D&D 5E Q&A: Mage Cantrips, Multiclass req., and the Psion

[Plaguescarred]

Cantrips are spells without level and you can only copy new cantrips of a level you can cast, so this answer doesn't make sense unless R&D assume they count as 0-level spells, which doesn't say so.

I'm good with the reasons for having Multiclass Prerequisits.

Psonics will probably only see print after initial release so they'll have more time to think about how to do them.

 

[Mistwell]

Come on guys, you don't need to explain your reasoning behind ability score requirements. Give us the poll and we will gladly vote them to hell.

You might want to check your assumptions again. More people seem to like them, than those who do not like them.

Was thinking the same thing UngeheuerLich. Not sure the fighter class package is what the 10 Str character is actually after. That comes with heavy armour prof & prof in a whole heap of heavy weapons. Seems like an option before full blown multi-classing, i.e. feats, is what's required.

There will be a poll soon 1of3. I'm pretty certain Wizards will pay it attention. Forum polls otoh are typically a waste of time imo - the extremist voice is over-represented.

If forum polls are such a waste of time, then where does the sense that they will be voted down come from, if not from impressions one gets in forums?

Make the ability score requirements as a little optional sidebar. As most people will ignore them anyway.

I find this ongoing assumption to be odd: that a majority don't like this rule and won't follow it anyway. Where are you guys getting this sense from, if not from the very forums which vote to support the rule? Or are you basing your sense on your own instincts and the voices of your gaming group, which is an even smaller sample than a forum poll?

You've seen lots of people post that they like the ability score requirements for multiclassing. Why are you doubting that a substantial number of people like this rule?

 

[Mistwell]

Double post

 

[TerraDave]

You might want to check your assumptions again. More people seem to like them, than those who do not like them.



SNIP

Glad to see I am not the only one!

 

[Sadrik]

Cantrips still bother me. Unlimited non attack magic is appropriate, though I would still like to see buy in by the player to make certain things unlimited (wand, higher level spell, feat). The problem is the unlimited attack spells and the auto-scaling nature. Unlimited minor illusion is no big deal, but an attack spell that deals more damage than weapons is something mages should have they just need to be something that they dont begin with...

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

If forum polls are such a waste of time, then where does the sense that they will be voted down come from, if not from impressions one gets in forums?

Oh, really I'm just getting at the general lack of methodology and careful wording on user initiated forum polls. WotC take a much more balanced view because they're professionals with a lot to lose if they get it wrong.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Psionics answer comes as no surprise, I highly doubt they were ever thinking that far ahead.

I don't like the multiclass ability requirements either, and that's because some classes like Fighter can be use Dex instead of Str and still be valid. Not to mention that 15 is pretty high, not "relatively low" like they mention in the answer.

 

[Mistwell]

Cantrips still bother me. Unlimited non attack magic is appropriate, though I would still like to see buy in by the player to make certain things unlimited (wand, higher level spell, feat). The problem is the unlimited attack spells and the auto-scaling nature. Unlimited minor illusion is no big deal, but an attack spell that deals more damage than weapons is something mages should have they just need to be something that they dont begin with...

I don't mind the scaling (they don't scale very well and will not be good choices to use at higher levels, I think). But I agree with you they should require more buy-in.

I like your idea that they must be tied to a wand. It makes little sense to me that the lowest level wizard knows how to use an infinite number of a spell, but the highest level of wizard still never learns to do that with any more advanced spells. How is it than an apprentice knows how to cast ray of frost at-will but a 20th level wizard cannot cast magic missile at-will?

Tying it to a wand, staff, rod, orb, or other implement makes sense. It's a focus they must use to utilize that power in that way, which can only handle the lowest level of magic (regardless of caster level). That way, they risk losing the focus, and must use a hand to hold the implement to cast it. It also provides a stronger tie to the background of being educated as a wizard - they must have undergone a task to manufacture this focus, or received it on graduation from their teacher, or something that hands it down or ties it to them prior to becoming a full wizard.

 

[steeldragons]

'Nother vote in favor of multi-classing ability prereq's.

Of course, I'm also one of the guys who wanted 1e-style multi-classing/the death of 3e-style multi-classing, so many/most folks who don't like the prereq's probably don't care what I prefer.

 

[Celebrim]

I also dislike the requirements for the same reason I disliked requirements for feats and prestige class in 3.x - they make you plan your character out in advance. I'd like for people to be able to spontaneously multiclass their character. Maybe something happens to your rogue during the story that he finds religion and decides to become a cleric. It would be, IMO, unfortunate if you couldn't do that just because you didn't have the foresight when you made the character to put enough points into Wisdom.

The only way you could do that is make it so that abilities had no synergy with classes or feats at all. If you could multiclass into cleric reasonably regardless of your wisdom, it implies not only that there is no perquisite for clerics to have wisdom but that clerics gain no particular benefit from wisdom at all. I'm not sure I'd want to go that direction, because I suspect where it would end up is with everyone having 18 str or 18 dex regardless of class.

I started in 1e, and so when I adopted 3e for a number of reasons I established ability minimums for classes. For the most part, they are very weak - you have to have at least 7 str and 7 dex to be a hunter, for example. I also established higher prerequisites for multiclassing, primarily to insure that any multiclassing would create heavy multi-attribute dependency (because nothing with MAD is broken) and that there was a practical limit to the number of classes you could dip*. That was motivated by the fact that most classes were front loaded and I could foresee problems with dipping classes. I personally feel these decisions were vindicated by what 3.X became, though obviously, if you like where 3.X ended up with everyone having 3-6 classes and often multiple prestige classes you aren't going to be too happy with the restrictions I put in place.

But if your complaint is about planning characters out too much from the start, there is certainly no evidence that largely unrestricted multiclassing encouraged players to not plan their characters out in detail from the start.

*It's still pretty low. To give you the idea, a multiclass Fanatic/Fighter/Explorer/Hunter would need a 15 Str, 13 Dex, and 13 Con - still reasonable and likely in a martial build. But a multiclass Fanatic/Fighter/Explorer/Hunter/Sorcerer needs a 17 Str, 15 Dex, 15 Con, and 18 Chr. That isn't really practical. Generally 2-3 classes are pretty easy to put together under my rules.