D&D 5E Feats / Multiclassing

[sidonunspa]

I hope my first GM allows muti-classing...

as my first character is going to be inspired by Ezio Auditore.... the only way I think I can give it justice would be Nobel - Fighter/Rogue

 

[GSHamster]

I have a player who has a rogue/monk. The rogue was an orphan who was taken in by an itinerant monk. He saved her life but sacrificed himself in the process. She found a book of teachings (including fighting styles) and is self teaching how to be a monk. This seemed like an interesting story intro for this. So I decided to allow it.

I think a lot of these cases could be handled by backgrounds (assuming this happened at character creation). For example, I'd see this character as a monk with the criminal background.

 

[Tormyr]

I think a lot of these cases could be handled by backgrounds (assuming this happened at character creation). For example, I'd see this character as a monk with the criminal background.

It could have been, but I don't think it had to. Right now the character is a Rogue 3/Monk 1. As the campaign goes on, I think the monk side will slowly catch up and overtake the rogue side.

It also looks like multi-classing is nerfed a bit in the PHB, So I am willing at this point to see how the multiclass characters develop before passing judgement.

 

[Paraxis]

...I'm not sure I can even read this as a serious response to the thread. You trolling? Either way, you have my sincerest apologies.

Not trolling, just a big believer in character optimization, it is not a bad word to everyone, some of us enjoy it a lot.
How as a DM could I refuse my players of the joy of optimizing character builds when I like it so much? In 3e I ran characters that level dipped in up to 5 or 6 classes including prestige classes, best way to get great saves and some of the classes have the better abilities in the first few levels. I would plot out my characters development over 20 levels before I sat down to play the first game most times, feats and multi-class levels were the biggest part of that process.

 

[Quickleaf]

I may borrow the Training rules (page 68 in Basic D&D under "Downtime") which state that a character needs 250 days to learn a new language or tool proficiency, and apply them to multiclassing. Even with great training/teachers and copious practice, I would say that should serve as a minimum time requirement for a character to gain a new class.

This would nicely nip in the butt scores of level 1 fighters who suddenly become full fledged wizard a few days later when the party levels up...

 

[Prism]

We will allow both in our games

When we have previously done multiclassing, I the player comes to the table with a 1st level character and says they envision it as a fighter/mage or druid/barbarian its pretty much allowed from the beginning. If a player midway through the campaign wants to multiclass we expect some form of story build up to that event, or significant in game reason. In a previous campaign my character took 6 months out from adventuring to go and study magic to take their first level in wizard after starting as a rogue. They were only accepted as student because they displayed enough skills with arcana (skill training first) and had much experience with use magic device. In other situations its probably a bit easier. A fighter that spends a significant amount of time sneaking and ambushing would probably be allowed to multiclass into rogue at some point.

Nobody would be allowed just because they wanted the features from a few levels in another class

 

[sidonunspa]

I may borrow the Training rules (page 68 in Basic D&D under "Downtime") which state that a character needs 250 days to learn a new language or tool proficiency, and apply them to multiclassing. Even with great training/teachers and copious practice, I would say that should serve as a minimum time requirement for a character to gain a new class.

This would nicely nip in the butt scores of level 1 fighters who suddenly become full fledged wizard a few days later when the party levels up...

except at 3rd, as a sub-class... they can wake up and know how to cast spells.

 

[Gargoyle]

Going to have to see the PHB before I decide on either. But probably I will allow both.

I've always liked 3e style multiclassing when it made sense in the narrative of the game. If your fighter decides to take up wizardry full time, it made sense to me. Dipping into a level of this or that to qualify for a prestige class or to optimize bugs me, but as long as you justified it with some story, I was still ok with it, even if it was a thin excuse. Optimization is just how some players love to play, and as long as they give a nod to the story, it's all good.

Now with the more flexible subclasses such as eldritch knight, I think that more players will go that way instead, so we will see less multiclassing. Probably I will decide on multiclassing on a case by case basis rather than a blanket ban or always allowing it, but if I like the rules enough then maybe I will just allow it, since my players tend not to ignore the narrative.

Of course I will always reserve the right to say no; sometimes it just doesn't make sense. In particular I don't like the idea of someone taking more than two classes. It's not a skill based RPG, and that just doesn't work well IMO.

Feats look good from what I've seen; I will probably allow them. I see them as good options for customization. I don't think I will allow any feats outside of the PHB except on a case by case basis though; I very much disliked the huge list of feats in 4e.

Glad to see multiclassing and feats are officially optional. Yes the DM can change anything, but when a system is designed to be optional it makes it easier to ban things you don't like, or add things you enjoy. Modularity is one of the big appeals to me in this edition, and I hope many systems are easily ignored without having to redesign the game.

I think one of the problems with D&D is not with the balance and functionality of combining all the options in the core rules, but with the plethora of classes, feats, spells, etc from other books. To protect my wallet and sanity I plan on limiting my source book purchases and keeping the game mostly core. While this is not the first time I've made that plan, this edition has so much variety in the PHB I might actually stick to the plan this time.

 

[Chocolategravy]

MC yes, it's the only way to do any mechanical customization of a character before 4 so they don't play identically to every other character of the same class. And the classes as is are pretty darn boring too. Feats you really can't not use. Sub classes are just pre-chosen feat packages. Other than MCing, feats are also the only way to make a character that isn't identical to every other character of the same class.

 

[MoonSong]

Not trolling, just a big believer in character optimization, it is not a bad word to everyone, some of us enjoy it a lot.
How as a DM could I refuse my players of the joy of optimizing character builds when I like it so much? In 3e I ran characters that level dipped in up to 5 or 6 classes including prestige classes, best way to get great saves and some of the classes have the better abilities in the first few levels. I would plot out my characters development over 20 levels before I sat down to play the first game most times, feats and multi-class levels were the biggest part of that process.

Optimizers like you are the reasons tinkerer scrubs like me can't have nice toys... I come from the opposite side, I never plan ahead in character development besides some fuzzy planning, the only exception will be that I have decided all of my sorcerers will begin with one level of bard, if only because that comes closer to my idea of a sorcerer someone as mundane as she is magical, but again I don't plan ahead, I always reserve the right to change paths at the slightest provocation, even -specially- if it isn't the most mechanically sound decision, like becoming a paladin even if I don't have the Wisdom to ever cast paladin spells, or going rogue despite being clumsy as hell, sadly the new multiclass rules prevent those underpowered characters from ever being, so I plan at least when I run a game to not only allow both multiclassing and feats, but also removing score prerrequisites from multiclassing, it isn't fair that only optimizers get to play with the new toys.