QuoteI see a lot of bitching about how X rule work with Y rule and how silly broken it is. Fuck doesn't anybody take responsibility for ensuring that the rules they use fit the setting they want?

This isn't an option in AL games. Like I have said multiple times now, I don't allow Sorlock in my private games. Although I might go back on that and say that I'm house-ruling EB to be a class feature, not a cantrip.

Quote from: estar;1017145So a person whose magic was granted by his innate bloodline (Sorceror) can't make a pact with a demon (Warlock) and thus use both form of magic. How is permitted that is any less arbitrary than not permitting it?
 
Fuck doesn't anybody take responsibility for ensuring that the rules they use fit the setting they want?

Why would you think that's not what I'm doing (Your typical knee-jerk 5e defense aside)?

Someone who is a Sorcerer doesn't just have some form of blood within them, they have enough to give them innate powers others do not have.  They are fundamentally different than non-Sorcerers, they have a spirit, not a soul, can be Raised, not Resurrected, etc.  They can't swap out spells, which is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard, but they do get to cast more spells per day.

The Warlock Pact is Faustian, they've given over their Soul to the being in exchange for Power, which gives them supernatural abilities.  They can't also worship as a Priest, they can't draw power from other sources, the Pact does not allow it.  It's a blessing and a curse.  They belong to the entity and it is fickle and jealous.

Similarly, you can't multiclass into Barbarian.  You either were born into a barbaric culture or not.

Quote from: estar;1017145The problem isn't the build culture the problem is the putting the rules before setting even one as generic as D&D style fantasy.

So the problem isn't the group doing the behavior, it's just the behavior itself?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017193This isn't an option in AL games. Like I have said multiple times now, I don't allow Sorlock in my private games. Although I might go back on that and say that I'm house-ruling EB to be a class feature, not a cantrip.

Why are you bitching then with AL games then? You are running somebody else's campaign and when you sign up you agree to play by their rules and use their interpretations not your own.

I get the appeal of running AL. For a decade I ran live action boffer events for NERO which had national guidelines for how events could be run. For a while I found it an interesting challenge to be able to run events within the constraints of live action and the national guidelines.

I got out of it due to the lack of time resulting from changes in my life circumstances. When I got the time again, I thought about going back but decided against it because after self publishing my own stuff I wasn't as interested in the challenge of marching to somebody else's tune.

But I still have friends who play NERO and when they start bitching about the constraints I remind them that what they signed up for. The alternative being starting up their own LARP.

Now going with your own LARP is a pretty major time sink. Saying to hell with AL and setting up your own game is considerably easier.

I ran a few AL events. But dropped it in favor of running my own stuff. In one game store I wiped out the AL session because everybody wanted to play in my games. Even the AL referee joined in my game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017196Someone who is a Sorcerer doesn't just have some form of blood within them, they have enough to give them innate powers others do not have.  They are fundamentally different than non-Sorcerers, they have a spirit, not a soul, can be Raised, not Resurrected, etc.

The Warlock Pact is Faustian, they've given over their Soul to the being in exchange for Power, which gives them supernatural abilities.  They can't also worship as a Priest, they can't draw power from other sources, the Pact does not allow it.  It's a blessing and a curse.  They belong to the entity and it is fickle and jealous.

That some decent metaphysics and if I was playing your campaign I would buy that as to why I can't multiclass warlock and sorceror. However the 5e RAW Rules for Resurrection, Warlocks and Sorcerors don't make that distinction between spirits and souls.

It equally plausible to say that the Sorcerors with innate ability to cast magic are just as capable of ordinary humans to make a pact.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017196Similarly, you can't multiclass into Barbarian.  You either were born into a barbaric culture or not.

Again good reason to restrict multiclassing of barbarian. But the not the only way to few.

Another way to look at is like the old Conan paperbacks timeline were he was doing different things at different times. Which is why Dragon Magazine gave him Fighter and Thief levels in his write up for AD&D 1st edition. It plausible for a campaign to have a PC gain levels of barbarian IF he moved to Cimmeria, or Pictland and did the roleplaying and adventuring to justify gaining levels of barbarian.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017196So the problem isn't the group doing the behavior, it's just the behavior itself?

That sound right. It easy to pick on Adventurer League, Forums, and Conventions because they are so visible but they are just the tip of very large iceberg.

My view when there are problems in tabletop roleplaying they either are interpersonal issue which has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with interpersonal dynamics. Or they stem from forgetting that the point is to play a campaign doing interesting thing in a setting and treating the as holy writ instead of the setting of the campaign.

You are spot on with your take on barbarian, sorcerers, and warlocks for your setting. Just as I am spot on for a hypothetical setting with my alternative takes. Neither one of is wrong or right. Just making different choices.

The only time the argument can be put forth that it is wrong if doesn't flow from the premise of the setting. If you stated the above about spirit and souls but allowed sorlocks then yeah I would say "Hey! CK that makes no fucking sense given what you said."

There is some metaphysics in D&D 5e but it is done with such a lite touch that it can be easily stripped out and subbed with something else. D&D 5e barbarian with a few tweaks becomes Adventures in Middle Earth's Slayer and my Majestic Wilderlands Berserker.  (think monster hunting holy warrior of Thor).

Some of this is in the immediate foreground for me as I am working on some Majestic Wilderlands 5e stuff for my player groups.

Quote from: estar;1017198Why are you bitching then with AL games then? You are running somebody else's campaign and when you sign up you agree to play by their rules and use their interpretations not your own.

Why are you bitching about me bitching about Warlock multiclassing? Why does anyone bitch about anything on the internet?

Rules problems are annoying because they create unwelcome surprises. You should know, as a DM, that it's difficult to go back on something after you discover it's a problem. Players don't like being told to change their class, to have a magic item taken away, etc. However, it is a huge point in 5e's favor that the only obnoxious MC surprise I have encountered has been 2 levels of Warlock + anything else CHA-based.

Furthermore, how does anyone know there's a rules loophole a priori? Because someone did them the favor of bitching about it on the internet. So here I am, bitching about Sorlock on the internet, outlining what the design decision is that led to the problem, and offering my opinions on how this can be fixed if you don't outright ban it. e.g.:

Quote from: S'mon;1017088This discussion certainly isn't prompting me to reconsider my not using the Multiclass optional rules!

I really think the only combo that's a problem in 5e is (Sorcerer or Bard) + 2xWarlock. And this is because they broke away from their own very well-thought, well-tested guiding principle on that one class. Every other class pretty strictly keys base damage output to class level. The Warlock is the only one that keyed it to character level, and I believe this was inadvertent. There are a variety of simple fixes:

-Don't allow Warlock as a MC option.
-Don't allow MC at all
-Don't allow Warlocks
-House rule for EB: additional EBs depend on your Warlock level, not your character level.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017230I really think the only combo that's a problem in 5e is (Sorcerer or Bard) + 2xWarlock. And this is because they broke away from their own very well-thought, well-tested guiding principle on that one class. Every other class pretty strictly keys base damage output to class level. The Warlock is the only one that keyed it to character level, and I believe this was inadvertent. There are a variety of simple fixes:

-Don't allow Warlock as a MC option.
-Don't allow MC at all
-Don't allow Warlocks
-House rule for EB: additional EBs depend on your Warlock level, not your character level.

Um... EB has the exact same wording as any other combat cantrip. Theres nothing indicating this is any different for the Warlock than any other class. And the Warlock doesnt synergize for spell slots with other caster classes at all. So if your Sorcerer or Bard takes 2 levels of Warlock then at total level 20 they are going to be casting at level 18. I see nothing in the PH exempting the Warlock from the level limit.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017230...

Furthermore, how does anyone know there's a rules loophole a priori? Because someone did them the favor of bitching about it on the internet. So here I am, bitching about Sorlock on the internet, outlining what the design decision is that led to the problem, and offering my opinions on how this can be fixed if you don't outright ban it...

My impression from listening to Jeremy Crawford is they excluded multi-classing from the core rules as it is very difficult for designers to predict what OP or game breaking combos players may come up with. So I don't think they will ever 'fix' it as MC is purely optional and is there for the min/maxers, same as it always was. If they tried to fix ever MC 'trick' they'd be tying themselved up in knots for a small minority of players who use the rule and care about such things.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017230Rules problems are annoying because they create unwelcome surprises. You should know, as a DM, that it's difficult to go back on something after you discover it's a problem. Players don't like being told to change their class, to have a magic item taken away, etc. However, it is a huge point in 5e's favor that the only obnoxious MC surprise I have encountered has been 2 levels of Warlock + anything else CHA-based.

Furthermore, how does anyone know there's a rules loophole a priori? Because someone did them the favor of bitching about it on the internet. So here I am, bitching about Sorlock on the internet, outlining what the design decision is that led to the problem, and offering my opinions on how this can be fixed if you don't outright ban it. e.g.:

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017230Why are you bitching about me bitching about Warlock multiclassing? Why does anyone bitch about anything on the internet?

Because it neither a loophole or broken. It is the synergy of of two things that happens to do one thing really well and it relies on a mechanic that is explicitly stated as optional, multi-classing. The fix is straight forward and you listed some that doesn't involved banning multi-classing. Even if you don't apply any of fixes what you have a spell casting class who is tethered to a patron and is not free agent. The character is not totally at liberty to whatever the player likes. And there are the issue caused by whatever gives them their sorcerer powers. If a referee doesn't incorporate any of these limitation into their setting then they lose an important complication.

As for the combo itself it only a issue if the adventures in a campaign are solvable by killing everything in sight. In addition the boost in power means that the character is operating on a different playing field and will attract the attention of various powers that be. And if anything in the ensuing encounters requires competence beyond that one trick (dealing a lot of damage). The character is screwed.

If I was a PC in that party I would make sure all bases wee covered rather going "Hoody hoo! More firepower!". If the player throw caution to the wind and is hell bent to drag my character and the party into whatever hell they are intending to create I would consider offing them well before that point. The moment that character takes a patron, that patron problems will become my problem. The party and my character will in the field of view of what attention that character gets.

But if the campaign is mostly about "balanced" combat encounters then I concede it a loophole and it is broken.

Well, much to my surprise, I have found myself using those ridiculous tables in the section on encounter building. How, you might ask? I'm running Temple of Elemental Evil right now, and they are a handy reference to convert level to CR. So if the conversion of an NPC or monster isn't obvious at a glance, use HD as level, convert to CR, and there you go. To save myself some trouble, I figured out a line that fit their table, and it is roughly

CR = (HD - 0.5) / 2.5.

Seems to work pretty well for HD >= 3.

Quote from: Omega;1017246Um... EB has the exact same wording as any other combat cantrip.

This is plain wrong. Every other combat cantrip gets additional damage dice per tier. EB gets additional attacks per tier. That is what causes the cascading effect of silliness that leads to the high favorability of Sorlocks among min-maxers, because...

QuoteTheres nothing indicating this is any different for the Warlock than any other class.

Wrong! The key characteristic of the Warlock is various bonuses and effects that multiply with attacks. Every other class that behaves this way requires additional class levels to get those extra attacks.

QuoteAnd the Warlock doesnt synergize for spell slots with other caster classes at all.

Wrong. Warlock spells can be cast with any of your other Sorcerer slots, and warlock slots can be converted to Sorcery Points.

I've seen it in action; you're clearly theorycrafting. In action, it's dumb. Not "holy hell uh we need to reboot your character" levels of broken, but "Wait a minute...the Sorlock in the party is consistently hitting things harder than the actual Warlock, or any full Sorcerer I've seen in play. I'm not going to allow this at my table any more."

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017307This is plain wrong. Every other combat cantrip gets additional damage dice per tier. EB gets additional attacks per tier. That is what causes the cascading effect of silliness that leads to the high favorability of Sorlocks among min-maxers, because...

Wrong! The key characteristic of the Warlock is various bonuses and effects that multiply with attacks. Every other class that behaves this way requires additional class levels to get those extra attacks.

Wrong. Warlock spells can be cast with any of your other Sorcerer slots, and warlock slots can be converted to Sorcery Points.

I've seen it in action; you're clearly theorycrafting. In action, it's dumb. Not "holy hell uh we need to reboot your character" levels of broken, but "Wait a minute...the Sorlock in the party is consistently hitting things harder than the actual Warlock, or any full Sorcerer I've seen in play. I'm not going to allow this at my table any more."

1: Um... you are aware that what you just described is the same thing right? Flame bolt does 1d10 per tier, topping out at 4d10. Eldrich bolt does 1d10 per bolt and gets one bolt per tier. Topping out at 4d10. If all four hit. EBs main advantage, depending on how you read it, is that you get to add your CHA mod to each bolt. Which does eventually get pretty good. One drawback is that EB suffers the standard ranged penalty at close range.

2: Um... you are aware other classes can stack bonuses as well. Again the only difference is EB stacks it onto multiple attacks. Depending on the wording this too can get fairly potent. But its the same as stacking bonuses on a fighters melee attacks.

3: um... you are aware you cant boost cantrips with spell slots right?

Quotelike most spells can a known cantrip be cast at a higher spell slot lvl. Aka sacred flame lvl 1 for 2d8 radiant dmg
    -- redwoodguardian August 24, 2015

    No, since cantrips don't use spell slots. https://t.co/MKpg8oozyf
    -- Jeremy Crawford (JeremyECrawford) August 24, 2015

Yes. You can convert sorcery points into evocations and evocations into SP. So you can cast your warlock spells potentially past their first level limits. But so can every other caster. Hardly any of the 1st level warlock spells benefit in a significant way from casting with a higher slot. Armour of Agathys and Arms of Hadar comes to mind right off. This came up in an older thread.

You can do that with any of the other classes that grant a bonus to damage somehow. Few though get the level of oomph from it the warlock does. Or get it differently.

Theorycrafting? Try again please. You fail at trolling.

Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

What if you had a spell that was an Action, and then wanted to cast another with a Bonus Action? But you can't. I never got why.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017320Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

What if you had a spell that was an Action, and then wanted to cast another with a Bonus Action? But you can't. I never got why.

Cantrips are for when all the big combat spells are gone for the day.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017320Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

What if you had a spell that was an Action, and then wanted to cast another with a Bonus Action? But you can't. I never got why.

It's just to limit spellcaster power.

Yeah, but does it make that big a difference? I can't really imagine anything breaking or becoming lopsided by letting a spellcaster use a spell that costs an action, and then one that costs a bonus action.