I'm also one of those DMs who doesn't allow multiclass unless it makes sense in game.  And all those people who argue against minimum stat requirements who say, "My 10 INT fighter studies spells during our downtime, so I can totally take a level in magic user.", my answer is, "Can you teach yourself latin just by looking at a book written in latin?"

And at the very least, it's going to take more than a week of looking at the magic user studying his spells before you can do the exact same.  Especially since he's been studying it for years.

Wizard is one of those classes that you could easily say no multiclassing into or put specific requirements like being an elf or if it's 5e an Eldritch Knight because they're actually studying magic academically from the start. I suppose it's whatever you're comfortable with really.

For myself I would say the wizard class would require you to roleplay into it if you didn't take Eldritch Knight or Mystic Thief or something similar like being a High Elf.

Quote from: tenbones;771250Having a GM say NO is probably a good thing for a game. Having GM say Maybe and give their PC's context is even better.

GM's that let the rules be the iron-law and do no arbitration based on what they are willing to run take no responsibility for their campaign will have shitty campaigns.

Char-Op is fine to the degree that the GM is fine with it. If you're the GM and not fine with it - what the fuck are you doing letting the players dictate what kind of game you don't want to run?

I, personally, don't let PC's multiclass without a rationale that happens in-game. Most of the time it takes very little rationale - depends. A fighter that wants to learn rogue skills? Easily done. A Monk that wants to become a Barbarian? that's going to be obviously a bit more challenging. When you start getting into classes that have their own odd prerequisites or built-in assumptions, you're gonna have RP your way into it.

But that's just me. I play with a bunch of people in their forties or older... we're kinda past that shit.

I can see were you are coming from. But, the problem with char-op is it has made the gaming community toxic.

Yes I can hang out with the usual crowd ans its not a problem. But when I wanted to try and recruit some new players from the University Role-play society, all you fucking got were people who thought dreaming up broken 20 levels builds was the *whole point* of D&D.

My life would be a lot fucking easier if I did not have to start reeducating players into actually being role-players eight years after they joined the hobby because the vast quantity of RPG output was written for munchkins.

Quote from: Marleycat;771251Heh, I couldn't really see a Paladin/Warlock

Dunno. Take the Paladin oath of Ancients so you a Fey Knight, then take your Warlock Patron as the Fayqueen. Pact of Chain and get a few animal minions. I think there is a workable concept there.

Quote from: jadrax;771260Dunno. Take the Paladin oath of Ancients so you a Fey Knight, then take your Warlock Patron as the Fayqueen. Pact of Chain and get a few animal minions. I think there is a workable concept there.

I'm going to use your post to illustrate my point.  A point way too many people seem to be missing.

Your multiclass concept?  It's based off of in-game narrative, which is perfect.  It is NOT based of maximizing +'s, which is what way too many people think is the most important part of the game.

It's depressing, really.

Quote from: jadrax;771260Dunno. Take the Paladin oath of Ancients so you a Fey Knight, then take your Warlock Patron as the Fayqueen. Pact of Chain and get a few animal minions. I think there is a workable concept there.

Cool. Haven't seen the Paladin so that sounds like it could be a fun concept to work with. I really love Warlocks and to a slightly lesser degree Sorcerers (far more than Wizards really). So I am looking for a Gish concept that doesn't force me to base it off Eldritch Knight.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771253I'm also one of those DMs who doesn't allow multiclass unless it makes sense in game.  And all those people who argue against minimum stat requirements who say, "My 10 INT fighter studies spells during our downtime, so I can totally take a level in magic user.", my answer is, "Can you teach yourself latin just by looking at a book written in latin?"

And at the very least, it's going to take more than a week of looking at the magic user studying his spells before you can do the exact same.  Especially since he's been studying it for years.

I have a simple approach. Want to multiclass? Then do so at character generation only. Split the XP straight down the middle. Fighter/Magic-User for life. Done.

Quote from: Marleycat;771251Heh, I couldn't really see a Paladin/Warlock but I sure could see Fighter/Warlock or a Rogue/Warlock or a Barbarian/Sorcerer or even a Paladin/Sorcerer for example.

Yeah - the funny thing, I still talk to a lot of my old players in my group in LA. They have a shitty GM and one of my players in their 4e game (that alone raised my eyebrow) - is playing: Paladin/Warlock.

I just laughed. When they told me about their campaign - it sounded like Ren and Stimpy vs. Groovy Ghoulies.

But hey - you know, whatever floats your boat. If a Paladin had some kinda background like a dwarf with dragon-blood/demon-blood in his Clan wanted to learn sorcery, I'd certainly put content in that game to let give him that option. Even if to tempt him down a path that might just jeopardize his Paladin status. Because to me - that's content worth exploring in the context of the game. This can all be happening while they're adventuring and cracking skulls and looting their enemies. Allowing shifts like this to happen require context in the game. Otherwise it's it's just playing Talisman on roids.

Quote from: Marleycat;771263Cool. Haven't seen the Paladin so that sounds like it could be a fun concept to work with. I really love Warlocks and to a slightly lesser degree Sorcerers (far more than Wizards really). So I am looking for a Gish concept that doesn't force me to base it off Eldritch Knight.

Out of curiosity, I'm kinda the same way. What did you think of the Fantasy Craft Rune Knight?

A Paladin Warlock could work if the entity providing the power was Good.

Even more fun though, would be a Paladin that is being manipulated by devils.

Quote from: tenbones;771267Out of curiosity, I'm kinda the same way. What did you think of the Fantasy Craft Rune Knight?

I think it was well done. Very balanced with good choices to make in either making it fighter heavy or mage heavy and the runes were all good making for hard choices much like a Magus in Pathfinder. Lot's of choice in which feat chains to pursue and which fighting style (I built one with Chakras kind of a riff off Zena Warrior Princess just to see if I could). All in all just alot of fun. But not overpowered in either arena compared to a straight class of either type.

Quote from: jadrax;771258I can see were you are coming from. But, the problem with char-op is it has made the gaming community toxic.

Yes I can hang out with the usual crowd ans its not a problem. But when I wanted to try and recruit some new players from the University Role-play society, all you fucking got were people who thought dreaming up broken 20 levels builds was the *whole point* of D&D.

My life would be a lot fucking easier if I did not have to start reeducating players into actually being role-players eight years after they joined the hobby because the vast quantity of RPG output was written for munchkins.

Preach it, sister!

I've come to the response "but we'll never get there (level 20 perfect build with all necessary goody bags)."

Quote from: jadrax;771258I can see were you are coming from. But, the problem with char-op is it has made the gaming community toxic.

Yes I can hang out with the usual crowd ans its not a problem. But when I wanted to try and recruit some new players from the University Role-play society, all you fucking got were people who thought dreaming up broken 20 levels builds was the *whole point* of D&D.

My life would be a lot fucking easier if I did not have to start reeducating players into actually being role-players eight years after they joined the hobby because the vast quantity of RPG output was written for munchkins.

Video game mentality. I know that's simplifying it, but that's a part of it. I think, too, that changing the stat bonuses hurt the game. You go from a situation where less than 1% of scores gave you a +3 to 5%, and 40% of rolls give you a bonus of some kind. Make 4d6 the default option, where a 3rd of all rolls grants 13-15, and everyone's got +'s out the wazoo. Then add on all the doohickeys from races/classes/feats, and you have the candy mentality. The result? Everyone is speshul in speshul-land.

While I'm not in love with all things old school (I prefer a unified rolling mechanic), I do like the idea that survival means something, because survival means levels, and levels mean power. So, I'll be toying with a hack that includes some of what I like about 5E with stuff I like elsewhere. Fewer bells and whistles. Make it about actions taken during play, rather than during chargen. The good thing about this game is access to so many different ways of doing things that you're not stuck with the hand you're dealt, system-wise.

Quote from: jadrax;771258I can see were you are coming from. But, the problem with char-op is it has made the gaming community toxic.

My opinion is that this has to do with time-served vs. the quality of the GM's running the game. Everyone will gravitate to their niche. And some people will grow out of theirs. The tricky part is when people kinda stick with what they know without trying other games, other styles of play. Being a "good" GM takes time and lots of failure. The toxicity exists because people start getting tribal about their "way" of doing things and think that there is no other way. And there's always better ways of doing things.

Quote from: jadrax;771258Yes I can hang out with the usual crowd ans its not a problem. But when I wanted to try and recruit some new players from the University Role-play society, all you fucking got were people who thought dreaming up broken 20 levels builds was the *whole point* of D&D.

But your experience has told you otherwise, right? That's what *I* am faced with too. I just cratered my gaming group of over ten-years last week. I spent the week picking up new players. I was in the same boat.

But since YOU know better - when you get those players, it's your chance to show them an alternative. It might not work, but let's face it, if it doesn't - did you really want those guys to be your on-going players anyhow? Probably not.

Quote from: jadrax;771258My life would be a lot fucking easier if I did not have to start reeducating players into actually being role-players eight years after they joined the hobby because the vast quantity of RPG output was written for munchkins.

I feel your pain. But imo - GM'ing has to happen because you *choose* to do it. If you turn it into this narrative of "it's like smashing my head into a wall" - then eventually that's all it will be. You have to accept this is a part of what makes GMing worthwhile. Not that you have to school people on your method, but that you truly enjoy the moment when everything simply clicks and they "get it". You may not get any appreciation for it. But that's not why you're doing it in the first place.

ideally anyhow.

Quote from: tenbones;771297I just cratered my gaming group of over ten-years last week. I spent the week picking up new players. I was in the same boat.

Ouch. Vibes.

A few years ago I finally walked away from a group I had been gaming with for over 15 years. It was hard, particularly since I have no other groups on hand.

No gaming might be better than bad gaming, but... ugh.

(Doing stuff online has helped a bit, since it's more freeform, timewise)