Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well the problem with your first example is that, as a DM, I would really wonder why the character's original patron lets them keep their power. A warlock's power is typically considered more a rental than a gift and there would be consequences for defaulting. If they get to keep the power, their patron would likely consider them doing so falsely and be after their head, soul, or at least wanting to take the stolen power back.
At least that is how I would see it and thus how the patron would see it.
Actually, the warlock's patron gives them eldritch knowledge of how to do certain things. Once taught, that knowledge is the warlock's and the patron can't revoke it. The warlock's patron isn't like a cleric's deity, giving them spells and powers on a daily basis. If the warlock has a bad relationship with the patron, then there may be no further eldritch knowledge being taught, but what he/she already has is theirs.
"A D&D warlock isn't required to be on good terms with their patron. They made a magical transaction, and now the warlock has power. As for switching patrons, no rule allows it, but talk to your DM if there's a good story reason to switch. Your DM might say yes. #DnD" - Jeremy Crawford
**Looks at Sorcadins, Shadow Assasins, Coffeelocks, Storm Clerics, Ninja Clerics, Ninja Wizards, Smitelocks, Battlemaster Monks, Dangers (druid rangers), Shadow Enchanters and more insanely synergistic builds**
**visible confusion by the question**
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Because it relates to the topic. If it is not your choice, then it is the DM's choice to run that much more boring a campaign.
You would be weaker for multiclassing because you are dividing your efforts. Someone who is a full time surgeon is almost certainly going to be better at it than someone who is an accountant half their time, although if they have a job managing a hospital they may have some advantages. The question is whether those special side cases where there is synergy come up often enough to make it worth the while. Not a given.
And if you want to write an RPG where there is multiclassing and every combination is equally good, well, good luck with that. If you accomplish it, it will be a first. And if it was true, there would still be no point to multiclassing, since you would be just as effective no matter what you choose, no matter what you do.
You are presuming some things that aren't correct. You would be weaker for dividing your efforts if your efforts were non complimentary. If you went from being a surgeon to being a geologist, learning one skill will not improve another. If you are a surgeon who decides to learn anesthesiology or biochemistry you can improve your primary skill set with knowledge from a secondary. If you are a barbarian who decides to learn more disciplined combat styles and multiclass as a fighter you did not split your attention, you are only dedicated to melee combat you have just learned complimentary combat styles and should not be weaker for it. Same with being a caster, learning different ways to use magic. Maybe in these 2 cases you would lose the raw power attained from the singular mastery of your craft but you should be able to come very close to it using creativity and combining multiple skills. That simply isn't the case, things are designed to not combine, anti synergistic.
A surgeon is unlikely to be doing their own patient's anaesthetics and biochem similarly relates more to pharmacology. Regardless, those are more like subclasses of Doctor rather than separate classes.
Someone being skilled in two fighting styles is usually not quite as good in either as someone dedicated entirely to one. However you seem to be assuming even splits. The fighter could take just 3 or 4 levels of barbarian over the course of their career and may well end up better off over all. There are combinations that are competitive. But it is not so easy to 'really mess up'
This. A 2-5 level dip in a second class is usually the "sweet spot" for general multiclassing; there are a lot of combos that are skewed that way:
Warlock 2 or 3 + Sorcerer 17 or 18: You get extra short rest spell slots (pact magic slots "stack" differently in multiclass than standard slots) that can be used to fuel sorcery points and meta magics, an increased spell list (including the eldritch blast cantrip), plus invocations and a pact boon (if doing the 17/3 route), without sacrificing 9th level slots or your Sorcerer subclass capstone (if going the 18/2 route)
Fighter 2 + any class, really: proficiencies, Second Wind, and Action Surge, added to any other class make for some excellent combos
Rogue 2 + any class: Sneak Attack and Cunning Action for some extra damage and versatility can boost another nova class or just add damage to other martials.
Really, so long as you take just enough to get the "primary" ability of each class (which usually only takes 2-3 levels), you can create some fairly powerful combos without sacrificing much, especially if you never get to level 20 (or the main class capstone is meh, which is the case for several classes), plus, with some classes, you will get a subclass feature as well with just one level (Warlocks, Clerics, Sorcerers).
Sorry, as you can see from my post count, I am new to this forum, didn't know where to post this. It felt like it fell under mechanics because my rant is about mechanical interactions of abilities more than anything. As for my criteria, why ever take a paladin?
If I had to pick one reason, the level 6 Paladin ability is one of the best in the game, full stop.
If you want healing, resurrection, support, and undead/evil smiting, clerics do it all better.
No-one has "evil" smiting and only Paladins and Warlocks have smiting (the mechanic of spending a spell slot for damage), but Paladins aren't great at healing (almost no-one in 5E is), including ressing. They're excellent support - see above for the L6 ability, and most of their subclasses have L7 aura support to offer as well. The healing they do have is great for picking up a downed ally, since they can spend it 1 point at a time. What a Paladin typically does better than a Cleric is hit harder in melee (thanks to the L2 ability to Smite) and provides its particular flavor of support, typically from its aura.
If you want melee damage fighters may do less against very specific enemies but overall significantly more and more consistently.
Yes, this is true. All of the most damaging builds in the game are made from Fighter, as they're built for Fighting. Everyone else has access to other things, like how Paladins have access to their spell list.
If you want everything else, it's the wizard, information gathering, transportation, spell damage, coercion, etc. The other classes have cool lore and flavor niches but all of your vital roles are there and done best in those 3. Again, I am new, I could be wrong about that, I have researched and scrapped a lot of character concepts and that's just been my observation.
Wizards are great and very powerful, but everything depends on both level and what niche you're trying to fill. For example, at level 20, you need very specific tools to kill a Moon Druid - a level 20 wizard may not have those tools available (the level 20 Druid ability is radically better than the L20 Wizard ability). And with prep time, a level 17 Genie warlock is more powerful than anything else in the game, and Celestial warlocks (along with a very specific kind of halfling warlock of any type) have a combo power with Sorcerers so powerful most DMs manually houserule their games just to prevent it.
In terms of party roles, the most obvious one you've neglected to cover is party face. Fighters, Clerics, and Wizards aren't specialists in social encounters. You generally need to be Charisma based or a Rogue built for it to handle social rolls competently. Maybe you'd have a better time building out a party face character?
Wizards are great and very powerful, but everything depends on both level and what niche you're trying to fill. For example, at level 20, you need very specific tools to kill a Moon Druid - a level 20 wizard may not have those tools available (the level 20 Druid ability is radically better than the L20 Wizard ability). And with prep time, a level 17 Genie warlock is more powerful than anything else in the game, and Celestial warlocks (along with a very specific kind of halfling warlock of any type) have a combo power with Sorcerers so powerful most DMs manually houserule their games just to prevent it.
In terms of party roles, the most obvious one you've neglected to cover is party face. Fighters, Clerics, and Wizards aren't specialists in social encounters. You generally need to be Charisma based or a Rogue built for it to handle social rolls competently. Maybe you'd have a better time building out a party face character?
As a DM, what is that combo? Just in case I see it come up.
Well the problem with your first example is that, as a DM, I would really wonder why the character's original patron lets them keep their power. A warlock's power is typically considered more a rental than a gift and there would be consequences for defaulting. If they get to keep the power, their patron would likely consider them doing so falsely and be after their head, soul, or at least wanting to take the stolen power back.
At least that is how I would see it and thus how the patron would see it.
Warlocks are actually the opposite of clerics in that regard. Their Patron teaches them magic, kind of like a wizard, and that power is theirs forever. The patron doesn’t lose power by teaching anything, and if you traded your soul or really almost anything but eternal service/future promises to the Patron, the deal is done and the Patron is arguably better off for not having to teach you the next 18 or so levels, because they already got what they wanted.
I think you have this exactly backwards, as Torvald posted above. A warlock's power is not dependent on remaining in the good graces of their Patron at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I am NEW to dungeons and dragons, I don't have a complaint exactly, I just don't understand why everything is designed to not work together. Multiclassing immediately caught me as cool and amazing for flavor and lore, for example, a person who initially takes a warlock pact but refuses to keep making those deals for power and instead becomes a cleric hoping to redeem their soul or something. The more research I do into the classes it really seems to me that if you want to do melee damage, a fighter is the best period and everyone else who does melee damage is subpar. If you want to be a spell caster you want to be a wizard period, no one else has the power or versatility, even a fraction of it. And clerics, while not as powerful as either, are really solid at both and get divine intervention, healing, resurrection, and high level spells. The other classes feel straight up inferior, like they only exist for flavor.
Warlock is my favorite class flavor wise in the game, but I feel like warlock has it the worst of all. I feel like there is no point in even leveling a warlock past 9-12 just to get the eldritch invocation/ability score. I get they get some minor stuff after that but it feels REALLY inferior to what higher level wizards and clerics get. So my natural inclination it to multiclass the warlock but everything in the game seems to be designed to punish multiclassing, from the way spell slots work, to the way all abilities that specify they improve with level is always class level and not total level, the way attempting to stack any spells effects is almost impossible (almost nothing at all has passive continuous effects, it's either instant, concentration, or nothing), and the game even having convoluted rules to prevent any cool combos from existing like vampiric touch and thirsting blade (because you are making a spell melee attack whatever the hell that is, not a melee attack).
At the end of the day, I feel really frustrated because I kind of went into this assuming D&D was all about having way more possibilities than any kind of video game could ever have. And maybe that exists, I haven't actually played yet, we start this weekend, but from the character creation side of it I feel like the game is just punishing me for every creative idea I have. I spend all this time researching trying to find clever ways to combine abilities and at the end of the day like none of them work. You either simply can't do it because of limitations of concentration or they don't interact the way you'd think they would even if it's common sense. I have scrapped 2 dozen character ideas in the last 2 weeks because every idea I come up with just doesn't work in 5e rules. At the end of the day it's play a super bland fighter, wizard (I just don't like wizard mechanics), or cleric if you want to be optimally useful in a group. If you want to be less useful but have more fun play anything else, and if you want to be useless but have actual cool lore and character development then multiclass.
I could be entirely wrong about this, I am still super new. I am not trying to say I know all and D&D sucks. But I am at a real loss, I am very frustrated, and I feel like any creative character ideas I come up with are a waste of time. Just to be clear, I am not complaining because I can't break the game or come up with overpowered combos, I can see how it would sound that way. You know that feeling you get when you figure out a cool strategy or combo in a game? You feel rewarded for figuring out a mechanical interaction the game didn't explicitly tell you, maybe that becomes a playstyle. Thats what I feel like I don't have, the abilities can be used as written and no other way, no clever interactions. At least, thats how it feels anyway.
There are always pluses and minuses to everything in DnD. WotC has tried to keep things with a power balance (not always perfectly balanced, but there is an effort there to maintain a balance). Thus you can't have it all. If you want the really high level spells and class abilities, you have to stay with one class. MCing will give you more versatility and there can be good synergy between some of the classes. But you will also get to certain power bump levels, later in the game. MCing can have your character in a state of flux until you hit a certain level where it all comes together, which frequently can be a higher level. And who really knows how long their particular game will go on? Lots of groups plan on going to level 20, when they start, but then never make it to level 12! So you never know for sure.
In one of my games, I have gone to paladin at level 6, now am MCing to warlock (been setting up how the storyline works for explanation of adding in a warlock patron also and clearing story with my DM). I think more thought has to given then just showing up one day and saying "oh hi guys, am a warlock too, now!" But my power will be increased in some ways and hurt in others, by MCing. I will get a ranged attack, invocations and warlock spell slots. But I am taking 3 levels of warlock, which means I will be 9th level and without 3rd level spells. 3rd level spells is a large power curve jump for players. I will be level 9 and won't have them. In fact, I won't get level 3 spells, until level 12 overall (9 pal / 3 war)!
So, there are always trade offs. There is no perfect answer. So choose carefully, what matters most to you.
I generally find that the more synergistic everything becomes, the less actual choices you have. Someone out there will take all the synergized options and distill the Most Perfect Character from them, everyone will start playing that build until it's essentially required, and if you feel like playing a suboptimal build you'll be met with two outcomes: 1) your fellow players react like "wtf are you doing not taking this skill combo it's like you're not even taking this seriously, or 2) you have to just content yourself with everyone else excelling so far ahead of you and get your fun character moments elsewhere.
I think 5e wisely made it so that some things do not work together, and I think that was for the most part, intentional and not a bad call.
D&D 5E really tried to cut back on the synergy because 3E had a very open anything-goes synergy approach and it absolutely broke the game. I think the pendulum might have swung too far in the other direction, but honestly I prefer this to how it was in that edition.
Worse than this, making things highly synergistic makes for a massive divergence between powergamers and non-powergamers. 3E and Pathfinder 1E were examples of games where there were lots of ways to overpower your character, which intrinsically means there are lots of ways to fail to adequately power your character. In 5E it's hard to build a character that can't contribute.
Any decent DM can close any gaps via homebrew though. Special privileges or powers, plot points, etc. It is a cooperative game with a live game master, after all.
Most GMs have enough on their plate just running the game. Expecting them to also take the time and energy to fix a fundamentally broken character class like the 3.0 ranger or 3.5 samurai or ninja because the writers didn't bother to playtest enough to make sure that the classes weren't steaming piles of orc poo is too much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Someone out there will take all the synergized options and distill the Most Perfect Character from them, everyone will start playing that build until it's essentially required
Required for what?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Someone out there will take all the synergized options and distill the Most Perfect Character from them, everyone will start playing that build until it's essentially required
Required for what?
Required if you're playing in a game because GMs will start optimizing encounters for the Most Perfect Character and anyone who's not that optimized will wind up being unable to contribute anything more than as a meat shield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well the problem with your first example is that, as a DM, I would really wonder why the character's original patron lets them keep their power. A warlock's power is typically considered more a rental than a gift and there would be consequences for defaulting. If they get to keep the power, their patron would likely consider them doing so falsely and be after their head, soul, or at least wanting to take the stolen power back.
At least that is how I would see it and thus how the patron would see it.
Actually, the warlock's patron gives them eldritch knowledge of how to do certain things. Once taught, that knowledge is the warlock's and the patron can't revoke it. The warlock's patron isn't like a cleric's deity, giving them spells and powers on a daily basis. If the warlock has a bad relationship with the patron, then there may be no further eldritch knowledge being taught, but what he/she already has is theirs.
"A D&D warlock isn't required to be on good terms with their patron. They made a magical transaction, and now the warlock has power. As for switching patrons, no rule allows it, but talk to your DM if there's a good story reason to switch. Your DM might say yes. #DnD" - Jeremy Crawford
If the DM agrees you become infinitely powerful, you become infinitely powerful. If they decide you drop dead, you drop dead. The DM might indeed say many things.
Interesting that Crawford allows the DM the power to make any decision at all since he seems to think that the power comes from some sort of one shot, completely one-sided in the PC's favour transaction, as if literally merely saying 'Yes' with no strings or obligations attached at all is sufficient grounds for some cosmic being to grant power. And that he expresses that as an absolute, implying it is something a DM cannot decide otherwise about.
Properly expressing what I really think of such 'rulings' would get me banned, so I'll leave it at that.
If you and your elementary school teacher later have a "falling out" can he/she remove your ability to do basic arithmetic?
No. Once your teacher taught you, that knowledge was yours.
Btw, Mike Mearls has also said that the eldritch knowledge, once taught to the warlock can't be taken away. That the patron can only withhold future knowledge. So you may not be able to progress in levels until you make it right with your patron or find a new patron. And the second patron may want a more binding agreement, since you violated the first. Or if the relationship is really bad with that first powerful patron entity, they might want to send creatures to kill the offending warlock. What the penalty is for violating the agreement is up to the DM and can easily become a part of the storyline for the campaign.
I am NEW to dungeons and dragons, I don't have a complaint exactly, I just don't understand why everything is designed to not work together. Multiclassing immediately caught me as cool and amazing for flavor and lore, for example, a person who initially takes a warlock pact but refuses to keep making those deals for power and instead becomes a cleric hoping to redeem their soul or something. The more research I do into the classes it really seems to me that if you want to do melee damage, a fighter is the best period and everyone else who does melee damage is subpar. If you want to be a spell caster you want to be a wizard period, no one else has the power or versatility, even a fraction of it. And clerics, while not as powerful as either, are really solid at both and get divine intervention, healing, resurrection, and high level spells. The other classes feel straight up inferior, like they only exist for flavor.
Warlock is my favorite class flavor wise in the game, but I feel like warlock has it the worst of all. I feel like there is no point in even leveling a warlock past 9-12 just to get the eldritch invocation/ability score. I get they get some minor stuff after that but it feels REALLY inferior to what higher level wizards and clerics get. So my natural inclination it to multiclass the warlock but everything in the game seems to be designed to punish multiclassing, from the way spell slots work, to the way all abilities that specify they improve with level is always class level and not total level, the way attempting to stack any spells effects is almost impossible (almost nothing at all has passive continuous effects, it's either instant, concentration, or nothing), and the game even having convoluted rules to prevent any cool combos from existing like vampiric touch and thirsting blade (because you are making a spell melee attack whatever the hell that is, not a melee attack).
At the end of the day, I feel really frustrated because I kind of went into this assuming D&D was all about having way more possibilities than any kind of video game could ever have. And maybe that exists, I haven't actually played yet, we start this weekend, but from the character creation side of it I feel like the game is just punishing me for every creative idea I have. I spend all this time researching trying to find clever ways to combine abilities and at the end of the day like none of them work. You either simply can't do it because of limitations of concentration or they don't interact the way you'd think they would even if it's common sense. I have scrapped 2 dozen character ideas in the last 2 weeks because every idea I come up with just doesn't work in 5e rules. At the end of the day it's play a super bland fighter, wizard (I just don't like wizard mechanics), or cleric if you want to be optimally useful in a group. If you want to be less useful but have more fun play anything else, and if you want to be useless but have actual cool lore and character development then multiclass.
I could be entirely wrong about this, I am still super new. I am not trying to say I know all and D&D sucks. But I am at a real loss, I am very frustrated, and I feel like any creative character ideas I come up with are a waste of time. Just to be clear, I am not complaining because I can't break the game or come up with overpowered combos, I can see how it would sound that way. You know that feeling you get when you figure out a cool strategy or combo in a game? You feel rewarded for figuring out a mechanical interaction the game didn't explicitly tell you, maybe that becomes a playstyle. Thats what I feel like I don't have, the abilities can be used as written and no other way, no clever interactions. At least, thats how it feels anyway.
So I'm having a hard time trying to address your issues because it's very broad and kind of vague. It would be easier for me to try and help you come up with a character build to satisfy your needs. So how about you give me a character concept, archetype, or trope that you want to play and I will try and put something together for you?
As for warlocks, I don't think they are weak at all. They don't play like a Wizard, but that doesn't mean they aren't just as useful or contributing members of a party. What do you think is weak about them? I'm not exactly understanding your criteria, but maybe I can help point out things you're missing? Did you notice, for instance, that Warlock spell slots are always equal in level to the max level spell they can cast? Meaning that when they get 5th level spells, all their spells are upcast to 5th level. This can be an important factor to know because lower level spells can have improved effects when cast with higher level slots.
Also, just so you know, multiclassing is an optional rule. Not all DM's allow characters to multiclass, so none of the classes are specifically built with multiclassing in mind. This can simplify the balance issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Then what, exactly, is the difference between a warlock and a wizard? If it is literally merely learned conventionally, as in your teacher/student example, why couldn't it be learned in a conventional wizard/textbook/mage school learning manner?
Why wouldn't wizards be able to learn invocations? Why couldn't sorcerers learn them? After all, according to the model you are describing the only actual transaction with the Patron is pre-level 1. The level 6, 10 and 14 abilities you and Crawford would have us believe happen automatically, regardless of what has happened to the relationship between Warlock and Patron, even though they are unique to that patron's teachings.
Warlocks learn their powers because the PHB says they do, but that doesn't mean they learn conventionally. For example, mastering their powers could involve blood transfusions from your patron, or exposure to magical radiation. Or anything else. Just because a warlock learns things, that doesn't mean a non-warlock is also capable of learning them. A platypus can learn how to hunt using only electromagnetism - but you can't. Same thing.
You understand that bards learn their powers too, but also aren't wizards, right? Why aren't you asking why wizards can't learn, I don't know, Countercharm?
Someone out there will take all the synergized options and distill the Most Perfect Character from them, everyone will start playing that build until it's essentially required
Required for what?
Required if you're playing in a game because GMs will start optimizing encounters for the Most Perfect Character and anyone who's not that optimized will wind up being unable to contribute anything more than as a meat shield.
Y'all are playing a completely alien version of 5E than I am
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you and your elementary school teacher later have a "falling out" can he/she remove your ability to do basic arithmetic?
No. Once your teacher taught you, that knowledge was yours.
Btw, Mike Mearls has also said that the eldritch knowledge, once taught to the warlock can't be taken away. That the patron can only withhold future knowledge.So you may not be able to progress in levels until you make it right with your patron or find a new patron. And the second patron may want a more binding agreement, since you violated the first. Or if the relationship is really bad with that first powerful patron entity, they might want to send creatures to kill the offending warlock. What the penalty is for violating the agreement is up to the DM and can easily become a part of the storyline for the campaign.
Then what, exactly, is the difference between a warlock and a wizard? If it is literally merely learned conventionally, as in your teacher/student example, why couldn't it be learned in a conventional wizard/textbook/mage school learning manner?
Why wouldn't wizards be able to learn invocations? Why couldn't sorcerers learn them? After all, according to the model you are describing the only actual transaction with the Patron is pre-level 1. The level 6, 10 and 14 abilities you and Crawford would have us believe happen automatically, regardless of what has happened to the relationship between Warlock and Patron, even though they are unique to that patron's teachings.
The post you are responding to explicitly says the patron can withhold future knowledge and prevent levelling.
You do your arguments no favors with this sort of nonsense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Someone out there will take all the synergized options and distill the Most Perfect Character from them, everyone will start playing that build until it's essentially required
Required for what?
Required if you're playing in a game because GMs will start optimizing encounters for the Most Perfect Character and anyone who's not that optimized will wind up being unable to contribute anything more than as a meat shield.
Y'all are playing a completely alien version of 5E than I am
It's not a big problem in 5E, but in 4E and 3E it was a massive problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I have been playing D&D for a long time. I just don't understand why you think everything is not designed to work together. Multi-Classing strikes me as a cool and amazing thing. The more research I do into the classes, it really seems to me that if you want to do melee damage, a Fighter is a good choice for that. If you want to be a spell caster, Wizards are good at that, so are all the classes. There isn't a single Class in the game that can't cast spells one way or the other. Fighters can do that. See the Eldritch Knight, that's one of the ones in the Player's Handbook. Clerics do indeed make the best healers, but then, that's what they are for. Not every multi-class in the game should be the absolute best at anything. That's the trade-off, you can be good at one thing, or you can be sub-par, but you get to do it in everything.
You clearly love Warlocks. Let's talk about them. Should they be inferior to Clerics and Wizards? Well... Are they Clerics or Wizards? Nope. They are their own thing. Warlocks have a fairly unique feature. At first level, they get most of their sub-class abilities. You said you did research, didn't you notice that? Which other class gets that? A Hexblade Warlock is so great that a "dip" of two levels is nearly mandatory in "Power Builds" for multi-classing. If you count the number of threads in the Warlock Class forum, and the number of posts in them, you'll see that Warlocks draw the most interest in the game.
It can be argued that the single most powerful cantrip in the game is Eldritch Blast. It's Warlock only, but Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards can get it with Magic Initiate. Nobody else can use it like a Warlock can though. Those Invocations they get stack up and add a great deal to the power.
Being based on Charisma as a casting stat, Warlocks, Bards, Sorcerers, and Paladins are your obvious options for multi-classing. What role do you want to play in your group? All of them can heal, Paladins are arguably the best at that, so if you want to be a healer, Warlock/Paladin will be awesome. If you want to be the party "Face" and take the lead in social interaction, nothing will beat a Warlock/Bard. Warlock/Sorcerer is so good that many DMs flat out ban them because of the abuses they are capable of. In all your research, did you never come across the term "CoffeeLock"?
There are three "pillars" in D&D as it stands now, Combat, Exploration and Social. If you want to be a Warlock and multi-class to be a top end damage dealer, try a GooLock/Battle Master. Battle Master's are the top pick for Fighters according to the polls in the Fighter forum. All it takes is some research. Try out a GOOlock/Assassin. They are much more limited, but I don't think anything can spike out the damage an ambush can do. I've covered Combat and Social. For Exploration, your best bet is Rangers and Druids. A GOOlock/Hunter might be good, but not great. Their abelites are largely limited by the terrain, and if you're not in the kind they favor, you're kind of stuck. A GOOLock/Moon Druid has so much potential the mind boggles.
I like D&D, both as a DM and a player. No video game could possibly give me all the possibilities that D&D allows. You don't get to discuss anything with a video game. You can't say anything you want, even in games that let you have dialog, you have to pick what you say from a list. Without some programs that allow editing, and those are highly technical and difficult to use, you can't add anything to a video game that makes a mechanical difference.
You keep right on posting, over and over. Your DM is clearly pretty good at what they do. They knew how new to the game you were, and they chose a Patron for you, the Great Old One. A GOOlock's Patron's motivations are nearly impossible to understand, they don't dictate anything typically, and the only thing that happens if you stop being a Warlock is you can't increase your levels in Warlock. Any ability you had, you still have. I talked about Eldritch Blast before, as pretty much the entire Warlock class is based around that cantrip. It's scaling is not based on Warlock levels, it's based on character levels.
I am not going to say you are wrong. You have every right to your own opinion. My opinion is that you should play the game and see what happens. I'll be interested in hearing what happens, and I'd suggest that you post about it in a better forum for discussing opinions, which would be Tips & Tactics, or the General forum.
I appreciate the feedback Geann. Nobody picked anything for me, I was drawn to Old One Warlock because I thought it was cool. She only insisted that I not include any complex or involved patron strings attached to my character. Also, hexblade isn't on the table, we only have PHB, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual, no content outside of that will be allowed in this campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because that's the story you want to tell
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Actually, the warlock's patron gives them eldritch knowledge of how to do certain things. Once taught, that knowledge is the warlock's and the patron can't revoke it. The warlock's patron isn't like a cleric's deity, giving them spells and powers on a daily basis. If the warlock has a bad relationship with the patron, then there may be no further eldritch knowledge being taught, but what he/she already has is theirs.
"A D&D warlock isn't required to be on good terms with their patron. They made a magical transaction, and now the warlock has power. As for switching patrons, no rule allows it, but talk to your DM if there's a good story reason to switch. Your DM might say yes. #DnD" - Jeremy Crawford
Jeremy Crawford on Twitter: "A D&D warlock isn't required to be on good terms with their patron. They made a magical transaction, and now the warlock has power. As for switching patrons, no rule allows it, but talk to your DM if there's a good story reason to switch. Your DM might say yes. #DnD" / Twitter
"Why is 5e so anti-synergistic?"
**Looks at Sorcadins, Shadow Assasins, Coffeelocks, Storm Clerics, Ninja Clerics, Ninja Wizards, Smitelocks, Battlemaster Monks, Dangers (druid rangers), Shadow Enchanters and more insanely synergistic builds**
**visible confusion by the question**
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
This. A 2-5 level dip in a second class is usually the "sweet spot" for general multiclassing; there are a lot of combos that are skewed that way:
Really, so long as you take just enough to get the "primary" ability of each class (which usually only takes 2-3 levels), you can create some fairly powerful combos without sacrificing much, especially if you never get to level 20 (or the main class capstone is meh, which is the case for several classes), plus, with some classes, you will get a subclass feature as well with just one level (Warlocks, Clerics, Sorcerers).
If I had to pick one reason, the level 6 Paladin ability is one of the best in the game, full stop.
No-one has "evil" smiting and only Paladins and Warlocks have smiting (the mechanic of spending a spell slot for damage), but Paladins aren't great at healing (almost no-one in 5E is), including ressing. They're excellent support - see above for the L6 ability, and most of their subclasses have L7 aura support to offer as well. The healing they do have is great for picking up a downed ally, since they can spend it 1 point at a time. What a Paladin typically does better than a Cleric is hit harder in melee (thanks to the L2 ability to Smite) and provides its particular flavor of support, typically from its aura.
Yes, this is true. All of the most damaging builds in the game are made from Fighter, as they're built for Fighting. Everyone else has access to other things, like how Paladins have access to their spell list.
Wizards are great and very powerful, but everything depends on both level and what niche you're trying to fill. For example, at level 20, you need very specific tools to kill a Moon Druid - a level 20 wizard may not have those tools available (the level 20 Druid ability is radically better than the L20 Wizard ability). And with prep time, a level 17 Genie warlock is more powerful than anything else in the game, and Celestial warlocks (along with a very specific kind of halfling warlock of any type) have a combo power with Sorcerers so powerful most DMs manually houserule their games just to prevent it.
In terms of party roles, the most obvious one you've neglected to cover is party face. Fighters, Clerics, and Wizards aren't specialists in social encounters. You generally need to be Charisma based or a Rogue built for it to handle social rolls competently. Maybe you'd have a better time building out a party face character?
As a DM, what is that combo? Just in case I see it come up.
Does this mean you don't have access to anything else, either? So you haven't seen any material after the PHB and DMG?
I think you have this exactly backwards, as Torvald posted above. A warlock's power is not dependent on remaining in the good graces of their Patron at all.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
There are always pluses and minuses to everything in DnD. WotC has tried to keep things with a power balance (not always perfectly balanced, but there is an effort there to maintain a balance). Thus you can't have it all. If you want the really high level spells and class abilities, you have to stay with one class. MCing will give you more versatility and there can be good synergy between some of the classes. But you will also get to certain power bump levels, later in the game. MCing can have your character in a state of flux until you hit a certain level where it all comes together, which frequently can be a higher level. And who really knows how long their particular game will go on? Lots of groups plan on going to level 20, when they start, but then never make it to level 12! So you never know for sure.
In one of my games, I have gone to paladin at level 6, now am MCing to warlock (been setting up how the storyline works for explanation of adding in a warlock patron also and clearing story with my DM). I think more thought has to given then just showing up one day and saying "oh hi guys, am a warlock too, now!" But my power will be increased in some ways and hurt in others, by MCing. I will get a ranged attack, invocations and warlock spell slots. But I am taking 3 levels of warlock, which means I will be 9th level and without 3rd level spells. 3rd level spells is a large power curve jump for players. I will be level 9 and won't have them. In fact, I won't get level 3 spells, until level 12 overall (9 pal / 3 war)!
So, there are always trade offs. There is no perfect answer. So choose carefully, what matters most to you.
I generally find that the more synergistic everything becomes, the less actual choices you have. Someone out there will take all the synergized options and distill the Most Perfect Character from them, everyone will start playing that build until it's essentially required, and if you feel like playing a suboptimal build you'll be met with two outcomes: 1) your fellow players react like "wtf are you doing not taking this skill combo it's like you're not even taking this seriously, or 2) you have to just content yourself with everyone else excelling so far ahead of you and get your fun character moments elsewhere.
I think 5e wisely made it so that some things do not work together, and I think that was for the most part, intentional and not a bad call.
Most GMs have enough on their plate just running the game. Expecting them to also take the time and energy to fix a fundamentally broken character class like the 3.0 ranger or 3.5 samurai or ninja because the writers didn't bother to playtest enough to make sure that the classes weren't steaming piles of orc poo is too much.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Required for what?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Required if you're playing in a game because GMs will start optimizing encounters for the Most Perfect Character and anyone who's not that optimized will wind up being unable to contribute anything more than as a meat shield.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you and your elementary school teacher later have a "falling out" can he/she remove your ability to do basic arithmetic?
No. Once your teacher taught you, that knowledge was yours.
Btw, Mike Mearls has also said that the eldritch knowledge, once taught to the warlock can't be taken away. That the patron can only withhold future knowledge. So you may not be able to progress in levels until you make it right with your patron or find a new patron. And the second patron may want a more binding agreement, since you violated the first. Or if the relationship is really bad with that first powerful patron entity, they might want to send creatures to kill the offending warlock. What the penalty is for violating the agreement is up to the DM and can easily become a part of the storyline for the campaign.
So I'm having a hard time trying to address your issues because it's very broad and kind of vague. It would be easier for me to try and help you come up with a character build to satisfy your needs. So how about you give me a character concept, archetype, or trope that you want to play and I will try and put something together for you?
As for warlocks, I don't think they are weak at all. They don't play like a Wizard, but that doesn't mean they aren't just as useful or contributing members of a party. What do you think is weak about them? I'm not exactly understanding your criteria, but maybe I can help point out things you're missing? Did you notice, for instance, that Warlock spell slots are always equal in level to the max level spell they can cast? Meaning that when they get 5th level spells, all their spells are upcast to 5th level. This can be an important factor to know because lower level spells can have improved effects when cast with higher level slots.
Also, just so you know, multiclassing is an optional rule. Not all DM's allow characters to multiclass, so none of the classes are specifically built with multiclassing in mind. This can simplify the balance issue.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Warlocks learn their powers because the PHB says they do, but that doesn't mean they learn conventionally. For example, mastering their powers could involve blood transfusions from your patron, or exposure to magical radiation. Or anything else. Just because a warlock learns things, that doesn't mean a non-warlock is also capable of learning them. A platypus can learn how to hunt using only electromagnetism - but you can't. Same thing.
You understand that bards learn their powers too, but also aren't wizards, right? Why aren't you asking why wizards can't learn, I don't know, Countercharm?
Y'all are playing a completely alien version of 5E than I am
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The post you are responding to explicitly says the patron can withhold future knowledge and prevent levelling.
You do your arguments no favors with this sort of nonsense.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's not a big problem in 5E, but in 4E and 3E it was a massive problem.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I have been playing D&D for a long time. I just don't understand why you think everything is not designed to work together. Multi-Classing strikes me as a cool and amazing thing. The more research I do into the classes, it really seems to me that if you want to do melee damage, a Fighter is a good choice for that. If you want to be a spell caster, Wizards are good at that, so are all the classes. There isn't a single Class in the game that can't cast spells one way or the other. Fighters can do that. See the Eldritch Knight, that's one of the ones in the Player's Handbook. Clerics do indeed make the best healers, but then, that's what they are for. Not every multi-class in the game should be the absolute best at anything. That's the trade-off, you can be good at one thing, or you can be sub-par, but you get to do it in everything.
You clearly love Warlocks. Let's talk about them. Should they be inferior to Clerics and Wizards? Well... Are they Clerics or Wizards? Nope. They are their own thing. Warlocks have a fairly unique feature. At first level, they get most of their sub-class abilities. You said you did research, didn't you notice that? Which other class gets that? A Hexblade Warlock is so great that a "dip" of two levels is nearly mandatory in "Power Builds" for multi-classing. If you count the number of threads in the Warlock Class forum, and the number of posts in them, you'll see that Warlocks draw the most interest in the game.
It can be argued that the single most powerful cantrip in the game is Eldritch Blast. It's Warlock only, but Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards can get it with Magic Initiate. Nobody else can use it like a Warlock can though. Those Invocations they get stack up and add a great deal to the power.
Being based on Charisma as a casting stat, Warlocks, Bards, Sorcerers, and Paladins are your obvious options for multi-classing. What role do you want to play in your group? All of them can heal, Paladins are arguably the best at that, so if you want to be a healer, Warlock/Paladin will be awesome. If you want to be the party "Face" and take the lead in social interaction, nothing will beat a Warlock/Bard. Warlock/Sorcerer is so good that many DMs flat out ban them because of the abuses they are capable of. In all your research, did you never come across the term "CoffeeLock"?
There are three "pillars" in D&D as it stands now, Combat, Exploration and Social. If you want to be a Warlock and multi-class to be a top end damage dealer, try a GooLock/Battle Master. Battle Master's are the top pick for Fighters according to the polls in the Fighter forum. All it takes is some research. Try out a GOOlock/Assassin. They are much more limited, but I don't think anything can spike out the damage an ambush can do. I've covered Combat and Social. For Exploration, your best bet is Rangers and Druids. A GOOlock/Hunter might be good, but not great. Their abelites are largely limited by the terrain, and if you're not in the kind they favor, you're kind of stuck. A GOOLock/Moon Druid has so much potential the mind boggles.
I like D&D, both as a DM and a player. No video game could possibly give me all the possibilities that D&D allows. You don't get to discuss anything with a video game. You can't say anything you want, even in games that let you have dialog, you have to pick what you say from a list. Without some programs that allow editing, and those are highly technical and difficult to use, you can't add anything to a video game that makes a mechanical difference.
You keep right on posting, over and over. Your DM is clearly pretty good at what they do. They knew how new to the game you were, and they chose a Patron for you, the Great Old One. A GOOlock's Patron's motivations are nearly impossible to understand, they don't dictate anything typically, and the only thing that happens if you stop being a Warlock is you can't increase your levels in Warlock. Any ability you had, you still have. I talked about Eldritch Blast before, as pretty much the entire Warlock class is based around that cantrip. It's scaling is not based on Warlock levels, it's based on character levels.
I am not going to say you are wrong. You have every right to your own opinion. My opinion is that you should play the game and see what happens. I'll be interested in hearing what happens, and I'd suggest that you post about it in a better forum for discussing opinions, which would be Tips & Tactics, or the General forum.
<Insert clever signature here>
I appreciate the feedback Geann. Nobody picked anything for me, I was drawn to Old One Warlock because I thought it was cool. She only insisted that I not include any complex or involved patron strings attached to my character. Also, hexblade isn't on the table, we only have PHB, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual, no content outside of that will be allowed in this campaign.