D&D 5E Multiclassing speculation

[MoonSong]

I still hold these requirements are extremely restrictive. Why a swashbuckling Rogue/paladin is barred from existing but a Monk/druid/rogue/ranger/fighter abomination is free to roam? Why does a rogue who halfway at fifth level decides to change her ways needs to spend other ten levels as rogue -without the chance to get some clericly feats to soften the blow- before being allowed to take the first level in cleric while an optimized PC in the same table already has levels in five different classes without a single in character reason to do that?

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'm personally hoping the stat prerequisite is 15+. With the default array and racial adjustments, it's easy for a character to have two 15+ scores early, and supports two-class multiclassing. With 13+, you're looking at potentially four scores in that range, which I think would encourage too much "level dipping".

Not to mention with the ability score improvements, you can make up for those two 15+ stats fairly readily.

 

[1of3]

[...] but a Monk/druid/rogue/ranger/fighter abomination is free to roam?

You forgot Cleric.

 

[MoonSong]

You forgot Cleric.

But then our OP monster would commit the crime of losing out a feat, and we can't have that can we? (And action surge + second wind > some minor cleric buffs)

 

[marleykat]

Good points, it might also be 1 additional proficiencies.

But don't pick something like Wizard's Arcana or Cleric's Religion as a basis for reasoning... First of all, while these are obvious choices, notice that no Wizard has to take Arcana proficiency and no Cleric has to take Religion. They are iconic choices, but if you think about it, they don't necessarily need them. A Wizard without Arcana is not crippled in any way, she just has a lower chance of answering questions related to magic, but she still knows the same amount of spells and casts them at the same power as any other Wizard. So the game doesn't have to grant 1 more skill to a Fighter turned Wizard just because of this... only to maybe see that player get away with another choice!

If you take the Fighter or the Rogue as a basis instead, you'll notice that none of their skill is as iconic as Arcana for Wizards or Religion for Clerics. Rogues' skills altogether are iconic (in fact I'm positive that when you multiclass into Rogue you'll get 2 more skills), but not a single one is so essential that someone shouldn't be a Rogue without it. Fighter skills even less so.

About score requirements, we have to see what are the numbers. If they are too low (13 or less), then IMHO they should have scrapped them altogether. If they are significant (15 or more) then this is actually a system for preventing heavy multiclassing.

Meh, the standard array allows for humans to have two 15's at creation and a feat and demihuman's can have three 15's at creation.

 

[MoonSong]

Meh, the standard array allows for humans to have two 15's at creation and a feat and demihuman's can have three 15's at creation.

Allow me to introduce you to this Array

14, 14, 14, 13, 9, 8

Go human

15, 15 , 15 , 14, 10, 9

If you assign 15s to dex, wis and str, and the 14 to Con, you can access half the classes (sans paladin and the 4 arcane classes), move the 14 to cha and you trade barbarian for paladin. Spend a single score increase on cha and you now can freely access ten out of the twelve classes.

on a less extreme example, go 15 15 15 8 8 8 + racial mods. everybody can have those three 15s, unless you are a poor schmuck who didn't plan from the very beginning.

 

[drjones]

I still hold these requirements are extremely restrictive. Why a swashbuckling Rogue/paladin is barred from existing but a Monk/druid/rogue/ranger/fighter abomination is free to roam? Why does a rogue who halfway at fifth level decides to change her ways needs to spend other ten levels as rogue -without the chance to get some clericly feats to soften the blow- before being allowed to take the first level in cleric while an optimized PC in the same table already has levels in five different classes without a single in character reason to do that?

Well it's not a CRPG, if you can talk your DM into it, anything is possible. Weather it should be possible, that may be another story.

 

[MoonSong]

Well it's not a CRPG, if you can talk your DM into it, anything is possible. Weather it should be possible, that may be another story.

Of course DMs can lift the requirements and simply tell no to the most complex monster builds exploiting the rules. but my point stands, the requirements do nothing to prevent abuse and instead restrict legitimate usage of multiclassing, in that sense they are useless and the game is better without them.