D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Obryn]

You need to teach me how to handle the fundamental disconnect, because I have troubles playing a character who is supossed to be gulible and a poor judge of character, yet never misses a singleinsight check, or a character who is suppossed to be very weak, yet can carry the barbarian on the party with full equipment without slowing down (and again, a Wis 8 cleric isn't a poor character, there is plenty you can do without needing to invoque a saving throw. You could focus on support for example, however a Roue 16/Cleric 1 is fairly ineffective at being a cleric, no matter the Wisdom)

That's a problem with D&D stats in a general sense, though, isn't it? I can't make a clumsy thief, gullible cleric, or weak barbarian without sacrificing the character's effectiveness. In general, not just here. It's too bad sometimes, but that's the granularity we have.

I have a feeling, though, that you're not arguing for anything I'm arguing specifically against. If you want to intentionally make a weaker character, there's no problem with that.

For the general concept of a reformed thief, however, there's no reason they should have to be bad at their new job, is all.

 

[bogmad]

I don't think that was @Obryn's assertion. It's not mine.

My main assertion is that 3E style multiclassing is not the only way to do this, and perhaps not the best. And that rebuilding is another way to do it. And that rebuilding should be part of the RAW.

My secondary assertion is that, if balancing 3E-style multi-classing means that the low-WIS rogue/cleric is not viable or perhaps not even rules-legal, that's not an objection to the otherwise balanced multi-classing rules, because there are other ways of handling that career-change concept (such as rebuilding).

On the finer points of detail, Obryn has covered it all in the handful of posts above this one.

So [if you're not arguing the RAW are fine and what we should adjust to] we're both arguing to change the RAW written then it sounds like. You, to add better rebuilding rules in so that you can better reflect the idea of a career change where a character's ability scores balance out (in this case Dex and Wis) so that he's a more effective cleric should he decide he wants to be one; and me, to have the multiclassing rules be more open and better matched to preventing power-gaming, but not weaker ("perhaps unviable" in your words) characters.

And both of our opinions on how to best handle the career change concept are based on our differing opinions of what the career change concept means and how it should be reflected.

I'd actually want to have both possibilities. If you want a previously low wis rogue to jump to having a guy be a balanced "viable" multiclass rogue/cleric then I want you to be able to do that, as long as you're not broken and overshadowing the other pcs. For me, I'd also want to have the option to not rebuild my ability scores and take a class I might not have the most balanced scores for. If it's less than "viable" that's my problem; hopefully my high dex score and roguish ability will compensate for my sub-par cleric abilities (which it may actually be entertaining to role play).

As long as an option doesn't lead to munchkin-ism and broken combos I'm ok with having either.

It's just as bad an idea to start at level one as a cleric with 8 wis, but right now we don't prohibit it. We just might tell you it's a bad idea. Why should multiclassing be different?

 

[bogmad]

I actually don't mind the ability score restrictions for multiclassing from a narrative point of view. Perhaps it should be harder to do something if you don't have the affinity for it. I didn't mind the widely ignored ability restrictions for paladins in 2e either. I think they might be a little high though, especially since...

Mechanically, there's also this idea behind them that they're supposed to prevent abuse, the effectiveness which I'm not convinced of.

 

[MoonSong]

That's a problem with D&D stats in a general sense, though, isn't it? I can't make a clumsy thief, gullible cleric, or weak barbarian without sacrificing the character's effectiveness. In general, not just here. It's too bad sometimes, but that's the granularity we have.

I have a feeling, though, that you're not arguing for anything I'm arguing specifically against. If you want to intentionally make a weaker character, there's no problem with that.

For the general concept of a reformed thief, however, there's no reason they should have to be bad at their new job, is all.

But again in Next a Wis 8 cleric isn't weaker at all, yes her "attack" spells will be easy to resist, but there is way more to be a cleric than attacking with divine magic. Such a character can still heal, buff, remove debuffs and I've never seen any problem with picking a finesse/ranged weapon to relly on. That kind of character isn't necesarilly weaker (and of course isn't broken either) so I don't see why I'm prevented from running this kind of character, specially since the restrictions put in place to prevent brokenn combos don't prevent broken combos at all (but rather encourage them).

 

[Dausuul]

I'm strongly opposed to having prerequisites for any type of character option, unless the option is literally useless or nonsensical without the prereq (e.g., to take a feat that improves your spellcasting, you must be a spellcaster).

I dislike a game that encourages builds, and prereqs are a major culprit in that; they force you to plan your character out from the start instead of developing over time. These prereqs are especially bad because you can, with the right build, evade the prereq! Let's say you want to play a high-Dex, low-Strength rogue, and dip fighter for Two-Weapon Fighting style and Second Wind. If you built your rogue and played for a while, and then decided to detour into fighter, you're out of luck. The only way you can qualify is if you're willing to waste 2-3 feat slots pumping your Strength to 15, which is a horrendous waste of feats and will take many levels to accomplish. But if you planned the character from the start, you can put your first level in fighter and then multiclass rogue for the rest, and everything's cool. You even get two extra hit points out of it.

There is no good mechanical reason for these prerequisites that I can see. As I said, you can mostly evade them by planning your build in advance, so the balance impact is negligible. They don't "protect you from yourself" to any great extent--you can still end up with a crappy mix of classes through multiclassing even if you meet the requirements. And as for verisimilitude, multiclassing is more plausible to me than single-class advancement. When you start learning a new thing, you tend to pick up the basics fast. Getting better at something you already know pretty well is much harder. When somebody explains to me how a wizard can go from "apprentice with a couple of spells" to "earth-shattering archmage" in a matter of months, or how a fighter can go from "greenhorn" to "slayer of armies" in the same timespan, then I'll be willing to discuss the realism of multiclassing.

That's a problem with D&D stats in a general sense, though, isn't it? I can't make a clumsy thief, gullible cleric, or weak barbarian without sacrificing the character's effectiveness. In general, not just here.

Sure you can. Wisdom is only important to a cleric for save DCs and certain Channel Divinity options. You can play a cleric of the Life domain and use your spells for buffing and healing, and your Wisdom won't matter at all. Dexterity is important for some of a rogue's class abilities, but most of those abilities are not critically important ones; I can see how to make a very effective rogue focusing on Strength and Charisma. And a dual-wielding Dex-focused barbarian is arguably better than a Strength-focused one, since you can wield finesse weapons, double up on your rage bonus, and stack your Dex with your Con for Thick Hide.

 

[Kobold Stew]

But again in Next a Wis 8 cleric isn't weaker at all, yes her "attack" spells will be easy to resist, but there is way more to be a cleric than attacking with divine magic. Such a character can still heal, buff, remove debuffs

Is this actually true in Next? I've played a low-Wis half-orc cleric in a previous edition, but the spells available to us so far, and the channelling of so many abilities through a single stat (and not, e.g., making ranged magical attacks a dex roll, etc.) suggest to me that this is no longer viable.

What spell deployment would you suggest for a mechanically viable wis 8 cleric at tenth level, for example?

 

[Obryn]

But again in Next a Wis 8 cleric isn't weaker at all, yes her "attack" spells will be easy to resist, but there is way more to be a cleric than attacking with divine magic. Such a character can still heal, buff, remove debuffs and I've never seen any problem with picking a finesse/ranged weapon to relly on. That kind of character isn't necesarilly weaker (and of course isn't broken either) so I don't see why I'm prevented from running this kind of character, specially since the restrictions put in place to prevent brokenn combos don't prevent broken combos at all (but rather encourage them).

I'm not in favor of preventing you from playing a low Wisdom cleric.

However, when it comes to "cleric stuff," there is nothing a low Wisdom cleric can do that a high Wisdom cleric can't do better. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that you're at a mechanical disadvantage at that cleric stuff, in part related to the quantity of good options available to you.

I get the feeling again that we're involved in two different discussions.

 

[Dausuul]

Is this actually true in Next? I've played a low-Wis half-orc cleric in a previous edition, but the spells available to us so far, and the channelling of so many abilities through a single stat (and not, e.g., making ranged magical attacks a dex roll, etc.) suggest to me that this is no longer viable.

What spell deployment would you suggest for a mechanically viable wis 8 cleric at tenth level, for example?

You get to prepare 11 spells at that level. Here's one array of non-Wisdom-dependent spells:

Level 1: Cure Wounds; Bless; Protection from Evil
Level 2: Prayer of Healing; Lesser Restoration
Level 3: Prayer; Protection from Energy
Level 4: Death Ward; Freedom of Movement
Level 5: Mass Cure Wounds; True Seeing

Basically, as long as you're willing to limit yourself to heals and buffs, you can do fine without Wisdom. And since you're so healing-oriented, the Life domain is a natural choice, which means you can use your Channel Divinity to Restore Health instead of Turn Undead. You only need Wisdom as a cleric if you want to use your clerical abilities offensively. If you're willing to let your trusty mace handle the offensive side of things, there's no problem.

And the rest of your party will love you.

However, when it comes to "cleric stuff," there is nothing a low Wisdom cleric can do that a high Wisdom cleric can't do better. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that you're at a mechanical disadvantage at that cleric stuff, in part related to the quantity of good options available to you.

I get the feeling again that we're involved in two different discussions.

No. There is nothing a low-Wisdom cleric can do that a high-Wisdom cleric can't do as well or better. It's a crucial distinction. Dumping your Wisdom as a cleric means you sacrifice versatility (you don't get to use offensive clerical magic effectively) but not power; you can do "cleric stuff" all day and it works fine. As long as you stick to the options that aren't Wisdom-dependent, you can do just as well at them as the Wisdom monkey. Meanwhile, your narrowed array of cleric options is made up for by your superior abilities elsewhere.

 

[Obryn]

Just so we're all clear - I'm not in favor of locking players out of mechanically poor - arguably or otherwise - options. I'm also not in favor of *restricting* character development by rigidly enforcing 3e style multiclassing without an option to rebuild.

I *am* in favor of restricting broken combinations.

The problem, to me, is that two things are true in Next:

1. It has Buffet style, quasi-point-buy multiclassing, similar to 3e.
2. It has Front loaded classes to enable interesting play from low levels.

I see these as incompatible and a major problem with game balance. Since I really dislike buffet style multiclassing because of my vision of D&D, and really like flavorful classes, limiting multiclassing in some way is my preference.

I was thinking stat minimums were maybe okay, with some agreements between player and DM in place, but I'm not so sure because of - as was pointed out - rolled stats and alternate paths. I didn't think it was sufficient, and don't think it's adequate.

So I'm in favor of different solutions. One idea is getting less features from secondary classes - like only getting a subclass in one class. I'm open to others.

 

[Dausuul]

The problem, to me, is that two things are true in Next:

1. It has Buffet style, quasi-point-buy multiclassing, similar to 3e.
2. It has Front loaded classes to enable interesting play from low levels.

I see these as incompatible and a major problem with game balance. Since I really dislike buffet style multiclassing because of my vision of D&D, and really like flavorful classes, limiting multiclassing in some way is my preference.

I'm not convinced that there are actual problems in practice. While the classes are indeed front-loaded with some nifty options, many of the "heavy hitter" class abilities are delayed a few levels. Aside from obvious exploits like the Unkillable Paladin (which requires fighter 9 and paladin 6, hardly a mere dip), can you point out an example of a genuinely overpowered multiclass combo, that substantially outperforms a similar single-class build?

Even in 3E, the min-maxer's paradise, my recollection is that it was quite difficult to break multiclassing to any great degree. Sure, there were ways to squeeze some advantage out of it, but you could stack up half a dozen classes and the end result was only moderately better than a single-classed build. The real brokenness was in a) single-classed spellcasters and b) prestige classes.