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

[Mistwell]

I think out of every 10 times people level dip, it's fair to say only 1 or 2 are for role playing reasons, and 8 or 9 are for min/maxing reasons. Which is why the default rule should be to try and balance the level dips, and then provide an option to ignore it for role playing reasons (with the option being in the DMG only, not the PHB). But the default to be to try and deal with the common abuse.

 

[MoonSong]

I think out of every 10 times people level dip, it's fair to say only 1 or 2 are for role playing reasons, and 8 or 9 are for min/maxing reasons. Which is why the default rule should be to try and balance the level dips, and then provide an option to ignore it for role playing reasons (with the option being in the DMG only, not the PHB). But the default to be to try and deal with the common abuse.

And I think that only 2 out of ten instances of multiclassing are level dips, so I believe we shouldn't be shafted with rules meant to discourage it if they get in the way of people who want to go for simultaneous or progressive multiclassing as opossed to level dips.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think out of every 10 times people level dip, it's fair to say only 1 or 2 are for role playing reasons, and 8 or 9 are for min/maxing reasons. Which is why the default rule should be to try and balance the level dips, and then provide an option to ignore it for role playing reasons (with the option being in the DMG only, not the PHB). But the default to be to try and deal with the common abuse.

Made up statistics aside, isn't the real solution to design the classes so that doing so is not overly advantageous?

3e classes sometimes have dead levels or don't reward advancing in a single class with robust abilities. PF largely addressed this simply by making the core classes more viable over 20 levels. Eliminating dead levels. Creating high level abilities and capstones worth shooting for. That way, the choice between taking a level in the class you already have and branching out to a new one is more of a balanced choice.

PF also addresses this by creating archetypes and highly customizable class abilities that largely remove the need to multiclass in order to adequately represent most character concepts. There isn't much dipping with PF-style base classes at all, IME.

None of which requires any restrictions per se.

 

[Mistwell]

Made up statistics aside

I'm sorry, did you say something?

There isn't much dipping with PF-style base classes at all, IME.

Why yes, you were.

 

[n00bdragon]

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

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.

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.
...
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.

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.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Go to the WOTC charop board for the 3e stuff. Look at the builds. Count how many are multiclassing, often with level dipping. It won't take you long to see the pattern.

 

[Nellisir]

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)

If a character, or characters, change class, for role-playing reasons, so frequently that creating an exception to the prerequisites is a problem...then there is a problem in the campaign. Not the least of which would be a failure of the imagination. A rogue that has to work to multiclass into paladin is a lot more interesting than a rogue that simply becomes a paladin. THAT'S role-playing.

 

[Mistwell]

I think it would be an awesome magic item to be given a sword by the Archbishop of Pelor, as a thanks for saving the temple from an demonic invasion, that grants the knowledge instantly to enter the profession of Paladin of Pelor without training (bypassing the mechanical level requirement).

I really don't think the role playing multiclassing will run into many problems with their DMs finding a way to make it happen if it makes sense for the campaign.

 

[Nellisir]

I'm not making an apology of dipping (and stopping it entirely is very very hard anyway).

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.

I think it would be an awesome magic item to be given a sword by the Archbishop of Pelor, as a thanks for saving the temple from an demonic invasion, that grants the knowledge instantly to enter the profession of Paladin of Pelor without training (bypassing the mechanical level requirement).

I really don't think the role playing multiclassing will run into many problems with their DMs finding a way to make it happen if it makes sense for the campaign.

Aiiiieeeee! Imagination! Run away, run away!

 

[Sunseeker]

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.