Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
49477217481_76d7edcb55_z.jpg

So since Ice Cube was actually a middle class kid studying architecture pretending to be a street tough does this meme mean 1e is the rpg for pretend tough guys?

...Sounds about right. :clown:
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean? First off the source material for all this is in the description of the warlock (and cleric) class. Along with words like pact, oath, used to describe various elements of these classes. All of which taken together paints a picture of characters who are servant of other beings not free agents. The fact that default behavior is to act as free agents doesn't change the fact that this how RAW reads.
You said so yourself that there’s nothing stopping the players from portraying their Warlock, Cleric, Druid etc as free agents. Their DM could insist that they don’t do that, but there’s nothing in the rules that alters the Class mechanics if they do. I wonder if this ever happened at a public Adventure League event?

I’ve met players who took dips into other classes (like the Warlock or Cleric) to get some cool powers but without any changes in character behaviour. My first experience of this was with WFRP, in which I was playing a devout Cleric who’s entire “thing” was adherence to his faith. Soon enough, another player took a dip in Cleric to get cool abilities but didn’t roleplay his faith or change in attitude at all. I felt kind of… cheated? It was weird and annoying somehow to me.

But who knows how other people handle this.
 
You said so yourself that there’s nothing stopping the players from portraying their Warlock, Cleric, Druid etc as free agents. Their DM could insist that they don’t do that, but there’s nothing in the rules that alters the Class mechanics if they do. I wonder if this ever happened at a public Adventure League event?

I’ve met players who took dips into other classes (like the Warlock or Cleric) to get some cool powers but without any changes in character behaviour. My first experience of this was with WFRP, in which I was playing a devout Cleric who’s entire “thing” was adherence to his faith. Soon enough, another player took a dip in Cleric to get cool abilities but didn’t roleplay his faith or change in attitude at all. I felt kind of… cheated? It was weird and annoying somehow to me.

But who knows how other people handle this.

Multi-classing is a plague. It is where flavour and role-playing go to be sacrificed on the altar of min/maxing.
 
Last edited:
multi-classing is the worst of two worlds. It nullifies the only thing a class-based game is any good at (niche protection), but without any of the benefits of having total freedom that a class-less game offers (and it usually causes something to break).
 
I prefer PF2e/4e style multiclassing to be honest. It let's you add a bit from a second class, but you still solidly remain your main class, and doesn't allow as much of the absurdity you get in 3.x and 5e multiclassing.
 
I prefer AD&D multiclassing, personally. Or just ditching "niche" stuff entirely and having the classes be explicitly thematic bundles of powers with appropriate thematic requirements to get into.

Pretty sure it wouldn't work with 5e classes as they are now, especially the asi crap, but I"d like dumping most of the subclasses for the option of getting a different base class at half level for a subclass. Skip eldrich knight for fighter 9/wizard 4 base class abilities.

Had a celestial warlock where the background was criminal (justifying thieves tools & acrobatics) and the powers were a reward for having turned in the crime family for execution. Except of course that one sibling who got away, but that was on the guards heads.
 
I guess it's my turn to be an old man yelling at clouds and say I haven't cared for multiclassing since AD&D. Character classes aren't something you dabble in.

Totally agree, 1e is where the rot set-in and where I discovered the players that like to min/max and powergame.

One of my brothers was all about using assasin (terribly designed class if there ever was one) and multi-classing to fuck up the game. That's why I was always skeptical of those who claim that min/maxing was distinct to 3e. It may have empowered those players but they've always been around.

Thankfully 5e shuffled muti-classing largely off-stage. Blessedly never seen a new player in 5e even ask about it.
 
I guess it's my turn to be an old man yelling at clouds and say I haven't cared for multiclassing since AD&D. Character classes aren't something you dabble in.
Yes, I think if you are using class/level system, it's best to just stick to a single class. If there is a concept that isn't covered, it's better to make a new class than to try and replicate it through multi-classing.
 
The rot started as soon as the warrior/magician divide of Chainmail got expanded to warrior, wizard and cleric in OD&D (hey, what if some magicians are priests; that should be its own class!). And we gained thieves and bards and rangers and most of the rest of it in the supplements, before 1E was written. To me, all of this madness reflects one simple flaw: D&D has always made it hard to figure out how you are supposed to do something that isn't covered by a class power. And as more classes got more powers it felt, paradoxically, even more restrictive, because presumably you definitely aren't supposed to do stuff that has been spelled out as a power for a different class. Once you are caught in this trap there is no escape: If 5 classes won't make you happy then 50 or 500 won't either. The real solution is to make it really clear how anyone can try anything, based on stat rolls or something, and then protect class niches by just giving them level based advantages at all that stuff. And yes, I mean everything: if my fighter wants to try to cast a spell in a dusty tome he found in some wizard's tower, he should have some way of trying, even if it is likely to end in disaster.
 
I'm more than happy to modify an existing class to emulate a fantasy archetype. I can imagine a Fighter who can use a little sorcery or a Wizard who has learned some weapon proficiencies. 5e archetypes are great for this.

To me, multi-classing is like saying "I want to be a Navy SEAL and a heart surgeon" or "I want to be a world class boxer and a theoretical physicist."
 
Except thieves are cool and completly iconic thanks to Lieber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser. You can pry the thief class from my cold, dead hands.
Yes, while I fully understand where Moonglum is coming from with regards to game design, the thief was inevitable.
 
Let me see what the 5th Edition DMG - at least the first printing - says:

70287748-9453-4FC3-8745-EC9CFDE225AF.jpeg

Nope, definitely nothing in the rules allowing for interpretation.

The texts are holy writ.
 
I guess it's my turn to be an old man yelling at clouds and say I haven't cared for multiclassing since AD&D. Character classes aren't something you dabble in.
I have explicitly and overtly banned multiclassing. Allowed it in 2e, but wasn't super sold on it. 3e kind of needed it, due to Prestige Classes (unless you banned those, of course).

But from the first time we played 5e, that one was a hard no at my table.

The only way I would allow it is if there was significant downtime for a character to have possibly undergone some level of training to even touch of the fundamentals of the class, or a significant in-fiction reason for it. Definitely not a "oh shit, just killed a beholder and I'm level 4. I think my Rogue is taking a level of Sorcerer so I just grew magic out of my ass."
 
I'm more than happy to modify an existing class to emulate a fantasy archetype. I can imagine a Fighter who can use a little sorcery or a Wizard who has learned some weapon proficiencies. 5e archetypes are great for this.

To me, multi-classing is like saying "I want to be a Navy SEAL and a heart surgeon" or "I want to be a world class boxer and a theoretical physicist."
It also discourages making the 1st level of a class interesting. I remember the 3E designers talking about needing to avoid making the first levels of classes too appealing in order to prevent multiclassing abuse. That's an annoying design constraint.
 
I'm more than happy to modify an existing class to emulate a fantasy archetype. I can imagine a Fighter who can use a little sorcery or a Wizard who has learned some weapon proficiencies. 5e archetypes are great for this.

To me, multi-classing is like saying "I want to be a Navy SEAL and a heart surgeon" or "I want to be a world class boxer and a theoretical physicist."

It also discourages making the 1st level of a class interesting. I remember the 3E designers talking about needing to avoid making the first levels of classes too appealing in order to prevent multiclassing abuse. That's an annoying design constraint.

This is why I think PF2e "multiclassing" is better. It isn't actual multiclassing.

In PF2e, classes are organized with most of their abilities being "feats" and getting a class feat every other level, sort of like D20 Modern did with Talents. This means that classes can have more variety even within the same class cause most of the class abilities aren't set.

Instead of taking a class feat you can take an Archetype feat. Multiclass is a type of Archetype feat. It is a feat that gives you like, a couple of the benefits of the second class. For example if you grab Fighter Dedication, the multiclass archetype feat for Fighter gives you this:

"You become trained in simple weapons and martial weapons. You become trained in your choice of Acrobatics or Athletics; if you are already trained in both of these skills, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. You become trained in fighter class DC."

It doesn't even give you all the level 1 abilities of a fighter. Just gives you some extra proficiencies, and proficiency in the fighter class DC (which is what people would save against for things like stuff from fighter abilities you may get later).

To get anything else from that class you have to spend more of your class feat choices on archetype feats from the Fighter.

Also, you can't take another feat from a different Archetype until you've gotten at least two other feats in your existing archetypes. Which prevents taking a bunch just the first feat for a bunch of different archetypes and making it muddled and confusing.

It means you can do a small amount of dabbling, but you will generally be your main class with a very small amount of another class. You'll never grab just a ton of power for dipping two levels, and you will never be able to compare to that class in its own niche.
 
Last edited:
You said so yourself that there’s nothing stopping the players from portraying their Warlock, Cleric, Druid etc as free agents. Their DM could insist that they don’t do that, but there’s nothing in the rules that alters the Class mechanics if they do.

I said there nothing that prevents a group from treating these classes as free agents. As for RAW, it quite clear about what the expectations are.


1661808244941.png
also see Tommy Brownell Tommy Brownell 's post.


I wonder if this ever happened at a public Adventure League event?
WoTC's appointed team are the ultimate referee of that campaign and I think you know the answer to that. In short they more or less treat the premise solely as flavor and focus more on the wargame/boardgame aspect of D&D.


I’ve met players who took dips into other classes (like the Warlock or Cleric) to get some cool powers but without any changes in character behaviour. My first experience of this was with WFRP, in which I was playing a devout Cleric who’s entire “thing” was adherence to his faith. Soon enough, another player took a dip in Cleric to get cool abilities but didn’t roleplay his faith or change in attitude at all. I felt kind of… cheated? It was weird and annoying somehow to me.
Sounds like a referee problem to me. Taking a dip into cleric in my 5e campaigns would have resulted in several complications in that character's life. The problem here the referee not following through on the premise of the class.

But who knows how other people handle this.
All I can do relate is how I play it and maybe someone will find something useful to use for their own campaign.
 
multi-classing is the worst of two worlds. It nullifies the only thing a class-based game is any good at (niche protection), but without any of the benefits of having total freedom that a class-less game offers (and it usually causes something to break).
It no different than a point buy system like GURPS when a character decides that his 125-point character is going to pursue being a cleric and plans to spend the next 20 to 30 points he earns on the package of magic, abilities, and skills that clerics have in that campaign.

Or a Runequest 2e players get a whole bunch of lunars and start spending money on training left and right.

If the referee doesn't follow up on the roleplaying complications then problems will result as game logic not setting logic dominates how the campaign unfolds.
 
It no different than a point buy system like GURPS when a character decides that his 125-point character is going to pursue being a cleric and plans to spend the next 20 to 30 points he earns on the package of magic, abilities, and skills that clerics have in that campaign.

Or a Runequest 2e players get a whole bunch of lunars and start spending money on training left and right.

If the referee doesn't follow up on the roleplaying complications then problems will result as game logic not setting logic dominates how the campaign unfolds.
Of course, it's up to the referee to establish the parameters of their campaign -- no debating that, but that's not really what I was talking about. My main objection to multi-classing is that it sort of runs counter to the design goals of (most) class-based games, but without the ground-up allowance for differentiation and branching- out that class-less games like BRP, GURPS, etc. encourage. multi-classing always seems to create these weird edge cases, where the trade-offs between specialization and being a hybrid breaks down.

But using your example of the GM establishing roleplaying complications, identifying the problems and solutions can be a lot more straight-forward in a class-less game, vs. a class-based game that permits multi-classing. I'm not well-versed enough in GURPS to respond to the particular scenario you outlined, but in the RQ2 example, a surplus of money leading to excessive training presents several easy to identify in-game options to resolve the problem. Training takes time, and/or a qualified teacher; finding either can be a problem, and lastly having large sums of money in the hands of a green character should attract thieves and swindlers to help lighten their load. When a player takes "dips" into a character class to get some front-loaded abilities, or finds some game-breaking synergy that the designers clearly didn't think of, and there aren't any obvious in-game reasons why a certain broken combination will create complications for that character, that's kind of a problem, no?
 
It also discourages making the 1st level of a class interesting. I remember the 3E designers talking about needing to avoid making the first levels of classes too appealing in order to prevent multiclassing abuse. That's an annoying design constraint.

Now I want to review my 3E books to see how much they followed that rule. Multi-class abuse was almost the raison d'etra of 3E for many of my groups. I definitely think 3E's greatest strength and its greatest weakness was it had a really great approach to multi classing. It was no longer this complicated thing that kept excedrin in business (I always dreaded the words "I want to multi-class" or "I want to dual class"). With 3E, at least in terms of going through the motions, multi classing felt way easier, and it opened up a whole style of play built around dipping into different classes (that I think is where it served as both a strength of the system but also as a weakness).
 
I think that D20 modern is the only time I felt actual multiclassing felt right. (and by extension Star Wars Saga Edition, since it was obviously pretty heavily inspired by D20 modern).
 
I think that D20 modern is the only time I felt actual multiclassing felt right. (and by extension Star Wars Saga Edition, since it was obviously pretty heavily inspired by D20 modern).
I never read much D20 Modern but I'd agree that Saga Edition felt like it worked very well with multiclassing.
 
How so?

Either people here need to start posting about the new Spelljammer or at least post more prominently about it if I've been missing it. I need to know what I decided to skip on and whether it was a wise decision or a mistake.
It's an adventure module with just barely enough setting to run the adventure module, for the price of a deluxe (gift) boxed set. It's not a playable campaign setting unless you're already familiar with the AD&D 2e version, and it's nowhere near worth the MSRP.

In terms of WotC... doing a WotC all over it, I haven't heard about any changes that "ruin the setting" for me; a lot of the stuff they're doing is stuff I would have done already, except they're still not providing enough of a playable world or the means for a DM/group to build one.
 
Ahh, You misunderstand. I don't think it's goofy for fluff reasons. I think its goofy for rules reasons. One, as I've mentioned, it mitigates for short rest spam simply to buff nova opportunities. That's little manky, but that gets compounded by he fact that it locates the issue of short rests as a site of conflict over mechanics between players, which is terrible design. Conflict between characters over motivations or whatnot is fine, but conflict over mechanics between players can only be a negative. When something as basic as the rest rules pull players in multiple directions we have a problem.
What I care about is how it looks as if I was standing observing the characters within the setting. And do the mechanic reflect that. I don't care about how it balances as a game. Literally, I don't give two shits about it. If the setting is boring as hell, a system that is the best game ever made isn't going to salvage it as an RPG. Likewise compelling and interesting settings have been handled well by systems that make a poor game.


Here is the walkthrough.

I start with what is a warlock supposed to be. What is it about? My view is that a class is a convenient package of abilities and skills that represent the experience and knowledge gained in the pursuit of a profession.

Reading through the class description I see the following things.

  • Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse.
  • Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular.
  • Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.
  • A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. 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.
  • A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity — beings not typically served by clerics.
  • 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.
  • The magic bestowed on a warlock ranges from minor but lasting alterations to the warlock’s being (such as the ability to see in darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells.
  • Unlike bookish wizards, warlocks supplement their magic with some facility at hand-to-hand combat.
  • They are comfortable in light armor and know how to use simple weapons.
  • Once a pact is made, a warlock’s thirst for knowledge and power can’t be slaked with mere study and research. No one makes a pact with such a mighty patron if he or she doesn’t intend to use the power thus gained. Rather, the vast majority of warlocks spend their days in active pursuit of their goals, which typically means some kind of adventuring.
  • Furthermore, the demands of their patrons drive warlocks toward adventure.
How well does the 5e mechanics handle this?

The Warlock has three basic features

  • Arcane Spells
  • Pact Boons and Abilities
  • Eldritch Invocations
Arcane Spells
Warlock learns spells much like a sorcerer does but with a way more narrow scope as the number of spells they can cast is limited at most to 4 spells between a short or long rest. They max out at this 17th level. Warlock also cap out at 5th level with this.

Then there is Mystic Arcanum which allows them a 6th, a 7th, a 8th, and a 9th spell by level 20 but usable once between long rests.

The business of the short rest is consistent with how arcane magic is depicted in 5e. A wizard gets Arcane Recovery. A wizard can recover a number of spell slots equal to half their level rounded up. And it is capped at 5th level. A Sorcerer using sorcery points can create new spell slots on the fly although it only resets on a long rest.

Arcane Spell Evaluation
From the description of the warlock, this is fine. The supernatural patron is likely to have inherent magical powers so it makes sense that a version of the sorcerer spell mechanics is used as patron undoubtedly teaches the warlock to internalize their knowledge of magic spells. However, unlike the sorcerer, the warlock has to learn so it makes sense that has a small measure of the Wizard's ability to recover spells slots.

Pact Boons
The Pact Boons, I feel are not well thought out. The heart of the class is their relationship with their patrons. The Chain, the Blade, and the Tome appear to me as a random collection of kewl powers. If it was me, I would stick with just the grant of a special familiar specific to one of the three patron described.

Otherworldy Patrons
I think this section is great and does well at making each patron unique. Each patron grants a list of standard spells and a 1st, 6th, 10th, and 14th level ability.

Eldritch Invocations
This section is a hot mess and like the Pact Boons is essence a random collection of kewl powers. The problem is that there are several obvious categories but when listed are obviously incomplete in terms of the settling logic of warlock. The catagories are those tied to one of the three pact boons. So that grant a spell as a magical at will ability. Those that allow you to cast a specific spell using your warlock spell slots. And those that modify your Eldritch Blast.

Many of these have prerequisites and like the Otherworldly patron ability could have been chained together to form some kind of magical theme. But pretty much random assortments.

I still haven't found an adaptation of this class for my Majestic Fantasy Realms that I liked. This class has more subsystems than necessary compared to other classes. The Invocations and the Pact Boons make it difficult to modify to fit one's view of how warlock would function in a setting.

Wrapping it up
The problem I have are a result of setting logi,c not game logic. Again I don't care if a class or race is mechanically better than the alternative if it make sense in termsof how the setting work. If everybody opts to play an elf or a paladin in my Majestic Fantasy Rules because they that much better mechanically better than so be it. The resulting campaign is about the life of elves within the world or the life of a paladin band having adventure heeding the call of their god and religion.






My criticism of the mechanic and the other elements of a warlock is focused on how well the mechanic discribe how it works within a setting.

I start with it's description.
 
multi-classing is the worst of two worlds. It nullifies the only thing a class-based game is any good at (niche protection), but without any of the benefits of having total freedom that a class-less game offers (and it usually causes something to break).
For me class and level when decently done just makes it so the forced selection is close to the optimal choice for most players.
 
Except thieves are cool and completly iconic thanks to Lieber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser. You can pry the thief class from my cold, dead hands.

That goes right back to multiclassing though. Fafhrd is totally a Fighter/Thief and Grey Mouser is a Wizard/Thief. I legitimately think those 2 characters were likely the basis for the whole idea of multiclassing.
 
It's an adventure module with just barely enough setting to run the adventure module, for the price of a deluxe (gift) boxed set. It's not a playable campaign setting unless you're already familiar with the AD&D 2e version, and it's nowhere near worth the MSRP.

In terms of WotC... doing a WotC all over it, I haven't heard about any changes that "ruin the setting" for me; a lot of the stuff they're doing is stuff I would have done already, except they're still not providing enough of a playable world or the means for a DM/group to build one.
I strongly suspect that WotC has decided their core group of customers are happier just playing through modules and moving on...but that may be because that's all they've given new players to run with (unless they dip back into earlier stuff after jumping in with 5e).
 
A warlock is an agent of an ancient evil, most of the time. Why are they not given a death sentence on the spot like all other traitors to the country get?
 
@ robertsconley robertsconley I have to agree with you that the 5e Warlock appears to be a grab bag of kewl powerz more suited for building NPCs. I used the Warlock as a base for a Witch class in Hyperborea but that meant curating the list of powers.
 
Of course, it's up to the referee to establish the parameters of their campaign -- no debating that, but that's not really what I was talking about. My main objection to multi-classing is that it sort of runs counter to the design goals of (most) class-based games, but without the ground-up allowance for differentiation and branching- out that class-less games like BRP, GURPS, etc. encourage. multi-classing always seems to create these weird edge cases, where the trade-offs between specialization and being a hybrid breaks down.
D&D doesn't break if you treat the class as a group of skills, and abilities related to a profession within the setting of the campaign and level as a mark of life experience. Nor does D&D break if class and level represent something special in a character that is beyond the normal ken of humankind. And neither way is the correct way of playing or interpreting D&D, just two perfectly fine ways of interpreting the mechanics to suit one's campaign.

If one view is the former then multi-classing is fine, people pick this and that all the time in life as well as many fictional characters. If it is the latter than multi-classing is a negative as it distracts from the special nature of what the class embodies.




But using your example of the GM establishing roleplaying complications, identifying the problems and solutions can be a lot more straight-forward in a class-less game, vs. a class-based game that permits multi-classing.
That has not been my experience for over 40 years across multiple systems on this point.

I'm not well-versed enough in GURPS to respond to the particular scenario you outlined, but in the RQ2 example, a surplus of money leading to excessive training presents several easy to identify in-game options to resolve the problem. Training takes time, and/or a qualified teacher; finding either can be a problem, and lastly having large sums of money in the hands of a green character should attract thieves and swindlers to help lighten their load.
And there are easy to identify in-game options to resolve the problem in a class-based system as well including those that incorporate multi-classing. Much in the same way a Runequest 2e referee can avoid the payola problem with the training rules.


When a player takes "dips" into a character class to get some front-loaded abilities, or finds some game-breaking synergy that the designers clearly didn't think of, and there aren't any obvious in-game reasons why a certain broken combination will create complications for that character, that's kind of a problem, no?
There are always obvious in-game reasons why a player can't just pick up a level of X without dealing with one or more complications. Many hobbyists across various editions view incorporating those as unnecessary. This is fine, but if that is a concern, D&D doesn't break if you incorporate those complications in.

And what you do to make these complications enjoyable for players as a challenge is no different in D&D or Runequest. If it comes across as a form of Balance Sheets and Bookkeeping the players will think it sucks. If it results in interesting and challenging adventures with their own rewards beyond gaining the level (D&D) or training (Runequest) then the players will enjoy the experience.
 
@ robertsconley robertsconley I have to agree with you that the 5e Warlock appears to be a grab bag of kewl powerz more suited for building NPCs. I used the Warlock as a base for a Witch class in Hyperborea but that meant curating the list of powers.
Thanks

It is not a priority right now but someday I will crack it in a way that feels 5Eish and suits how I view my settings. I really like the basic concept behind the class with it could be applied to any number of not quite gods but powerful supernatural creatures. And it really works nicely with my cosmology of good and evil gods versus demons.

Basically I have so far as patron are (keep in mind this is not even a first draft)
1661829230595.png

1661829270002.png
1661829313868.png
1661829341239.png

1661829383642.png
 
A warlock is an agent of an ancient evil, most of the time. Why are they not given a death sentence on the spot like all other traitors to the country get?
Well, if they're smart, they probably aren't advertising it.

That said, in my 5e games we've had two Warlocks: the first was an NPC ally of the party in Tyranny of Dragons. They saved him from being eaten by gnolls at the onset of the game and later realized he was less innocent than he appeared...but they also had mutual enemies in the Cult of the Dragon. He kept his nature hidden from all but the party (who were under their own suspicion, especially since one of the PCs was Dragonborn and the locals had a hard time making a meaningful distinction between him and the evil half-dragons).

The second is a PC that is about to be introduced as a replacement character for a dead character. The heroes right now are "behind enemy lines" in a country that was overthrown by a necromancer who is being coached and schooled by a lich. The PC was an enforcer for a gang until about 5 minutes before her path crosses with the rest of the heroes...but her patron is a rival lich working against the necromancer and his master.
 
Well, if they're smart, they probably aren't advertising it.

That said, in my 5e games we've had two Warlocks: the first was an NPC ally of the party in Tyranny of Dragons. They saved him from being eaten by gnolls at the onset of the game and later realized he was less innocent than he appeared...but they also had mutual enemies in the Cult of the Dragon. He kept his nature hidden from all but the party (who were under their own suspicion, especially since one of the PCs was Dragonborn and the locals had a hard time making a meaningful distinction between him and the evil half-dragons).

The second is a PC that is about to be introduced as a replacement character for a dead character. The heroes right now are "behind enemy lines" in a country that was overthrown by a necromancer who is being coached and schooled by a lich. The PC was an enforcer for a gang until about 5 minutes before her path crosses with the rest of the heroes...but her patron is a rival lich working against the necromancer and his master.
I've had a few warlocks in my home games too. I feel that choosing that class the player either forces the DM to roll with the players eccentricities, or the DM doesn't want to play with the players personal fantasies about how the game should go in the players opinion. I just ditch that class thoroughly. Either you are a wizard that makes dealings with otherworldly partners, or you are not one of them. You choose. If you make dealings with otherworldly creatures, you are dead meat, when the watch sets it's eye on you..
 
Wow I never knew multiclass was such a hot topic. The slower progression rate of a multiclass seemed to do a pretty good job of balancing out with single class. Dual class is the one that never made since to me. Sorry, you picked a lock while in your fighter costume so you lose suddenly forgot everything new you learned the past week about killing stuff.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top