D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Obryn]

Ah, isn't it easy to, when you run out of arguments, blame everything on baseless edition warring instead of having to actually consider that a previous edition did indeed do it better?
And sacrificing character concept for more combat power does not make you a good role-player either.

A assassin turning into a (very devout) priest simply is best represented by a class change in a class based system.

Don't confuse criticizing your arguments with edition warring. I'm doing the former, not the latter.

But back to the "substance" - who's sacrificing character concept? I'm certainly not. I'm saying one or more rebuilds are the best model of this transition. The fact that effectiveness isn't sacrificed is a side benefit.

... Unless ineffectiveness is core to your concept of the character, that is. In which case, go to town? If I'm running a reformed assassin, though, I'd rather be good at my job - and there's no way in which this makes me a worse role-player.

 

[MoonSong]

Making an ineffective character does not mean you're role-playing better.

Doesn't make me a worse roleplayer either.

You're confusing the issue again by equating 3e with the "best representation" and then criticizing other models simply for not being 3e.

Of course it wasn't the best, it had a lot of troubles -some of which the current one solves- and was prone to abuse -which the current one fails to prevent- but it worked for me for this particular purpose
-and the current one doesn't -. I'm not blindly criticizing the current rules, I'm just advocating for somethingthat works instead of only paying lip service to those who don't want MCing being abused -while leaving the door open for those wanting to abuse it, and making those who don't jump through hoops-. With the current rules the only difference between having score requeriments and not having them is that we can not get organic growth or multiclassing that respects the character approach. Saying that all fighters are Str 15 ignores the smart and nimble fighters, all roguesare Dex 15 neglects Charming and Cunning rogues, al paladins are Str doesn't leave room for alternative fighting modes.

I'm saying you can, and should, get both effectiveness and good role-playing opportunities.

But why should be denied the latter when it goes against the former? Why?

 

[Derren]

I'm saying one or more rebuilds are the best model of this transition.

Rebuilding is the worst option form your list as it basically wipes out the character you have been playing till now and replaces him with a completely new one.

 

[TwoSix]

A assassin turning into a (very devout) priest simply is best represented by a class change in a class based system.

If it doesn't meet the two goals of

a) matching up to the narrative of the in-character events, and
b) maintaining a level of baseline mechanical effectiveness

than it isn't really the best solution. Both goals are important. While they might not be able to be met perfectly in sync, the rules must meet at least a minimum standard in both.

 

[Obryn]

Doesn't make me a worse roleplayer either.

Of course it wasn't the best, it had a lot of troubles -some of which the current one solves- and was prone to abuse -which the current one fails to prevent- but it worked for me for this particular purpose -and the current one doesn't -. I'm not blindly criticizing the current rules, I'm just advocating for somethingthat works instead of only paying lip service to those who don't want MCing being abused -while leaving the door open for those wanting to abuse it, and making those who don't jump through hoops-. With the current rules the only difference between having score requeriments and not having them is that we can not get organic growth or multiclassing that respects the character approach. Saying that all fighters are Str 15 ignores the smart and nimble fighters, all roguesare Dex 15 neglects Charming and Cunning rogues, al paladins are Str doesn't leave room for alternative fighting modes.

But why should be denied the latter when it goes against the former? Why?

1. Nope.

2/3. I'd rather have restricted multiclass rules to prevent abuse, like is possible in the current packet. If there's need for exceptions, it can be handled at the table. In this crazy example, where you're seeking out what amounts to a mechanical penalty, you work with the DM to make it work.

I'm more concerned with - for instance - a Fighter taking two levels of Wizard just so all enemies have Disadvantage when attacking them. An ability score cost helps mitigate these potential abuses.

 

[bogmad]

Making an ineffective character does not mean you're role-playing better. Taking a level in cleric or whatever is likewise not equivalent to role playing a religious conversion.

You're confusing the issue again by equating 3e with the "best representation" and then criticizing other models simply for not being 3e.

I'm saying you can, and should, get both effectiveness and good role-playing opportunities.

But it's not just a religious conversion, it's switching occupation altogether. Any class can be religious. Not any class can be a cleric, because ... that's a class.

The very idea of multi-class is that you can be both of those classes. I don't need the system to be built with training wills to prevent me from being an ineffective cleric if I make clearly sub-optimal choices.
I do need the system to be built to keep me from abusing it to create a clearly broken, overly optimal multiclassed pc that makes the baseline classes look sub-optimal.

 

[Obryn]

Rebuilding is the worst option form your list as it basically wipes out the character you have been playing till now and replaces him with a completely new one.

No, your character is the same person in the game world with the same history and experiences.

The warlock I mentioned before, Xanril, was always Xanril even though his stats and class moved around.

A character is more than the numbers on their sheet.

 

[Derren]

No, your character is the same person in the game world with the same history and experiences.

The warlock I mentioned before, Xanril, was always Xanril even though his stats and class moved around.

A character is more than the numbers on their sheet.

The numbers are also part of the character. If they change radically so does he.

 

[MoonSong]

2/3. I'd rather have restricted multiclass rules to prevent abuse, like is possible in the current packet. If there's need for exceptions, it can be handled at the table. In this crazy example, where you're seeking out what amounts to a mechanical penalty, you work with the DM to make it work.

I'm more concerned with - for instance - a Fighter taking two levels of Wizard just so all enemies have Disadvantage when attacking them. An ability score cost helps mitigate these potential abuses.

But it doesn't prevent abuses, right now such PC can start wizard with fighter specs then change to fighter and go ahead unimpeded. That is the point, powergamers will always powergame, nothing stops them from planning a full fledged 20 level progression from the start. And having a WIS 8 cleric isn't a mechanical penalty, I can prvoe it .

Also an Int 15 requirement means nothing if the DM decides on uing a higher point buy method or something as crazy as 5d6 drop lowest two, rerroll ones.

 

[Obryn]

The numbers are also part of the character. If they change radically so does he.

Sure? But it's still the same (fictional) person with the same (fictional) history. That has existence independent to their mechanical representation.

If my reformed rogue, Eric, has let his reflexes slip and has learned wisdom, that is a stat change. But Eric is still Eric. If he forgoes his assassin training, gets rusty quickly, and learns clerical magic with remarkable speed, he's still Eric. If he's turned into a frog, he's still Eric, just greener.