D&D 5E Ability Score Requeriments for Multiclassing, yay or nay?

[Nellisir]

. Let new players taste the effects of unrestricted multiclassing, and let them decide if they want to restrict it or not, then give them solid rules if they chose to do so, not the narrow-minded, full-of-loopholes, roleplay-limiting ones we have right now.

So basically throw everything at them at once, and then close it off later as they get more experienced and better able to exploit the loopholes that develop as you close it off. That...makes no sense to me. One normally goes from simple choices to more complex, not vice-versa.

One thing that leaps out at me is that suddenly almost everyone is talking about dipping into one class, instead of two or three or four. That's a big step forward, IMO.

 

[Quartz]

I vote for no restrictions, at least in 3E; indeed multiclassinf makes a lot of sense for a non-spellcaster. A typical non-spellcasting adventurer might well be a fighter/rogue, or a holy knight might start as a Fighter, become a Knight, then a Paladin, and then finally a Prestige Class like Divine Crusader or Hospitaler. A 2 level dip into Monk might represent learning self-discipline. A gladiator might be a Barbarian / Monk / Fighter. And so on.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm a big fan of player choice. I never did 3d6 roll in order for stats, I ignored prereqs in 1e and 2e, and I ignored level limits when I wanted. I'm cool with custom builds, and I think of just about every rule in the book as optional. That's probably why I don't care about the prerequisites. They're handy if I want them, and simple to ignore if I don't. I also don't expect them to make it into the final ruleset as written.

The arguments against them are interesting. It's hard to know what to expect if the prerequisites are an optional rule, though. If you're arguing against them on the grounds of player choice, what are you going to do if your DM decides to implement them?

If I DM choses to implement them ,then it is either one or two things:
The group's playstyle already requires them, so no big deal here
The DM is upfront with them, which is an opportunity for dialog, and it helps set up the expectations of the players

On any case it will only pop up in the tables that want it or need it, the whole versatility of the system isn't compromised for a corner case, meanwhile the rest of the tables were this shouldn't be an issue are unaffected, unlike having to resort to Mother-may-I every single game on every single table when it makes more sense to listen to what is happening in-game. why burden reasonable DM's who don't fell right changing/removing the rules or don't fell like it yet?

Because you needed to reduce all your stats to the minimum to meet a class requirement, and needed to use a race which the designer already has admitted will be changed to remove those ability boosts in the final version?

I mean come on, you are saying you see no difference between those stats and typical stats, no cost at all in it?

It beats me, I don't have the slightest idea what "typical" means in this one. I just placed the stats for maximum multiclassing, but if by "typical" you mean "min-maxed" you beat me, I'm not good optimizing, I wouldn't know how to do it, I just place scores in the order they make more sense to me from the point of view of what I picture my character as. Having said that, my best effort gives out this:
Str 12 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 16 Cha 8, Pick a race with a Str bonus

If you start rogue (4 skills and expertise, train perception ,stealth, acrobatics and athletics), you can now go Barbarian (train Con saves) then Druid (train wis saves, two levels until you can wildshape), go Monk (for unarmored defense) now go back to rogue until you get assassination (if oyu feel like it stay another level for a feat), now mix and match as much as you want, poaching from ranger and cleric if you wish too. You can now animal shape into a very high AC hound, who can rage for temp hp, is very good at hiding, can surprise enemies having advantage on the first attack then can disengage and flee again, ending as rogue 8 Druid 4 Barb 4 monk 4 you get five feats/improvements, enough to top Wisdom and Dex. You can then have an insane speed, advantage on dex and con saves, and initiative, 3 rages per day, 3 wildshapes, a few spells, and are trained on lots of skills.

Meanwhile a simple lv 5 rogue assassin with Str 13 Dex 15 Con 10 Int 12 Wis 11 Cha 14 cannot change classes to become a cleric until hitting rogue 10. Yes this sure works as intended.

Must? Or else what?

Or many playstyles will suffer.

 

[Jester David]

Simply put: Yes, yes it does matter that much. Or should I assume that rolling d20s for attack rolls is optional too?

It is.
You could easily go for 2d10s or 3d6 and introduce a bell curve. 5e is meant to be hackable.

When you present something as the default you're doing two things:
1. Organized play tends to go with this.

Organized play is not so common as to set the baseline. But given the focus on preventing abuse without DM fiat, it would likely use that rule... optional or not.

2. New players tend to go with this.

New players are also not so common you have to bend over to accommodate them.
And they might need the most help limiting abuse at the table, especially new DMs with experienced players.

Of course, it doesn't even belong as a presented option. It's never been sufficiently explained why this rule needs to exist beyond a vague "Well something needs to be done about those gosh darn powerbuilding multiclassers!" or "But m-m-muh story" as if free multiclassing is either broken (it's not) or gets in the way of roleplaying (it facilitates it). Sure, that's a bit of a strawman but it's more or less true is it not?

This is funny with some hindsight. The abuse of unrestricted multiclassing in 3e promoted the much narrower (and restrictive) multiclassing feats of 4e.
Allowing per-level multiclassing can be broken, as taking a dip is potent. Restricting makes it a little more balanced.

 

[Jester David]

I understand there are some valid concerns, that is why I think giving detailed optional rules for DMs who want it or need it is fine, placing them as standard rules though makes it harder for people who don't need them or want them to remove them. When they are labeled as "optional" you know that not having them won't tear the system to shreds, for many here that is easy to see, but not many DM's have that level of foresight or rules mastery, specially newer ones. Let new players taste the effects of unrestricted multiclassing, and let them decide if they want to restrict it or not, then give them solid rules if they chose to do so, not the narrow-minded, full-of-loopholes, roleplay-limiting ones we have right now.

If it's better to leave customizing to DMs with rules mastery, shouldn't the base rules be the most designed to prevent abuse?
New DMs won't know how to adjust encounters, monsters, or adventures to account for a party with a higher power level due to creative multiclassing. Experienced DMs can, and can make an informed decision to lift restrictions or not.

 

[MoonSong]

If it's better to leave customizing to DMs with rules mastery, shouldn't the base rules be the most designed to prevent abuse?
New DMs won't know how to adjust encounters, monsters, or adventures to account for a party with a higher power level due to creative multiclassing. Experienced DMs can, and can make an informed decision to lift restrictions or not.

On principle I'm not against some kind of restriction to prevent brokeness, but the current requisites are like DRM, they get in the way of legitimate uses while leaving those who want to abuse the system unpunished. they are meaningless to people wanting to exploit the multiclassing but a huge hurdle to people who just want their character to change paths as a result of natural play, or those who want to recreate this character on their heads, or are just looking for a perk. Why does the system have to assume every player is a munchkin ready to seek the most overpowered combo?

 

[Jester David]

On principle I'm not against some kind of restriction to prevent brokeness, but the current requisites are like DRM, they get in the way of legitimate uses while leaving those who want to abuse the system unpunished. they are meaningless to people wanting to exploit the multiclassing but a huge hurdle to people who just want their character to change paths as a result of natural play, or those who want to recreate this character on their heads, or are just looking for a perk. Why does the system have to assume every player is a munchkin ready to seek the most overpowered combo?

Given WotC's design choices in past packets, of going to extremes when including potentially unpopular mechanics, this is likely a gauge of the fqnebase's acceptance of restrictions.
If the restrictions were low or easily ignorable they'd provoke less of a reaction, and provide less definitive feedback. People would be more likely to ignore and focus on other aspects of the system. But since they stand out and have some blatantly obvious problems (unable to multiclass into archery and finesse fighter) WotC is more likely to get usable feedback. It's purposely provoking nerd rage.

 

[Nellisir]

If I DM choses to implement them ,then it is either one or two things:
The group's playstyle already requires them, so no big deal here
The DM is upfront with them, which is an opportunity for dialog, and it helps set up the expectations of the players

On any case it will only pop up in the tables that want it or need it, the whole versatility of the system isn't compromised for a corner case, meanwhile the rest of the tables were this shouldn't be an issue are unaffected, unlike having to resort to Mother-may-I every single game on every single table when it makes more sense to listen to what is happening in-game. why burden reasonable DM's who don't fell right changing/removing the rules or don't fell like it yet?

One could quote this right back, essentially word for word, as a rationale for keeping the restrictions in.

On a slight digression, if players are level dipping "every single game at every single table", then there's something more important that's broken than the multi-classing rules.

 

[Nellisir]

I wonder how much people's opinion of multiclassing options is influenced by when they started playing D&D.

(Edit: It would be difficult to untangle age from experience in this, I think.)

 

[MoonSong]

One could quote this right back, essentially word for word, as a rationale for keeping the restrictions in.

On a slight digression, if players are level dipping "every single game at every single table", then there's something more important that's broken than the multi-classing rules.

You didn't understood me properly. I'm not making an apology of dipping (and stopping it entirely is very very hard anyway). What i'm saying is that multiclassing serves many purposes, even if we label a one time dipping for a perk and multiple times dipping for powergaming as "Illegitimate purposes", that still leaves other uses that have nothing to do with it, namely keeping two paths at the same time, and changing the path of your character because of redemption, corruption, enlightment or any other success in-game. What I say is that those restrictions hurt those purposes unnecessarily, you cannot change the class of your character organically once it becomes logical, you have to have it heavily scripted from the very beginning. Some "hybrids" of two classes won't fit very well with the most stereotypical image of their base classes and many will be very much impossible given those constraints. Those cases were the ones I was talking about when I said "every game, every table", if the rule has to be waived every 8 out of 10 cases, then it probably should be best left turned off and only used when necessary (i.e. when excessive dipping with powergaming purposes is a problem)