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

[Ahnehnois]

Usually, IME, it's to min/max a character.

Okay, but if the same player is taking levels in only a single class, isn't he also doing it to min/max the character?

Again, if a player is trying to make an effective barbarian, and dipping in fighter helps him do that more than taking another barbarian level, something is wrong with those classes. Something that restrictions don't fix.

 

[Mistwell]

Nay. Because it implies that base classes should have ability-score restrictions. If base classes don't have ability score restrictions, why should multiclassing? Classes should be based around skills and training, not inherent abilities.

The answer to your question, is on the first page of the multiclassing document. Addressed directly.

 

[Jester David]

Less than you might think given the prevalence of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. That mechanic simply does not work well with either of those dice configurations, neither does the AC system in general as rolling multiple dice makes each point of AC exponentially more valuable. Consider how with no bonus an AC of 18 can be hit 15% of the time on a d20, but only 0.4% of the time on 3d6 and an AC of 19 can't be hit at all.

There will always be pluses and minuses to house rules.

Super high ACs tend to be rare in 5e, but if it was problematic you could lower AC by a small amount. But I don't see it being that bad as you can easily get bonuses of +3 to +5, so a 19 requires around a 15, hard but doable. But as there's a bell curve, AC of 11-14 will be hit much more reliably.

As for advantage, that highlights one of the ways 5e is pro modularity. The rules define advantage and disadvantage and then everything else just references the two keywords. So you can change Adv/Dis in your game.
Don't like rolling twice, make it a flat +/-5. Changing the d20 to 3d6, change each instance of advantage into adding a d6 to your pool and disadvantage taking away a d6 (you could potentially allow stacking with that rule).

You keep bringing up abuse but it's never been shown how free multiclassing can or ever has been abused or how it's even sort of bad or even on the list of "probably not the best things". Your assumption as to why 4e did things that way is purely speculative. I fail to see at all how unrestricted multiclassing leads to something resembling a problem. All opposition to it just sounds like a kneejerk reaction to imagined problems that never existed.

The potential abuse and dipping was one of the big reasons they went with feats for 4e, and why the designers were so nerf happy for hybrids, often trying to avoid abuse so hard they rendered options awkward.
The specter of 3e multiclassing haunted that entire edition.
So, yeah, it can be abused.w

Right now you can dip to get free weapon and armour proficiencies, and new save proficiencies. Since everyone uses the same chart you can dip into a single class and have good saves from then on.
A wizard can go a single level of cleric and not even lose spellcasting. One level and she gets all the 1st level cleric spells and can rock as a healer until endgame, plus the ability to cast in heavy armour, double your saves, etc. Nice bonus with the only cost being the level 20 capstone most campaigns won't reach to lose. Why would you not?

 

[Nellisir]

Okay, but if the same player is taking levels in only a single class, isn't he also doing it to min/max the character?

Again, if a player is trying to make an effective barbarian, and dipping in fighter helps him do that more than taking another barbarian level, something is wrong with those classes. Something that restrictions don't fix.

:blink:

There's a weird fascination with the word "effective" that I don't quite get. What are you trying to achieve with an "effective" character? I mean, flat-out, the DM can beat any character you can create, so effective can't mean "unbeatable". And a good DM challenges all the characters and players, so it can't mean that you get all the attention, or win all the challenges, or that a less "effective" character is going to get less attention -- if that is the case, it's a problem with the DM.

Does "effective" mean "uses all the weapons and all the armor without restriction"? How many do you need? How many armors can your character wear at once? And if you're running around in full plate and a greatsword, are you really playing a barbarian?

 

[n00bdragon]

abuse and dipping

If you actually read that article you linked to you'd learn the reason for this is not primarily to stop multiclassing, but to facilitate it. It makes it so that your classes play together nicely and use shared character building resources. If you're going to zero in on his comment about how the 3e class design necessitated spreading all the good stuff out over many levels instead of frontloading it all.... please. Please do comment about how free multiclassing informs class design.

I forgot who was saying "Go look at the charop board" but that's beyond defensible. 3e is like baseball. You can charop your fighter all day long but you're still playing in the peewee leagues. If you bend the books hard enough you can squeeze a character up one tier at most. Oh no. Now your fighter is tier four instead of five. Why does the charop board exist then? One, because not everyone likes playing casters yet most of them like being contributing to the game, and those who do like playing casters don't really need charop. Take more caster. There's your charop. Done.

 

[Mistwell]

The potential abuse and dipping was one of the big reasons they went with feats for 4e, and why the designers were so nerf happy for hybrids, often trying to avoid abuse so hard they rendered options awkward. The specter of 3e multiclassing haunted that entire edition. So, yeah, it can be abused.

If you actually read that article you linked to you'd learn the reason for this is not primarily to stop multiclassing, but to facilitate it. It makes it so that your classes play together nicely and use shared character building resources. If you're going to zero in on his comment about how the 3e class design necessitated spreading all the good stuff out over many levels instead of frontloading it all.... please. Please do comment about how free multiclassing informs class design.

3rd Edition gave us a simpler, elegant, and intuitive solution that worked wonderfully… for characters who didn’t cast spells. The system also forced the core classes to delay abilities after 1st level to avoid cherry picking, where “clever” players simply took one level of as many classes as possible (or layered single levels on to a primary class) to reap the benefits of ungodly saving throws and bizarre but ultimately frightening combinations of class abilities that—like chocolate and pickle relish—were never meant to be combined by men and women of good taste.

I forgot who was saying "Go look at the charop board" but that's beyond defensible.

That was me. It's quite defensible, but thanks for the spiteful comment man.

3e is like baseball. You can charop your fighter all day long but you're still playing in the peewee leagues. If you bend the books hard enough you can squeeze a character up one tier at most. Oh no. Now your fighter is tier four instead of five.

I think you meant five instead of four?

Why does the charop board exist then? One, because not everyone likes playing casters yet most of them like being contributing to the game, and those who do like playing casters don't really need charop. Take more caster. There's your charop. Done.

Again, if you look at the charop board, you will find a tremendous amount of level dipping. And no, they don't just achieve a one-up...they often achieve a 5 up or more. The spiked chain reach tripping fighter (often combined with things like Crusader) is not just a single level boost in power. The breaking loopholes found in the charop board are so notorious they were frequently read by DMs just to find what they needed to ban in their house rules before it came out (and you can see that in frequent comments there).

 

[MoonSong]

No, it's not. No multi-classing. Dipping stops.

Sometimes there are role-playing reasons for multi-classing an existing character. I've seen it once or twice, but no where close to "every game, every table". Usually, IME, it's to min/max a character. I've certainly done that as a player. But it doesn't crush all fun out of life if it's disallowed, and if it does, and your happiness is inextricably linked to having an awesome cool character that is best at everything, you're going to hate my table. Because I am the DM, and I will make sure every character gets a chance to shine, not just your special snowflake.

You are already assuming too much, but yeah the inability to my character stats to follow the organic changes of my character really detracts a lot from my fun. You see I like doing cool stuff as much as everyone else, but to me it doesn't necessarily imply it being in the spotlight, my fun comes from the acomplishment of playing a character that feels real enough. I'm hardly a min/maxer, I'm more of a max/minner ("let's see how many weaknesses I can put into this character before it cracks"), also I favor support characters more than fiedl controlers or outright mook slayers. Yes i would likely suffer on your table, but rather because we have different playstyles in mind and you seem to have many prejudices in the matter, probably I'm guilty of favoring "special snowflakes", but that hardly means I want perfect overcompetent marty stues who can singlehandedly level the field and don't need anybody else, actually the opposite, I dislike the idea of playing a physical god, I want to play flawed -but stiull slightly idealized - fantasy characters, not optimal and empty perfect killing machines.

 

[n00bdragon]

Again, if you look at the charop board, you will find a tremendous amount of level dipping. And no, they don't just achieve a one-up...they often achieve a 5 up or more. The spiked chain reach tripping fighter (often combined with things like Crusader) is not just a single level boost in power. The breaking loopholes found in the charop board are so notorious they were frequently read by DMs just to find what they needed to ban in their house rules before it came out (and you can see that in frequent comments there).

For one, you can't possibly get more than five tiers of improvement because 6 is the bottom tier and 1 is the top tier. For two, no, I meant five. The fighter is tier five. With optimization he can reach a high four at best. He certainly never approaches tier 1 in any imagining of the scale. Let's take a look at the six tiers of classes shall we? You can feel free to debate who falls in where but the tiers are very clear:

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

This is the generally accepted set of tiers and within that framework classes like the fighter, taken on their own from level 1 to 20 fall squarely in tier 5. That's not a judgement about whether the fighter's power level is appropriate or not, just a statement of where the class lies in the scheme of things. This list can also be generally applied to characters from any RPG.

 

[pemerton]

there is at least a theoretical tension between different min-maxing strategies. In the abstract, that's a feature even though I'm skeptical that it's worth the cost.

You're probably right, but I'm not sure that the existence of min-maxing strategies in PC build is necessarily a good thing. Depending exactly on what is being min-maxed, I guess.

It's a bit of a worry if the best way to build a PC who is good at X is not to maximise levels in the class that is badged at being good at X.

if a player is trying to make an effective barbarian, and dipping in fighter helps him do that more than taking another barbarian level, something is wrong with those classes. Something that restrictions don't fix.

This resonates very strongly with me. I prefer PC building to be as transparent as possible, with options doing what they say on the tin.

There's a weird fascination with the word "effective" that I don't quite get. What are you trying to achieve with an "effective" character? I mean, flat-out, the DM can beat any character you can create, so effective can't mean "unbeatable". And a good DM challenges all the characters and players, so it can't mean that you get all the attention, or win all the challenges, or that a less "effective" character is going to get less attention -- if that is the case, it's a problem with the DM.

Does "effective" mean "uses all the weapons and all the armor without restriction"? How many do you need? How many armors can your character wear at once? And if you're running around in full plate and a greatsword, are you really playing a barbarian?

I think there're are (at least) two possible ways of cashing out "effective". One is along the lines of "role effectiveness" or "genre effectiveness" - eg per your example of the "barbarian" running around in full plate and a greatsword. But in an RPG where player choices during play are expected to make a difference to the actual unfolding of ingame events (and I think many, perhaps most, D&D games would fit this descriptions), that sort of "genre effectiveness" is only worth having if playing your role also has a correlative impact on the ingame events.

This then leads us to a second way of cashing out "effective" - along the lines of "mechancially potent in action resolution". If effectiveness in this sense requires trading away genre/role effectiveness, that's a worry. If achieving effectiveness in this sense, while preserving some approximation to genre/role effectiveness, requires counter-intuitive build paths that rely upon baroque multi-class combinations, that's a worry too. It's also a worry if you can improve mechanical effectiveness, at only a very modest cost to genre/role effectiveness, by taking those baroque combinations.

You (Nellisir) have tried to head-off concerns about mechanical effectiveness as a distinct and important category of effectiveness by you remarks about the GM being able to beat any PC, and challenging all the players and giving all the PCs spotlight time. But those strategies only work (I think) in a game which is very heavily GM driven and correspondingly passive on the player side. In a more player driven game, a player who wants his/her PC to be effective in genre terms also needs to have adequate mechanical effectiveness. I don't know if that's what Ahnehnois had in mind, but it's the direction of thought that the quoted post pushed me in.

TL;DR: I don't really like what seem to be the system mastery implications of the intersection of the currrent class rules and the current multi-classing rules, which run the risk of forcing a trade-off between mechanical and genre effectiveness.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well it is about time someone posts a poll. What do you think of them?

I am not a fan of multiclassing, but requirements usually don't work well in D&D unless they are for a minor thing such as feat or spell.

Not because it's wrong to have requirements, but because everyone has its own opinion on what requirements would be better, and usually it ends up that a large amount of groups just ignore them, as was the case for 3e multiclassing penalties.

Thus I'd leave it to the DM to define what are the multiclassing requirements (or at least, label the default requirements "optional").