> 
> Now, the DM might have a conflict.  Maybe an element you referenced directly contradicts an important part of his overall concept.  Or there's an element of play the DM would like to highlight that would align well with your background if you change a few details.  That's all well and good.  But gameplay is overall improved for everyone if the DM takes ideas the players present and says "Yea, I can run with this" even if it means he has to change some details of his headcanon.





Correct, I said this many times in various ways and was told I was wrong and called disingenuous. What some players want to say is its my PC so it has to be this way.

BTW I would clearly accommodate almost anything as long it wasn't completely unfair.  Off the wall is fine though.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Now you are insulting me and questioning my integrity and calling me out.   He presented those things as his CORE PARADIGM, as absolute statements of fact in the campaign.  Yes you modified your answer to delete those statements about Odin that I was %100 correct on and then claimed that you were making a general response, so NO your arguments do not stand.   THATS disingenuous.
> 
> That's the end of it, don't respond anymore as it is relevant to the thread.  If you want to insult me do it in a PM so it doesn't derail the thread anymore.  If Black had a problem he would have mentioned it to me, he didn't.  Move on.




Don't tell me not to respond. You are insulting my Player Agency!  Or is it threatening my DM adjudication? Or just telling me how to play?  Make up your mind.

And I - if you read my first post to you - clearly delimited exactly what I was addressing, and in the last response clearly demonstrated that you were building straw-men that assumed much that was not in evidence. So yes, you are being disingenuous. And this is entirely relevant to the thread, since you are harping on his "forcing the DM to do things" when his actual proposal did not in fact do what you were claiming it did. Those are the facts. Your disingenuity is what is derailing an otherwise useful conversation, not my corrections.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> That raises an interesting question. Are there any published D&D settings around in which the gods like Odin _are _omniscient?[/QUOTE
> 
> I don't know.  However I have never seen any that say as an absolute rule that "gods in D&D are not omniscient."  I would think its up to the DM as to what gods are used and what their knowledge level is.  In the Deities and Demigods book there was various references in each pantheon as to what each god knows, but IDR any blanket statement.  I do remember a few that are neat though, the God Math gave himself the power to hear whenever his own name is spoken, and Death in Newhon (I think) instantly knows the entire life of any being he even glances at.
> 
> ...


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

I wish people who are not attorneys stop using the phrase "assuming facts not in evidence" if you are not an attorney.  It is a term of art, its a name of specific objection, not a general catchall phrase. Here is a list of objections for people who wish to know and the proper place and time to use them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objection_(United_States_law)#List_of_objections


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I wish people who are not attorneys stop using the phrase "assuming facts not in evidence" if you are not an attorney.  It is a term of art, its a name of specific objection, not a general catchall phrase. Here is a list of objections for people who wish to know and the proper place and time to use them:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objection_(United_States_law)#List_of_objections




I wish that people who were attorneys would act with integrity.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 20, 2018)

I wpuld not say one way or the other if Odin is Omniscient or not - likely varies by setting. 

But the Fiend-Paladin of Odin thing creates a pretty binary choice to the Gm.

Either 

Odin doesnt know and isnt omniscient

Or

Odin does know and is ok with it and allows it to continue

Well ok maybe a third...

Odin knows, is not ok with it but is unable to do anything about it.

Those seem to be presenting the GM with a very small number of choices for his divinity npc and frankly should be only IMO arrived at by mutual agreement, not by player side fiat. 

Mutual agreement requires both sides to also be able to say "no" and be acceptable in doing so or its not really agreement.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> I wish that people who were attorneys would act with integrity.




more then you will ever have.


Dont derail the thread further.  Have the balls to PM me.

BYE


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 20, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I wpuld not say one way or the other if Odin is Omniscient or not - likely varies by setting.
> 
> But the Fiend-Paladin of Odin thing creates a pretty binary choice to the Gm.
> 
> ...



To be fair, "Odin is omniscient" or "Odin is not omniscient" is pretty much the definition of a binary choice.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> more then you will ever have.
> 
> 
> Dont derail the thread further.  Have the balls to PM me.
> ...




Quite posting disingenuous posts and I wont' have to correct them. Lack of integrity is what derails threads.  You can feel free to PM me, since you seem to want me so badly. I'll settle for you just showing a little integrity.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I wish people who are not attorneys stop using the phrase "assuming facts not in evidence" if you are not an attorney.  It is a term of art, its a name of specific objection, not a general catchall phrase. Here is a list of objections for people who wish to know and the proper place and time to use them:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objection_(United_States_law)#List_of_objections




i wish for whirled peas. 

my bet is i will get my wish first.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 20, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> To be fair, "Odin is omniscient" or "Odin is not omniscient" is pretty much the definition of a binary choice.



It really doesn't matter either way in this situation anyway. Even if he's not omniscient, he might still know from any of  the myriad ways gods learn stuff. Heck, a raven might have found itself thinking it was courting with another raven, only to discover she was flirting with an the imp. I'll leave the details to your imagination, although my whole reason for this post is to plant that seed in your brain. Anyway, news of this strange event could reach Odin's ears, and lead him to discover the gullible paladin's hapless circumstance.


What really matters is if Odin cares. And then even if he cares, what's he gonna do about it? As a DM, I see some fun opportunities there as a DM. 


(And on a side note, I can state unequivocally that Odin's not omniscient. I've watched the Xena episodes where he appears.)


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 20, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> To be fair, "Odin is omniscient" or "Odin is not omniscient" is pretty much the definition of a binary choice.




agreed but again the source is that its allowed and this leads to the three cases outlined. thats why i added the third to my "pretty binary" start.

Can't discount odin might be a whimp.

Again, most of these really seem to be wanting to edeificate (??) the gods of the campaign thru player mandated fluff. not a take i normally assign to fluff.

As i said earlier, in my games, some classes have baggage and ties to NPCs. if you dont want that play other classes. I find the folks who want strong ties to others can play those classes quite well. they will thrive with them and work the ties between them and their patron/god/temple into the story play and make it shine. Those players that see it as a burden or worse a threat - please play something else!!!


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 20, 2018)

I wish they'd revive Xena.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I wpuld not say one way or the other if Odin is Omniscient or not - likely varies by setting.
> 
> But the Fiend-Paladin of Odin thing creates a pretty binary choice to the Gm.
> 
> ...





The biggest DM problem in a general sense is Omniscience.  If some being is omniscient then in a sense the DM is always metagaming the players, which probably isn't good for the table.  It also rules out even a god-like being every being able to get one over on that god.  

In the instant case this could be resolved by Odin knowing what is going on, allowing it to continue, then showing himself to the PC and telling the PC exactly what is being done to them and by whom. To me this presents the PC with a choice of

1.  going along with it, so keep advancing in Warlock class but cutting off Paladin class:

2.  rejection and revenge against the patron but not siding with the real Odin (for tricking the PC.) For the Rejection and Revenge angle, the vengeance paladin path would now be open, and then freezing warlock levels at whatever they are, saying the PC still has the spark of The Fiend for those powers (but not at too many levels)​
3.  or a new path with the actual Odin using 2 above or some other idea.  Maybe conversion of the warlock to paladin levels if they wish.  Have to work this out with the player.  Any paladin path could be good now.  An interesting idea would be an Iron Tyrant opposing The Fiend in every way possible.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Quite posting disingenuous posts and I wont' have to correct them. Lack of integrity is what derails threads.  You can feel free to PM me, since you seem to want me so badly. I'll settle for you just showing a little integrity.




Show any.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Show any.




Well since I started this thread pointing out you misrepresenting another player, I already have. You have yet to acknowledge that you lied. So, after you!


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> It really doesn't matter either way in this situation anyway. Even if he's not omniscient, he might still know from any of  the myriad ways gods learn stuff. Heck, a raven might have found itself thinking it was courting with another raven, only to discover she was flirting with an the imp. I'll leave the details to your imagination, although my whole reason for this post is to plant that seed in your brain. Anyway, news of this strange event could reach Odin's ears, and lead him to discover the gullible paladin's hapless circumstance.
> 
> 
> What really matters is if Odin cares. And then even if he cares, what's he gonna do about it? As a DM, I see some fun opportunities there as a DM.
> ...




Its also entirely possible he could just be busy.  It also could be the situation as it stands just happens to align with what Odin wants anyway.  

You could actually have Odin subvert the PC to act as planted agent in The Fiends organization. Or have the PC do it all to get free, like Gabriel Byrne in Millers Crossing.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Its also entirely possible he could just be busy.  It also could be the situation as it stands just happens to align with what Odin wants anyway.
> 
> You could actually have Odin subvert the PC to act as planted agent in The Fiends organization.  Like Gabriel Byrne in Millers Crossing.



This gets back to "odin knows and is ok with it."

Hmm... Some fiend is tricking olaf. Olaf was never the sharpest spoon in the drawer. Lets let this play out a while to test Olaf's spooniness and let the fiend show its intentions. Alexa, set an alarm for "olaf goes off the rails". *Alarm set for day ending in Y.*

Now where is that raccoon with my eye?


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Well since I started this thread pointing out you misrepresenting another player, I already have. You have yet to acknowledge that you lied. So, after you!




I didn't, and in no way was your response proof that I did.  It wasn't really even a cogent argument (look that up.)  I also sent you a PM with a few thoughts, then stated you would run here since you have no response.  You did.  Stop derailing the thread.

BTW the thread started 70+ pages before your joined and was doing fine.  Your presence isn't necessary, you can go now.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

And whoever said whirled peas, I dont know what they are.  

I do know mushy peas, and they are great, but cant get them really outside of England.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 20, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Quite posting disingenuous posts and I wont' have to correct them. Lack of integrity is what derails threads.  You can feel free to PM me, since you seem to want me so badly. I'll settle for you just showing a little integrity.




Don't get too worked up over him, as I am sure that comment of his got several people to report him to the mods.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Don't get too worked up over him, as I am sure that comment of his got several people to report him to the mods.




Actually zero. 

I like contribution to the thread.  What was it again?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Actually zero.
> 
> I like contribution to the thread.  What was it again?



You, um, are not notified when people report your post.  I'd hold off assuming facts not in evidence on this one.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> more then you will ever have.
> 
> 
> Dont derail the thread further.  Have the balls to PM me.
> ...





Hm.  Insulting.  Making it personal.  Giving orders.  Being rude.  

Yes, BYE.  You are done here.  Please don't post in this thread again.

If you wish to discuss this, please PM me, or another member of the moderating staff.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 20, 2018)

With the whole Odin vs. the fiend thing, I've always thought of Odin as someone that takes the long view, he could quite possibly be fine with what the fiend is doing because he has plots and plans that will unravel the fiends plans in the end restoring Odin's champion to his rightful place.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 20, 2018)

"And whoever said whirled peas, I dont know what they are. "

When i make them, it invilvoes butter, evaporated milk or heavy cream, a bit of salt and garlic and possibly mushrooms.

While i find them quite tasty, i cannot fathom how they are so popular among beauty contest contestants because so many of them say they hope for whirled peas when their QnA section comes up. maybe its the fasting thing and they are ready for the post-pageant chow down.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 21, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> There is this idea among some players that D&D is a competition, of which the only goal is to win, and gamesmanship is completely applicable.  "Anything that gives my PC an advantage that is not specifically prohibited by the rules is fair game and necessary on my path to victory."



I don't know if you've read Gary Gygax's advice on "successful adventuring" in the closing pages of his PHB (before the Appendices). It contains advice on planning party composition, equipment load outs, spell load outs, magic item selection, all of which is oriented to "winning" (ie successfully exploring and looting the dungeon) and none of which pertains to "fluff" or characterisation or anything of that sort.

There is also advice on how to avoid being distracted or misled by the various lures and "tricks" the GM places in his/her dungeon.

I don't play D&D in that Gygaxian style, but there is certainly a long tradition of it: it was the original way of playing the game.



smbakeresq said:


> We all see these people, the people who believe the "DM should be completely neutral and just follow the rules" but completely miss the long hold rule (and most other stuff that's bad for them) that its the DM call and its final.  It isn't a competition, players don't "beat" the DM.



But in Gygaxian play they do beat the GM's dungeon. And in this style of play the GM _should_ be neutral - once the dungeon is mapped out and stocked, the GM's role is to be a neutral arbiter (like a wargame referee - hence those early terms for GMs "referee" and "judge").

To reiterate, I don't play Gygaxian D&D, but I don't deny that it's a real thing. I do think that the tend in the modern game to shift the emphasis in respect of preparation from equipment and spell load out to mechanical minutiae of PC build complicates this sort of wargaming play, and makes it more prone to breaking, but that's really a separate point.



smbakeresq said:


> What I see here in some cases is players MC to gain a perceived advantage in a competition that doesn't exist against an enemy that isn't there.



In modern D&D (really beginning with Players' Options in the mid-to-late 90s, and consolidated with 3E) _all_ _all_ PC building is apt to be aimed at gaining an advantage. Just like, in the classic game, choosing equipment and choosing spell load outs was assumed by Gygax to be aimed at gaining an advantage. It's part of how someone builds up their player-side resources to gives themselves the best chance at beating the challenges the game will confront them with.

No doubt back in 1978 there was someone who built a fighter PC wearing leather armour and wielding a shortsword because s/he thought it was cool, even though it was - in mechanical terms - quite suboptimal. Not everyone followed Gygax's advice. Likewise, today, I'm sure there are plenty of 5e players who choose PC build elements not because they think they are mechanically effective but because they like the "flavour" (what it means to like the flavour of a feat or a spell - which is primarily a mechanical rather than a story element - is a further question that I put to one side for the moment). But there are clearly many others who _don't_ choose in that way.

Choosing a multi-class option because it is mechanically effective doesn't seem to me any more or less outrageous than choosing for your fighter to use a longsword rather than a mace, or choosing for your MU to prepare spells in the morning rather than take the day off and go around with no spells prepped, or choosing for your thief to take the Mobility feat because it will help you set up your sneak attacks, or whatever else.



smbakeresq said:


> Technically the DM never "wins:"



That's because, even in Gygaxian play, the GM is a judge, not a competitor. But the GM in that sort of play can feel satisfaction if his/her tricks, mazes, etc cause trouble for or outwit the players!



smbakeresq said:


> if the DM kills them all the group has to start over (a loss for everyone)



In Gygaxian play this is not a loss for the GM. The GM doesn't lose because the players had to roll up new PCs.



smbakeresq said:


> if the DM miscalculates something and it results in a TPK the players say "What the hell was that?"



Again, you are making assumptions about approaches to play that don't hold good in all styles. In Gygaxian play there are conventions that govern creature placement in dungeons (the deeper the level, the more dangerous the monsters) - so if a GM departs widly and capriciously from those conventions, then the players can justly call it a killer dungeon. But if the GM builds a dungeon that conforms to the conventions, then a TPK is on the players - they should have scouted better, or tried to escape when they started losing, etc.

In my 4e game, there was a "TPK" at 3rd level when the PCs were defeated by a mechanically fair although deceptively framed encounter. That's a possible consequence of playing a game with wargame-style combat resolution. (I put "TPK" in inverted commas because, in fact, only 2 PCs died while the other 3 found themselves taken prisoner - zero hp in 4e doesn't have to mean literal death.)



smbakeresq said:


> The DM is the director and set manager of a improv theatre, the players are all actors and assistant directors.



That's one style of play - where everything ultimately is decided by the GM with other participants having the right to make suggestions. It's along way from how I prefer to play and GM, though.



smbakeresq said:


> How many times have you played and see the DM miss something that bad for your PC and you stepped in to remind the DM?



I can't remember in my own case, as I GM far more than I play. But me and my players do our best to remember all applicable modifiers. When we're playing Cortex+, for instance, players will remind me to include their stress dice in my pools if I've forgotten to do so.

There's a significant difference, in my view, between playing hard and pushing for advantage to the extent that the rules of the game permit, and cheating or deception.



smbakeresq said:


> Like I said I would allow and break MC rules for an MC idea as long as you have a good backstory and good idea on how it all fits together.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The biggest problem I had was the Player is "in" on the PC deception, he knew from the beginning his PC was being deceived and tricked and used that to get the MC he wanted without any repercussions of course.  To me that's like starting off as a Paladin and just planning your downfall without consulting your DM just so you can get into the Oathbreaker oath, which is DM controlled: "At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide."  It seems to me the DM needs to be in on that from the very beginning, starting with "I want to try out the Oathbreaker option, what are the ideas that fit into the campaign so we can make this work for everyone."



As I said, I find the approach of the GM opening up or closing off options because s/he likes or doesn't like the player's idea unappealing.

If the option is mechanically broken - an error in the game design - then the group should be able to agree not to go there regardless of the quality of any backstory. And if the option is not mechanically broken, then a player is entitled to choose it like any other option even if s/he is not very imaginative in relation to PC backstory.

As far as  [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]'s idea is concerned, I didn't see any issues with it and I don't understand your complaint. If it would be fine if the GM invented it, why is it suddenly a problem because the player invented it?



smbakeresq said:


> he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.)  He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC.
> 
> You don't think that's limiting on how the DM presents Odin?



When players play devout characters - in D&D that's mostly clerics and paladins - I assume that they are capable of taking the lead on what the god is about, what it means to be faithful or unfaithful, etc. If I have my own ideas I met inject them with due care, but I've got enough to think about when running a game without also managing a player's implementation of his/her PC's religous conscience.



smbakeresq said:


> The biggest DM problem in a general sense is Omniscience.  If some being is omniscient then in a sense the DM is always metagaming the players, which probably isn't good for the table.  It also rules out even a god-like being every being able to get one over on that god.
> 
> In the instant case this could be resolved by Odin knowing what is going on, allowing it to continue, then showing himself to the PC and telling the PC exactly what is being done to them and by whom. To me this presents the PC with a choice of
> 
> ...



Or there is the even easier option, which Arial Black already suggested, of assuming that Odin doesn't know that this would-be worshipper is being tricked. I'm missing the reason not to go along with the player's idea for his/her PC.



Grognerd said:


> you are definitely being disingenuous if you really want to claim that his core backstory as presented <snippage> was "forcing" the DM to present Odin in a particular way. And even if it was, it certainly was not forcing the presentation of Odin that you originally claimed in your post that I was responding to.



As per my long-ish post a few pages upthread, I want to push a bit on this.

The idea that the GM gets to decide everything about the gods, in the context of a game which allows players to play PCs whose powers, and whole raisons d'etre, are all about their connections to those gods, is a recipe for railroading, conflict, and mediocre RPGing. It's a recipe for the player of those PCs being about either guessing what the GM thinks about the god, or spending your time trying to find out what the GM thinks about the god and then according with that.

What a sucky game!



smbakeresq said:


> I think Paladins are very good and great fun to play with the right DM.  By right I mean enforces your Oath and alignment and pushes you into moral dilemmas for which you need to find creative solutions for or are stripped of powers and forced to quest to atone for ( a personal dangerous adventure.)





Arial Black said:


> Any DM who sees the word 'paladin' on a character sheet who is then triggered to do their utmost to try and strip their RAW abilities away is showing themselves to be the *wrong* DM!



Paladins are my favourite archetype in FRPGing. Of the last six characters I've played, five have been paladins (in thematic terms: mechanical implementation has varied depending on system).

In my past 20 years of GMing, I've also had paladin PCs in the party for 15+ years (again, mechanical implementation varying with system).

As a GM I have zero interest in telling a player how to run his/her PC. If the player has chosen to play a devout holy warrior, I assume that s/he has some conception of what that means, and will play accordingly. I will certainly present thematic challenges for that PC (here's an example of what I mean by that), just as I will for all the PCs - that's my job in the sort of games I GM - but the paladin isn't in any sort of special place here.

My response to the idea that playing a paladin means having to guess the "creative solution" that accords with the GM's moral sensibilities is prety similar to Arial Black's - I would run a mile from that game.



Arial Black said:


> How this fits into what I'm saying; first, cooperation is best, no-one disagrees with that.
> 
> Second, sure the DM can say "you feel angry". But I, the player of that PC, can say "Actually, I was expecting this so I don't feel angry, but I'll pretend to, just to let him think he's riled me".
> 
> ...



What I'm saying is that I don't see that the player should be able to unilaterally veto that any more than s/he can unilaterally veto the GM saying "You're cut and bleeding from being stabbed by a goblin".

Of course it depends on the system details, but eg in 4e a PC can take psychic damage which reflects emotional stress. In Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, a PC can suffer emotional or mental stress or trauma and doesn't get to unilaterally veto it.

If PCs only ever suffer emotionally when a player decides so, I think this cuts off story possibilities. There may be particular RPGs where that's OK, though they're probably not going to be my favourites: so even moreso I don't think it's any sort of general principle for good RPGing.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 21, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Which is pretty much standard. But it's worth noting that he only mentioned that there is nothing inherently within D&D that says that Odin must know, and only said this in response to your allegation, not as a part of the core presentation/paradigm.




Within D&D or within 5e?  Within D&D that statement is false.  Withing 5e it's true.  In 3e a greater god like Odin has these abilities.

1." Greater deities automatically sense any event that involves their portfolios, regardless of the number of people involved. In addition, their senses extend one week into the past and one week into the future for every divine rank they have." - Since a priest or paladin of a god by his very nature champions his god's portfolios, any interference with the priest or paladin is an event that involves a portfolio and would automatically be noticed.

2. "Remote Sensing:As a standard action, a deity of rank 1 or higher* can perceive everything within a radius of one mile per rank around any of its worshipers,* holy sites, or other objects or locales sacred to the deity. This supernatural effect* can also be centered on any place where someone speaks the deity’s name* or title for up to 1 hour after the name is spoken, and at any location when an event related to the deity’s portfolio occurs (see the deity descriptions for details)." - The paladin will be speaking the name Odin when dealing with the fiend and in gaining his abilities for the day.  This will draw  Odin's attention as both a follower and one who is speaking his name.  

Odin would know what's up between the character and the fiend in 3e.  5e, however, doesn't get into what abilities the gods have, so it's up to the DM whether or not Odin would know.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Within D&D or within 5e?  Within D&D that statement is false.  Withing 5e it's true.  In 3e a greater god like Odin has these abilities.
> 
> 1." Greater deities automatically sense any event that involves their portfolios, regardless of the number of people involved. In addition, their senses extend one week into the past and one week into the future for every divine rank they have." - Since a priest or paladin of a god by his very nature champions his god's portfolios, any interference with the priest or paladin is an event that involves a portfolio and would automatically be noticed.
> 
> ...






While I would like to see an update of the Deities and Demigods book from years ago I dont think we will.  The economics of publishing it probably doesnt work.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 21, 2018)

Most of this post has already been addressed, but this part needs my personal response:-



smbakeresq said:


> Arial Blacks idea was actually the closest to a plausible idea.  The biggest problem I had was the Player is "in" on the PC deception, he knew from the beginning his PC was being deceived and tricked and used that to get the MC he wanted without any repercussions of course.  To me that's like starting off as a Paladin and just planning your downfall without consulting your DM just so you can get into the Oathbreaker oath, which is DM controlled: "At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide."  It seems to me the DM needs to be in on that from the very beginning, starting with "I want to try out the Oathbreaker option, what are the ideas that fit into the campaign so we can make this work for everyone."




Part of what I was going for was to *avoid* falling! I absolutely did not want to become an Oathbreaker paladin! I was going to become a Vengeance paladin, already set up in many ways including specific revenge on the pirate captain who murdered my own PC's captain.

I wanted to experience the _frisson_ of playing a PC who is highly motivated to *appear* to be evil, ruthless, and terrifying, while *actually* remaining good, and achieving that by being terrifying!

How can you terrify people like other pirate captains while _avoiding_ becoming evil yourself? *That* is what I was going for with this PC.

I'd even worked out some tricks. The old _darkness_?Devil's Sight combo, "I'll make you remember *why* you fear the dark!", and the old Batman gambit of the baddies actually killing each other in the darkness while I went and rescued someone using Mask of Many Faces so I didn't appear heroic.

I took great pains to let people assume I was the undead revenant of my murdered captain. Every time I opened my visor (think Judge Fear if you're familiar with Judge Dredd) I used MoMF to show a different face. When I wanted to intimidate a captive I would open my visor to reveal a face like Spawn with his mask off. I could use illusions to make my hand appear to reach into their chest and pull out their still beating heart, while in reality my hand is just resting on their chest and the chill from _armour of Agathys_ helps the con. All that should be worth advantage on that Intimidation check!

What are the evil pirates going to do? Call some paladins to help them? And if they did, cool! Another great role-playing challenge!

I thought it would be great fun to play! It was.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 21, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Cap'n Kobold said:
> 
> 
> > That raises an interesting question. Are there any published D&D settings around in which the gods like Odin _are _omniscient?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 21, 2018)

I have been trying to figure out a paladin/swashbuckler that is plausible.  I am a big fan of the old movie Captain Blood, with Errol Flynn.  Blood is clearly and honorable man bound by his ethics, so that sounds like an Oath to me.  He is made into a swashbuckler through circumstance.  I just need to work out with the DM how to get him into a situation that takes him from Paladin into Swashbuckler.  In the movie it was being wrongly convicted and sold into slavery.  That's ok for me, but that means the group would have to be in on it also, unless I leave the group for a while.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 21, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I have been trying to figure out a paladin/swashbuckler that is plausible.  I am a big fan of the old movie Captain Blood, with Errol Flynn.  Blood is clearly and honorable man bound by his ethics, so that sounds like an Oath to me.  He is made into a swashbuckler through circumstance.  I just need to work out with the DM how to get him into a situation that takes him from Paladin into Swashbuckler.  In the movie it was being wrongly convicted and sold into slavery.  That's ok for me, but that means the group would have to be in on it also, unless I leave the group for a while.




That's one perfectly fine way to do it, but there is another way which avoids the heartache:-

Bear with me. 

Back in AD&D 1e/2e, multiclass PCs were always multiclass from level 1.

For single class and MC PCs alike, the idea was that you were trained from a young age in the skills you need to eventually become...whatever class (or classes) you are at level 1.

Since 3e it is impossible to actually be a MC PC in game mechanics terms at 1st level, but that doesn't take away the concept of having been trained from a young age to have the abilities of two (or more) classes; it just means that you cannot access the abilities of a second class until you have killed 300 XP worth of goblins!

Since 3e, you don't need training to level up, you just need the XPs (and maybe a bit of a rest). TBH, we NEVER used the training rules in 1e/2e either. The consequence of that is crucial.

Let's take a 5e class at random. *rolls* A wizard! Okay, once the young kid has been trained to be a 1st level wizard, they don't need any more training to get from level 1 to level 20, just experience. It must be assumed that the seeds of those higher level abilities _already exist_ within them, but can only be _used_ once the wizard has the experience to be 2nd level, 3rd, 4th, whatever level they need to 'gain' that 'new' ability.

That concept is core to the 5e rules.

So for a MC PC, _the same concept applies!_ If you want it to.

Just as for a single class PC, and just like in 1e/2e, the kid was trained in the knowledge of _both_ classes *before* they were even a 1st level PC. But MC PCs, _just like SC PCs!_, cannot access all of their abilities straight away, those abilities remain seeds until experience causes them to bloom.

So, yeah, your paladin might very well have only been trained as a paladin as a kid, and they only get rogue abilities after being kidnapped. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But your PC might very well have been trained as a kid with the skills that will eventually blossom into the abilities from *both* classes all along, and the seed of each ability only blossoms with experience (and your player choice of which class to take on level up). Nothing wrong with that either, and it has the advantage that you don't need your PC to take a year's sabbatical in order to take a level in rogue.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Sep 21, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I have been trying to figure out a paladin/swashbuckler that is plausible.  I am a big fan of the old movie Captain Blood, with Errol Flynn.  Blood is clearly and honorable man bound by his ethics, so that sounds like an Oath to me.  He is made into a swashbuckler through circumstance.  I just need to work out with the DM how to get him into a situation that takes him from Paladin into Swashbuckler.  In the movie it was being wrongly convicted and sold into slavery.  That's ok for me, but that means the group would have to be in on it also, unless I leave the group for a while.



What are you using for swashbuckler, and why would you need a specific situation to take the character into it?
Is there an existing class/spec that is a Swashbuckler? What about the class mechanics precludes simply learning to do those things just as a lower level character learns to use their higher level abilities?
Paladins aren't required to use heavy armour or weapons. Nothing stops a paladin from swashing it up with a rapier and buckler and showing a bit more style than the usual paladin stereotype.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 21, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I have been trying to figure out a paladin/swashbuckler that is plausible.  I am a big fan of the old movie Captain Blood, with Errol Flynn.  Blood is clearly and honorable man bound by his ethics, so that sounds like an Oath to me.  He is made into a swashbuckler through circumstance.  I just need to work out with the DM how to get him into a situation that takes him from Paladin into Swashbuckler.  In the movie it was being wrongly convicted and sold into slavery.  That's ok for me, but that means the group would have to be in on it also, unless I leave the group for a while.




Luke Skywalker?


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 21, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Luke Skywalker?



Westley?

Although I guess he was more paladin/dread pirate.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 21, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Westley?
> 
> Although I guess he was more paladin/dread pirate.




My thought process: "Westley?!?! He's not a Paladin!  I mean, what Oath...oh, yeah, Oath of Twoo Wuv.  Now I see it."


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 21, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Luke Skywalker?




Seems to me Luke was the other way, a rogue type skilled). who then went into Paladin.  That’s easier.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 21, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> My thought process: "Westley?!?! He's not a Paladin!  I mean, what Oath...oh, yeah, Oath of Twoo Wuv.  Now I see it."



Aye. No matter what class you pick for your character, it's easy to justify. So easy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "And whoever said whirled peas, I dont know what they are. "
> 
> When i make them, it invilvoes butter, evaporated milk or heavy cream, a bit of salt and garlic and possibly mushrooms.
> 
> While i find them quite tasty, i cannot fathom how they are so popular among beauty contest contestants because so many of them say they hope for whirled peas when their QnA section comes up. maybe its the fasting thing and they are ready for the post-pageant chow down.




Your post here is virtually invisible to some.  Here’s why, and how to fix it.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?348563-Dark-Text-on-a-Dark-Background-Tutorial


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 21, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Seems to me Luke was the other way, a rogue type skilled). who then went into Paladin.  That’s easier.




The Three Musketeers.  Very loyal, honorable and oathy, while still swashing it up quite a bit.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 21, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> T
> 
> Since 3e it is impossible to actually be a MC PC in game mechanics terms at 1st level, but that doesn't take away the concept of having been trained from a young age to have the abilities of two (or more) classes; it just means that you cannot access the abilities of a second class until you have killed 300 XP worth of goblins!



3.0 had 0/0 Level multiclassing  at first level as an optional rule in the DMG.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 21, 2018)

As for Wesley, The Three Musketeers, Luke Skywalker etc. being Paladins? To each their own.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 21, 2018)

Has anyone created an oath of the Jedi of oath of the Sith? That could be pretty cool. I might have to brainstorm some ideas.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

One thing that has surprised me in this thread is that some posters seem to assume that the order in which the levels are taken is necessarily part of the story.  That is, after X levels of class 1, somehow you have to explain how you start adding levels in class 2.  

I've always played it that whatever multiclass concept I have in mind, that character is already that concept at level 1.  For example, say I'm envisioning a Conan type character, and decide on Barbarian/Rogue.  Regardless of what class I start leveling, in what order, the character concept stays the same.  If he starts with Rogue he still looks and acts like a barbarian, and if he starts with Barbarian he takes Stealth and still acts...rogue-like.

I think my conception of class is less..."intrinsic"...to the character than it is for others.  I see class as a _purely_ metagame concept.  My characters wouldn't use words like Paladin and Wizard and Bard, or at least not in a formal sense.  They might hear a Paladin with with proficiency in some instrument roll well for Performance, and afterwards refer to the person as a "bard".

Does that make sense?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> One thing that has surprised me in this thread is that some posters seem to assume that the order in which the levels are taken is necessarily part of the story.  That is, after X levels of class 1, somehow you have to explain how you start adding levels in class 2.
> 
> I've always played it that whatever multiclass concept I have in mind, that character is already that concept at level 1.  For example, say I'm envisioning a Conan type character, and decide on Barbarian/Rogue.  Regardless of what class I start leveling, in what order, the character concept stays the same.  If he starts with Rogue he still looks and acts like a barbarian, and if he starts with Barbarian he takes Stealth and still acts...rogue-like.
> 
> ...



Does to me, I do it the same.  The class doesn't define the character, just her abilities.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> One thing that has surprised me in this thread is that some posters seem to assume that the order in which the levels are taken is necessarily part of the story.  That is, after X levels of class 1, somehow you have to explain how you start adding levels in class 2.
> 
> I've always played it that whatever multiclass concept I have in mind, that character is already that concept at level 1.  For example, say I'm envisioning a Conan type character, and decide on Barbarian/Rogue.  Regardless of what class I start leveling, in what order, the character concept stays the same.  If he starts with Rogue he still looks and acts like a barbarian, and if he starts with Barbarian he takes Stealth and still acts...rogue-like.
> 
> ...




It does make sense.  The only thing I would add is that if a player's concept involves a fighter(fighter first)/wizard starting at 1st level, then I'd expect to see the roleplay throughout level 1 reflect that.  It bugs me when it's not in the backstory, there's no roleplay at all, it's not mentioned to me, and suddenly at 4th level the player says that the PC is going to be fighter 3/wizard 1.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> One thing that has surprised me in this thread is that some posters seem to assume that the order in which the levels are taken is necessarily part of the story.  That is, after X levels of class 1, somehow you have to explain how you start adding levels in class 2. ...
> I've always played it that whatever multiclass concept I have in mind, that character is already that concept at level 1. For example, say I'm envisioning a Conan type character, and decide on Barbarian/Rogue. Regardless of what class I start leveling, in what order, the character concept stays the same. If he starts with Rogue he still looks and acts like a barbarian, and if he starts with Barbarian he takes Stealth and still acts...rogue-like.




Yep. I do this. But that's also because of my previously stated point about classes supposedly taking years of training to develop, et al. So if a character was created as a Fighter, them suddenly MC into Monk isn't cool with me. 

That said, if a character is always presented with this concept ("I was trained in a monastery, but rejected because I pursued war rather than peace"), then the later addition of a MC is valid ("Having trained in war, I later recalled the focus that defined me earlier in life"). In fact, this is one of the few ways that I'd consider allowing a MC!



> Does that make sense?




It does indeed.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Yep. I do this. But that's also because of my previously stated point about classes supposedly taking years of training to develop, et al. So if a character was created as a Fighter, them suddenly MC into Monk isn't cool with me.
> 
> That said, if a character is always presented with this concept ("I was trained in a monastery, but rejected because I pursued war rather than peace"), then the later addition of a MC is valid ("Having trained in war, I later recalled the focus that defined me earlier in life"). In fact, this is one of the few ways that I'd consider allowing a MC!
> 
> It does indeed.




That's great and all for people who have planned their 20 level path ahead of time, but most players I've seen allow their character to evolve through actual game play.  A character is not just her backstory, IME.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It does make sense.  The only thing I would add is that if a player's concept involves a fighter(fighter first)/wizard starting at 1st level, then I'd expect to see the roleplay throughout level 1 reflect that.  It bugs me when it's not in the backstory, there's no roleplay at all, it's not mentioned to me, and suddenly at 4th level the player says that the PC is going to be fighter 3/wizard 1.




i can agree with this. 

My most recent PC Sorceress had in her backstory: 
The belief that she was sung to in her dreams by what she thought we dragons and some other oddities which sowed the seeds for a potential Warlock MC.

She also had the entertainer background which sowed the seeds for potential bard MC.

it all fit together into a comprehensive life-path and backstory but i felt it important to have those elements included so that *if* the choice was made to MC, it was not something out of the blue.

this has been followed up in actual play - her "rock star" attitude, her launching a concert/wake to raise money for the family of a fallen NPC, her frequent references to what she has heard in her dreams and even a rather bizarre ritual she got her party to cooperate with that had no immediate payoff or any actual in-game required benefits. (Tho later when she gets inspiring leader (aka Dragon's Song of Blessing to her) she will only grant the benefit to those who went along with the ritual - she thinks they are related and would not think it will work on those who did not trust her ritual blessing.)

haven't chosen to MC - may not ever - but these aspects of the character are there and will continue to make for a lot of fun.

In similar news - when a wizard with familiar joined our group for a short time, she bugged him with a lot of questions - (me eyeing maybe taking the magic initiate feat for familiar at one point.)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2018)

Greg K said:


> As for Wesley, The Three Musketeers, Luke Skywalker etc. being Paladins? To each their own.




Why not?  Paladins aren't "knights in shining armor" anymore.  Never really were, but, that's how a lot of people viewed them.

So, why couldn't Luke Skywalker be modeled as a paladin?  Makes pretty decent sense.  Now, Wesley wasn't dropping spells, and nor were the Three Musketeers, so a 1:1 conversion isn't going to be completely accurate.  But, you can certainly get the whole "inspired by" thing going.

This really does tie into the basic theme of the thread that some people get this very fixed image of a class/element in their head and, even though that image isn't actually the only possible image, cannot seem to let go of that image when presented by an alternative view.  So, we have urchin backgrounds that cannot be strong, despite surviving by strength being a direct quote in the background.  Or a disbelief that these fictional characters could be represented by paladins.


----------



## MoonSong (Sep 22, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I wish they'd revive Xena.




I think she would be like a noble barbarian?


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Dave1 said:


> That's great and all for people who have planned their 20 level path ahead of time, but most players I've seen allow their character to evolve through actual game play.  A character is not just her backstory, IME.




I've never planned a 20 level path, and this is my method!  But I do understand what you are saying, and I actually agree: characters should evolve through game play and they are far, far more than their backstory.  Where I think we differ is in the degree of that evolution. As I mentioned, the classes supposedly represent years of previous training and experience. One does not just wake up one day and become a wizard when they've spent their whole life as a thief. So for a character to "suddenly" gain levels in wizard doesn't work for me. There has to be a connection.  So with that in mind, we have a few options:

1) The character doesn't become a wizard. But that thief might dabble into the mystic arts as an Arcane Trickster. In this case, it's simply a question of archetype selection. As I think I mentioned in my first post in this thread (or maybe it was a different thread), the 5e archetypes largely remove the need to MC since they emulate many of the traditional MC concepts. This is my preferred method. Microevolution, if you will.
2) The characters take a year or so of Downtime, with the PC using that time Training for the new class. Then they can MC into the new class. Now this only works if the players are all willing for their characters to have that extended downtime. Personally, I don't think that's necessarily bad. Pendragon did great things with the passage of time and it's direct relationship to the characters' developments. Slow evolution.

Or there is the option posited above...
3) Connect the MC with the character's backstory so that there is a reasonable expectation that the base for the class existed, so the years of downtime are not necessary. Hidden evolution.

And actually, now that I think of it, you could argue for option 4, which allows certain classes to be overnight MC. Warlock comes to mind. Theoretically, a Patron could overload a character's mind with all the knowledge and understanding necessary to be a Warlock 1 as soon as the character seals a pact with them. But this method really only would work with select classes. Cambrian explosion?

This is also why I am not a big fan of MC. Now - and I don't want to be misunderstood - _in my experience_ most players have a general idea of the character they want to play from the beginning. They typically know if they want to be a tough guy, a sneak, a spell-caster, or what-not. Further, they usually know if they want to do a "spellsword" or "magician thief" early on. So -_still speaking anecdotally from my own experience_- *most* (though not all) of the people I've seen who "spontaneously" MC in a direction that has no connection to their character's backstory or no direct connection to the adventures they've encountered are just making a grab for new and kewl powerz. While this is obviously not true for every player, this sort of macroevolution  does seem to attract that sort of player. So it is easier and more consistent for me to just disallow most MC, and demand a tie in for the ones that are allowed. Does this punish the "good" players who aren't looking for a power grab? I suppose, if you consider the class/sub-class combos to be too limited and hence punishing. But in my estimation, the class/sub-class combos cover most "normal" MC combo concepts, and are good enough.

I wouldn't advocate this as a universal rule that must be written in the books and applied to all tables, but it is definitely the preference for me at the tables I game with.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 22, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I think she would be like a noble barbarian?




IIRC didn't she start out as a foil for Herc? Almost an antagonist? I would have thought her more of a fighter/rogue. But then, I never liked Xena so I didn't watch much of that one, so my opinion in this is to be regarded with much salt.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I have been trying to figure out a paladin/swashbuckler that is plausible.




*
Folks, when we tell you to leave a discussion, we mean it.  If you fail to do so, you earn yourself a vacation from the site.

It should go without saying - best behavior in here from this point on.  

Thank you, everyone.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of how to pretend to be elves.*


----------



## Greg K (Sep 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Why not?  Paladins aren't "knights in shining armor" anymore.  Never really were, but, that's how a lot of people viewed them..




I am not saying others cannot or should not do it or interpret them that way. However I would not allow it  a game that I am running. For the Three Musketeers and Wesley, I would rule that the oaths falls under ideals and bonds rather than Paladin oaths, because, as you pointed out, they are not doing spell stuff. For Luke, I can see it inspiring a Paladin like order, but to me the Jedi stuff falls more under a psionic or arcane warrior or even a weapon using monk with semi-religious or philosophical overtones. Assuming, there is a jedi influenced order, I as the DM would decide how I want them represented.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Yep. I do this. But that's also because of my previously stated point about classes supposedly taking years of training to develop, et al. So if a character was created as a Fighter, them suddenly MC into Monk isn't cool with me.



This is my take as well.  



> That said, if a character is always presented with this concept ("I was trained in a monastery, but rejected because I pursued war rather than peace"), then the later addition of a MC is valid ("Having trained in war, I later recalled the focus that defined me earlier in life"). In fact, this is one of the few ways that I'd consider allowing a MC!




I am going to want a little more. An appropriate background, and/or, maybe, a  feat taken at first level. If not, I am going to require significant downtime and a trainer unless a PC is available to train the character in the class. In the latter case, I am going to want some type of indication of training such as investing in a feat relating to the new class at least one level prior to taking it.

(edit: My preference for many concepts, would be as with 3e - create a new class variant or find a new base class somewhere)


----------



## Greg K (Sep 22, 2018)

Examples of my take on multiclassing when running (ommv): 

The Count of Monte Cristo ((Jim Caviezel):  Edmond Dantes trains as fighter while in prison picking up maneuvers and weapon style (I like Khaalis's Light Fighter variant which, for me, fits a missing archetype). When he joins up with the pirates, he gains his first level in rogue.

Zorro (Antonio Banderas version).   Rogue 1 (or, possibly, just a criminal background, but I will go with Rogue for this).  Upon meeting up with Anthony Hopkins's character multiclasses into the Light Armor variant above where he picks up his weapon style and maneuvers (then, moves into one of Khaalis's subclasses for his variant. (most likely Swashbuckler).


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> I've never planned a 20 level path, and this is my method!  But I do understand what you are saying, and I actually agree: characters should evolve through game play and they are far, far more than their backstory.  Where I think we differ is in the degree of that evolution. As I mentioned, the classes supposedly represent years of previous training and experience. One does not just wake up one day and become a wizard when they've spent their whole life as a thief. So for a character to "suddenly" gain levels in wizard doesn't work for me. There has to be a connection.  So with that in mind, we have a few options:
> 
> 1) The character doesn't become a wizard. But that thief might dabble into the mystic arts as an Arcane Trickster. In this case, it's simply a question of archetype selection. As I think I mentioned in my first post in this thread (or maybe it was a different thread), the 5e archetypes largely remove the need to MC since they emulate many of the traditional MC concepts. This is my preferred method. Microevolution, if you will.
> 2) The characters take a year or so of Downtime, with the PC using that time Training for the new class. Then they can MC into the new class. Now this only works if the players are all willing for their characters to have that extended downtime. Personally, I don't think that's necessarily bad. Pendragon did great things with the passage of time and it's direct relationship to the characters' developments. Slow evolution.
> ...




Very thoughtful response - thanks for clarifying - can’t really argue with much that is here at all.  

I like the the idea of downtime to start with, so that can just be a part of the game required for advancing a level whether MCing or not.  This, of course, might run under the assumption that all PCs are leveling at the same rate - which is not currently the leveling mechanic I’m using in our two different campaigns right now.  Hmmm... maybe that requires the player to play their back up character at least until their main character is done with down time training.  There are definitely ways to make it work in the fiction of the game at most tables.

anyway, thanks for the ideas to mull over - much appreciated!


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Now - and I don't want to be misunderstood - _in my experience_ most players have a general idea of the character they want to play from the beginning. They typically know if they want to be a tough guy, a sneak, a spell-caster, or what-not. Further, they usually know if they want to do a "spellsword" or "magician thief" early on. So -_still speaking anecdotally from my own experience_- *most* (though not all) of the people I've seen who "spontaneously" MC in a direction that has no connection to their character's backstory or no direct connection to the adventures they've encountered are just making a grab for new and kewl powerz. While this is obviously not true for every player, this sort of macroevolution  does seem to attract that sort of player.




I must admit that this seems strange to me; the idea that IF a player is _all about_ 'grabbing powerz' then they do it spontaneously, on a whim!

In my experience, the TRUE system master who is motivated by 'powerz' will _already_ have worked out their level progression 1-20. And, if they can be bothered or if they think their DM requires justification greater than just the RAW, will write a 15 page backstory that will explain every multiclass along the way. As well as explaining why women adore them and why they are destined to become ruler of the multiverse.

This touches on the Stormwind Fallacy. It is wrong to assume there there are only two types of player: those who care ONLY about the fluff, and those who care ONLY about the crunch. This leads to errors like assuming that those who carefully craft the crunch side of their PC ONLY cares about crunch and therefore CANNOT care about the fluff, therefore I've clocked them as a dirty powergaming munchkin the moment the word 'multiclass' leaves their lips, so I must pre-ban MCing on that basis.

In fact, there are those who care passionately about BOTH fluff AND crunch, and want to execute BOTH with a great deal of thought. You simply cannot tell the difference between someone who likes both and someone who only cares about 'powerz' just by their desire to MC.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 22, 2018)

Stormwind Fallacy guide, part 1: The Two Player Types.

Type 1: fluff is all that matters.

Player 1: Hey, DM, I've got a _brilliant_ idea for my next PC. It all started many moons ago, the wind was howling around the moors. A lady in a dark dress, grey, charcoal maybe, maybe just shiny black, I haven't completely worked that out yet....

....and when he was four years old he met the first great love of his life...

...now we get to what happened on his 12th birthday!

(many hours later)

DM: Okay, what's your attack modifier with your 'famous toledo blade'?

Player 1: No idea. But I can describe _in detail_ the history of Toledo Blades, if you want?

DM: No. No I don't.

Type 2: crunch is all that matters.

Player 2: Hey, DM, I've got a _brilliant_ idea for my next PC. It's based on a certain interpretation of the RAW which allows me to combine...

...and that, combined with Polearm Master, my interpretation of _mirror image_, and this new ability from a 3rd party splatbook...

(many hours later)

DM: Okay, what's your character's name?

Player 2: No idea. But I can tell you what my average damage per round will be when all my abilities are lined up, if you want?

DM: Excuse me for a moment, I need to go and take some acid aspirin....!


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> So -_still speaking anecdotally from my own experience_- *most* (though not all) of the people I've seen who "spontaneously" MC in a direction that has no connection to their character's backstory or no direct connection to the adventures they've encountered are just making a grab for new and kewl powerz.




Ok, let's say that's true.  So what?  Why does it matter?

If that person's playstyle bothers you, then it really doesn't matter what the rules allow: you just aren't going to enjoy playing together.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 22, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> I must admit that this seems strange to me; the idea that IF a player is _all about_ 'grabbing powerz' then they do it spontaneously, on a whim!
> 
> In my experience, the TRUE system master who is motivated by 'powerz' will _already_ have worked out their level progression 1-20.




I would agree, the "TRUE system master" would have done that. Again, and this is my experience not a scientific fact, most of the times I've seen this done it wasn't by a system master. It was by someone who saw something that has the kewl and suddenly decided that they wanted it for their character.

In fact...


> This touches on the Stormwind Fallacy. It is wrong to assume there there are only two types of player: those who care ONLY about the fluff, and those who care ONLY about the crunch. This leads to errors like assuming that those who carefully craft the crunch side of their PC ONLY cares about crunch and therefore CANNOT care about the fluff, therefore I've clocked them as a dirty powergaming munchkin the moment the word 'multiclass' leaves their lips, so I must pre-ban MCing on that basis.




I fully agree with the Stormwind Fallacy. In fact - still my experience - the above noted "TRUE system master" has (as you noted) usually figured out how to make their crunch work within the fluff, for better or worse. But I don't mind the system masters who are optimizing their characters. I do mind the folks who just have to add all the kewlz to their character so they can be the one, best dude (though in fact it typically results in a haphazard and often less effective character). Versimilitude to justify adding a years-long training to gain a new class and the motive for wanting said class matters more than the mechanical combination of classes with me.



> You simply cannot tell the difference between someone who likes both and someone who only cares about 'powerz' just by their desire to MC.




Agreed. But by generally disallowing or discouraging MC, I avoid having to make that judgment call.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, let's say that's true.  So what?  Why does it matter?




Because it breaks verisimilitude. Which is fine if that's what people enjoy. I don't enjoy running those games, and rarely enjoy playing in games lacking verisimilitude.



> If that person's playstyle bothers you, then it really doesn't matter what the rules allow: you just aren't going to enjoy playing together.




Absolutely correct: I wouldn't enjoy playing with that person. But isn't the point of this discussion to talk about why we would or wouldn't allow/disallow MC and the concurrent differences in playstyles and campaigns?  I'm not sure what you are leading to with this?


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 22, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I think she would be like a noble barbarian?



Yeah, that would definitely work to capture her time with the Amazons. She's also got levels of monk from her time in Chin; and warlock from her time with Alti. And I think her time as a Valkyrie could be represented with a paladin oath. 

She multiclassed a lot.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Agreed. But by generally disallowing or discouraging MC, I avoid having to make that judgment call.




And thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are pre-banning thousands of character ideas that even you admit you'd be totally okay with being in your campaign.

Instead of pre-banning MCing just in case the fluff turns out to be inadequate, why don't you take the trouble to find out what the fluff actually is and _then_ decide if the fluff is adequate? After all, you have to check out each PC before the game begins anyway, and you already care about fluff enough that you want to know the fluff for every PC, SC or MC.

'Avoiding having to make judgement calls' is not the role of a DM!


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 22, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> And thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are pre-banning thousands of character ideas that even you admit you'd be totally okay with being in your campaign.
> 
> Instead of pre-banning MCing just in case the fluff turns out to be inadequate, why don't you take the trouble to find out what the fluff actually is and _then_ decide if the fluff is adequate? After all, you have to check out each PC before the game begins anyway, and you already care about fluff enough that you want to know the fluff for every PC, SC or MC.




All true. But I have not been very precise with my language. I've been talking in terms of "banning" MC since it is simpler than saying "strongly discouraging MC, and making players convince me to allow it". Perhaps I could split the difference and call what I do a "soft ban" rather than a "hard ban." No MC unless you can show me why there should be one. That's the approach I typically take. Make me like the concept.



> 'Avoiding having to make judgement calls' is not the role of a DM!




Again, a lack of precision in my language, but your point is well met! Touche!


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Perhaps I could split the difference and call what I do a "soft ban" rather than a "hard ban." No MC unless you can show me why there should be one. That's the approach I typically take. Make me like the concept.



I'd prefer you just outright ban it.

Because I know your girlfriend will convince you, and I won't. Not you, specifically. Specifically that one DM I had some time ago. Ever since I can't see that sort of soft ban as anything but a gateway to favoritism.


. . . It was me. That DM was me.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Absolutely correct: I wouldn't enjoy playing with that person. But isn't the point of this discussion to talk about why we would or wouldn't allow/disallow MC and the concurrent differences in playstyles and campaigns?  I'm not sure what you are leading to with this?




Just that if you ban MC, the guy at the table who WOULD have powergamed his tri-class munchkin is still going to have that attitude and that playstyle.  It just means he's going to play an OP single class build (e.g. GWM/PM Vengeance Paladin).

And if that guy _isn't_ at your table, then it won't hurt to allow MC because anybody who does it will probably do it in a way you like.


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Just that if you ban MC, the guy at the table who WOULD have powergamed his tri-class munchkin is still going to have that attitude and that playstyle.  It just means he's going to play an OP single class build (e.g. GWM/PM Vengeance Paladin).
> 
> And if that guy _isn't_ at your table, then it won't hurt to allow MC because anybody who does it will probably do it in a way you like.




Good points. That's worth considering.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 22, 2018)

Personally, as a _player_ who has multiclassed or dual-classed the vast majority of his D&D characters over the past 30+ years and who has only been accused of “power gaming”/“munchkining” once*, my _DM_ style in this area has always been hands-off.  Multiclass if you want to.  Why should I veto the mechanical core of your concept?

After all, as the DM, I literally have the power to erase a PC from the game at any time.  So if the multiclassing powergamer is ruining everyone else’s fun, I can _always _ find a remedy without posting a “No X Allowed!” sign on my campaign’s lawn, thereby spoiling someone’s fun before the fact.






* an accusation proven hilariously false in actual game play


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 22, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> And thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are pre-banning thousands of character ideas that even you admit you'd be totally okay with being in your campaign.
> 
> Instead of pre-banning MCing just in case the fluff turns out to be inadequate, why don't you take the trouble to find out what the fluff actually is and _then_ decide if the fluff is adequate? After all, you have to check out each PC before the game begins anyway, and you already care about fluff enough that you want to know the fluff for every PC, SC or MC.
> 
> 'Avoiding having to make judgement calls' is not the role of a DM!




I would just let the players know at the outset that the fluff for any multi-class has to match the PCs progress, including backstory and game play.  You avoid those judgement calls and place the responsibility onto the players that want to multi-class.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

Grognerd said:


> Good points. That's worth considering.




No no no.  You're doing teh Interwebz all wrong.  You are supposed to question my motives and pick holes in my grammar to undermine my point.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> No no no.  You're doing teh Interwebz all wrong.  You are supposed to question my motives and pick holes in my grammar to undermine my point.




You misspelled "the" and are therefore, wrong!!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> I like both. One reason I like shorter campaigns with milestone leveling is that I get to run a variety of different styles.
> 
> I've run non-multiclassing and had fun. Usually, multi-classing is allowed and that's fun too.
> 
> ...



How many pages on, and this is the truest thing in the whole thread 



smbakeresq said:


> Everyone could post their ideas they had but didn’t publish regarding this before it was allowed.  I think the posts will be barren...




I was playing a Bard/TomeFeyLock and my wife was playing a Vengeance Paladin/FeyBladeLock when the PHB was the only book for 5e. 

Ive currently a Swashbuckler/ChainHexLock that doesn’t even use the Cha to attack feature. my one warlock that attacks with CHA is a full Walrock Fey Patron, Tome Pact, with Shillelagh and a finely crafted walking cane. 

We do have a Hexblade in the group, but she is primarily ranged. 

These characters  took the multiclass build and treated it as a class, meaning the character concept ended up making the most sense using that combination of abilities and themes, just like choosing between Fighter and Paladin for a crusader Knight.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

I think my current favorite character, and my wife’s character in the same game, sums up my view of MCing better than any examples from the games I DM. 

Dresden is a Forest Gnome sailor (marine, mostly, but trained in haggling, navigation, and running the rigging and helm), inventor, acrobat, and a dabbler in magic. After his crew was killed by a necromancer who wanted to use their corpses as fodder in a sorcerer’s duel, Dresden got more serious about magic, and about using invention to more effectively kill mages. 

He started with 3 levels of Rogue, Swashbuckler. I could have chosen Arcane Trickster, but it’s restricted in spell choices, and the illusion and enchantment schools don’t fit the concept that well, and he wouldn’t get rituals, which was more important than getting more spells faster. So, now he is a level 4 rogue, level 2 Bladesinger Wizard. He has a wolf pet that has a home brewed magic collar that lets her be his familiar (main benefits are more HP and he can ride her, but he rarely does bc he’s pretty quick, and he prefers to walk/run beside his allies). 

Now, the character isnt conceptually a rogue/wizard. Conceptually, he’s that first descriptive sentence. Since we started, he has extrapolated from his understanding of abjuration and the ritual magic of enchanting items how to enhance his own physical prowess, and he’s basically used her to piece together how to reinvent an ancient Gnomish sword art that enhances speed, focus, agility, and martial prowess (bladesong). Certainly not a “power gamer” build. Those delayed rogue levels hurt. We also get 1st level bonus feats in our group, and Dresden has Skilled. He could have just gone Arcane Trickster, and grabbed Ritual Caster. 

Ie, his “class” is Swashbuckler/Bladesinger or “Mage Hunter”. 

Thumi is my wife’s Goliath Ranger/Druid. She started as just a pure Beast Master Revised Ranger, focused on Archery. Continuously, my wife was frustrated by how limited she felt by the ranger’s spellcasting, how many of the spells are concentration, the lack of versatility of being a known spells half-caster, etc.. She talked it over with the DM, and they worked out a plan to have her receive a vision showing her that she has always been guided by the spirit of the mountain eagle who guided her to save her family from orcish abducters in the midst of a terrible storm (folk hero background), the mother wolf whose cubs she and Dresden saved and adopted (reflavored unicorn spirit), and whatever the third one is (it’s late) from the Curcle if The Sheppard Druid subclass. Now she has one level of Druid. It’s not going to require special training with some Druids, it’s just the result of en epiphany moment where she fully realized how connected to the spirits and the land she is, and unlocked the path of greater Druidic power. 

Also, as a DM, I want a story for everything, optional rule or not.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 23, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> only been accused of “power gaming”/“munchkining” once*
> 
> * an accusation proven hilariously false in actual game play






Yeah, these incompetent powergaming wannabes are ruining the reputation of us powergamers who know what we're doing.


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You misspelled "the" and are therefore, wrong!!




Ninja'd!

...damn ninjas...


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 23, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Ninja'd!
> 
> ...damn ninjas...




basilisk ninjas are the worst.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Ninja'd!
> 
> ...damn ninjas...




Ninja!?!?  It was 19 hours ago!  A sloth woulda beat you to this one


----------



## Arial Black (Sep 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Ninja!?!?  It was 19 hours ago!  A sloth woulda beat you to this one




Hey! I have a real life you know! I can't just sit at a computer all day! 

I only get short bursts of time to read and reply.

....damn ninja sloths...!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> basilisk ninjas are the worst.



Yup.  They’re stone cold killahs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Hey! I have a real life you know! I can't just sit at a computer all day!
> 
> I only get short bursts of time to read and reply.
> 
> ....damn ninja sloths...!


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 23, 2018)

For the record, "teh Interwebz" is a thing.  (Or was...apparently it peaked around 2012.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2018)

Total coincidence alert: walking into a restaurant post-church today, another patron was walking out wearing a ninja sloth t-shirt.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Sep 23, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> For the record, "teh Interwebz" is a thing.  (Or was...apparently it peaked around 2012.)




 I fully agree, the Internet really peaked as a thing around 2012 and has been sliding downhill ever since...


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 23, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> For the record, "teh Interwebz" is a thing.  (Or was...apparently it peaked around 2012.)




Well in that case I believe I still owe you an angry, non-sequitor rebuttal for doing it wrong! So... ummm...

WELL, YOUR DOG IS UGLY!


----------



## Grognerd (Sep 23, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Total coincidence alert: walking into a restaurant post-church today, another patron was walking out wearing a ninja sloth t-shirt.




This may be the coolest random encounter ever rolled!


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 23, 2018)

Mad_Jack said:


> I fully agree, the Internet really peaked as a thing around 2012 and has been sliding downhill ever since...




I think it happened a lot earlier, with the demise of GOPHER and WAIS.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2018)

Greg K said:


> I am not saying others cannot or should not do it or interpret them that way. However I would not allow it  a game that I am running. For the Three Musketeers and Wesley, I would rule that the oaths falls under ideals and bonds rather than Paladin oaths, because, as you pointed out, they are not doing spell stuff. For Luke, I can see it inspiring a Paladin like order, but to me the Jedi stuff falls more under a psionic or arcane warrior or even a weapon using monk with semi-religious or philosophical overtones. Assuming, there is a jedi influenced order, I as the DM would decide how I want them represented.




Meh.  I'm far too lazy.  The player comes up with that stuff and calls it a paladin?  Fantastic.  He now gets homework developing his order and how it works in the world.  

Ownership over the world is never one of my priorities.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> For the record, "teh Interwebz" is a thing.  (Or was...apparently it peaked around 2012.)




Yeah, but it's less funny to acknowledge that, and more funny to post the joke that I did.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Total coincidence alert: walking into a restaurant post-church today, another patron was walking out wearing a ninja sloth t-shirt.




Pictures or it didn't happen!! 

Now I want to buy one of those t-shirts.  LOL


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

So.......much.......funny.......on this last page.  I approve!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Meh.  I'm far too lazy.  The player comes up with that stuff and calls it a paladin?  Fantastic.  He now gets homework developing his order and how it works in the world.
> 
> Ownership over the world is never one of my priorities.




You’d probably have loved Antares Whitechapel, Sword of Thoth of the Illuminated Society of Thoth.  He was an “arcane Paladin” in a 3.5Ed campaign, and I did _exactly _that for the DM.

(Yes, multiclassing was involved.)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2018)

As [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION] mentioned pages and pages ago, it's all about priorities.  That's what we really mean when we talk about play styles.  What is important to you and your group.  For me, setting fidelity is a very, very low priority.  Granting player authority is a much, much higher priority, although, to be perfectly honest, I've probably strayed from that quite a bit in my current campaign.  But, that's because I wanted to do something different.  OTOH, letting the players make changes to the setting and the campaign is becoming a higher priority for me now that my experiment is largely over.

And, really, it doesn't faze me too much when setting canon gets chucked out the window.  In our Dragonlance campaign (I wasn't dming), it became very clear to me that the DM wasn't too interested in cleaving too closely to DL canon.  I mean, this was a War of the Lance era game and our original group consisted of a Minotaur bard and a halfling cleric (with a later addition of a gnome wild mage).  Obviously canon wasn't really an issue.  

So, I rolled with it.  My character was pretty heavily canon - a human knight of Solamnia - but, I was more interested to see how this interpretation of the setting was going to play out than getting too terribly fussed about worrying about setting canon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Pictures or it didn't happen!!
> 
> Now I want to buy one of those t-shirts.  LOL



I think it was this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Sloth-Ninja-Funny-Samurai-T-Shirt/dp/B07DLQYFSN


----------

