• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Matt Mercer Just Changed My Mind About Multiclassing

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Didn't know about the Handbook Helper. I'll be following those.

There are a number of Internet DMs who have gotten me to change my thinking and try new approaches to running games.

Angry DM convinced me to get stop fiddling around with Paizo combat pads, initiative tents, etc. and go back to pen and paper.

DM Scotty from DM Craft showed me how easy and satisfying gridless play could be.
[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] helped me get more disciplined in my thinking about various mechanics, which has helped me run smoother games.

Matt Coleville convinced me to adopt and adapt 4e skill challenges for use in my 5e games.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nice video.
After having played all previous editions and PF, I thought the multiclassing rules are quite clear and simple. And I like them, all of it.

Concerning internet influence on my games:
sure!
From rules to builds to adventure ideas.
AND: especially the Mercer videos inspired me and a friend to put more into actual role-playing, acting, colorful descriptions and so on, as a DM as well as a player.
 

6ENow!

I don't debate opinions.
Well, let's say you wanted to dip 2 levels in Paladin just to get Divine Smite for some creative build, but you don't want to put 13's in both Strength and Charisma (I don't know...pretend you're going Bladesinger Wizard or something). If it was only the new class that had prerequisites, you'd just start as Paladin then switch to your main class.

Ok, that is a good point, and we thought of it, but that is where there was no logical reasoning behind it because there are no prerequisites without multiclassing. I understand why they did away with them, so you could play any variant without being forced to put scores in places you might not want them. I mean if you wanted to play a DEX-based Paladin instead of STR, and focused your scores in DEX and CHA, that would be fine. You don't wear heavy armors, use finesse weapons, etc. and min/max with a STR 8. But maybe the build is an female elf with a small frame. It makes sense for her to have a lower STR and higher DEX, so you aren't even really min/maxing now.

Then later on your character finds the mystical arts intriguing and decides to become a bladesinging wizard (you have the CHA and can sing well ;) ). You have a good DEX and the required INT 13, so it is a natural fit. Now, since you haven't spent years learning and training in understanding arcane magic, that INT 13 helps you pick it up quickly so there is no need for any sort of "break" in the game as you study magic, etc. You had years (or at the very least several months) for your training to be a Paladin, so that STR 13 wasn't really needed since it wasn't your focus.

Either way, with only needing 13's it isn't really a big "requirement" any way and is basically pointless to us. With a point-buy build you can easily have 3 or 4 13's, allowing you to do any two-class combination you want. I am playing a triple-class right now (female High-Elf Cleric/Wizard/Rogue) who started with:

STR 10
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 14
CHR 13

No problem getting the required 13's in three classes. In fact, with a point-buy system and racial bonuses, you can start a character with 13's in all scores, making any potential multiclass happen at any point later on. True, you won't be great at anything, but as with my character you are good in several things and make a wonderful support character.

If they are going to use them, I think 15's would be much more difficult and reflect the reasoning behind prerequisites, but I would also only have them for the new classes like we are presently doing.
 


Horwath

Hero
I do not like current MC in 5e. It's either too weak in the long run or has few cheeky 2X/18X or 3X/17X overpowered builds.

only true MC for me is when classes are equall in number of levels or 1 level apart when on odd character levels.

But then that character is garbage in comparison to full pure class character.

So I added "dual class" levels for MC characters.

You raise you 2 classes one level one class then other level the second class and back and forth that way.
But on character levels 5,8,11,14,17 and 20, you get class features of both classes. HPs are averaged for that level.

So, 5th level fighter/wizard would have 3 levels of wizard and 3 levels of fighter. But would be by HPs and other mechanics a 5th level character with 5 HDs for healing. 2d10, 2d6 and one d8(average of d10 and d6)

8th level would have 5/5 levels of fighter/wizard

11th lvl would be 7/7

14th lvl would be 9/9

17th lvl would be 11/11

and 20th level would be 13/13 for class features.


this variant gives more "class" features in total than single class characters, but they are locked in low level.
 


G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Ok, that is a good point, and we thought of it, but that is where there was no logical reasoning behind it because there are no prerequisites without multiclassing.

You're still making a simulationist argument, whereas I'm making a gamist argument.

If you were playing a single class you'd be unlikely to dump your prime stats. And if you DID it would probably be for some really cool RP reason.

They're just forcing you to have decent stats as a kind of "price" for multiclassing, to dampen blatant minmaxing.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
They're just forcing you to have decent stats as a kind of "price" for multiclassing, to dampen blatant minmaxing.
I think so, too. And I think that many of the complaints about those prerequisites can be boiled down to a desire for said minmaxing.

There are countless threads about how "useless" intelligence is, and how it's the default dump-stat for 5E. But when you allow multiclassing, you have to think twice about dumping any ability score (except Constitution), lest you limit your options. I say "limit your options," but with characters getting a +2 ability score increase every 4 levels (or more, if you are a Fighter), this quickly becomes No Big Deal in my opinion.

And meeting the prerequisites for your current class is also a tempest in a teapot, if you ask me. If you're a Barbarian, you probably already have a Strength score of at least 13. Same for Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks having a Charisma score of 13, or a Wizard having an Intelligence score of 13, and so on. I haven't seen a character that didn't meet their own class prerequisites at 1st level. I think that unless you have a very unusual character build, this "rule" will just be a formality for you.

I think it would be much more interesting if these requirements were something other than ability scores. Imagine if you needed proficiency with the Religion skill in order to multiclass with Cleric, or you needed the Entertainer background in order to multiclass with Bard, or you needed the Magic Initiate feat in order to multiclass with Sorcerer. Certainly better from a roleplaying standpoint, but difficult to balance.

But I digress. I don't have a problem with the ability score prerequisites. They're a little bland, but they work for me.
 


BookBarbarian

Expert Long Rester
[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] totally opened my eyes to a better way to play D&D.

DISCLAIMER: The use of the word "better" in this post is meant entirely subjectively, and is not intended as a denigration or dismissal of the views of other participants in roleplaying games. Even if they are playing the game wrong.

Yup. Whenever I give advice about running the game I start with the number one thing that dramatically improved my game. Asking each individual player "What do you do?" after presenting the scenario.

Table talk reduced, player engagement increased especially on the non combat pillars of the game, spotlight was evenly shared (maybe not perfectly, but close enough to keep players satisfied).

Number 2 is the adjudicating actions thread.

Anyway, I'm very glad I stumbled upon the Summer at the Lake campaign write-ups on the old WotC forums just as I started DMing.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
I haven't watched any of Colville's games, but I do enjoy a lot of his videos. What made you disappointed?

I expected the game to sparkle with talent and yet it just kind of slogged. Colville's narration seemed particularly weak which surprised me given his authorial talents (and how to vids) and there were some rules questions (and opening the game up to outside input via twitter seems like a bad idea). Also some of the players seemed quite unengaged/unhappy. It wasn't what I imagined at all. Very low energy.

I didn't make it through the first episode of "The Chain" to be honest, so perhaps it got better, but it also made me sympathetic to those who say watching people play D&D is not enjoyable.
 

Bawylie

A very OK person
Yup. Whenever I give advice about running the game I start with the number one thing that dramatically improved my game. Asking each individual player "What do you do?" after presenting the scenario.

Table talk reduced, player engagement increased especially on the non combat pillars of the game, spotlight was evenly shared (maybe not perfectly, but close enough to keep players satisfied).

Number 2 is the adjudicating actions thread.

Anyway, I'm very glad I stumbled upon the Summer at the Lake campaign write-ups on the old WotC forums just as I started DMing.

Summer at the Lake was a hell of a game.
 


Satyrn

First Post
The internet has taught me not to give a flying fig about metagaming.


(It probably originally taught me that metagaming is cheating, though, so it's kind of a wash.)
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
The internet has taught me not to give a flying fig about metagaming.


(It probably originally taught me that metagaming is cheating, though, so it's kind of a wash.)
Similarly, it taught me not to give an airborne coitus about the 'nature of hit points,' either. It's just a number on the sheet, folks. Add and subtract as needed until you're dead.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I’ve adopted the roshambo approach that was posted on Enworld, but I’m curious about this. Is there a good link to share?

Pretty much the entire DMs Craft YouTube channel is an example of gridless play and making amazing terrain with relatively cheap materials. But the following video is a good place to start:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94aqO7jQp8E


I stopped making terrain (no time) and use a digital battlemap now, but I still still have all the gridless play measuring sticks I made using DM Scotty's directions (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTT1ZU5pDBg&t=2s) and they are now an essential part of my DM and player kit. Even when using maps with grids, I use these sticks because they are so much more convenient and quicker than counting squares.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I expected the game to sparkle with talent and yet it just kind of slogged. Colville's narration seemed particularly weak which surprised me given his authorial talents (and how to vids) and there were some rules questions (and opening the game up to outside input via twitter seems like a bad idea). Also some of the players seemed quite unengaged/unhappy. It wasn't what I imagined at all. Very low energy.

I didn't make it through the first episode of "The Chain" to be honest, so perhaps it got better, but it also made me sympathetic to those who say watching people play D&D is not enjoyable.

I'm not surprised. I feel like I'm a much better writer than speaker. Many good writers mull over word choice, edit as much as put words on the page, and are thoughtful. These traits do not always translate to improvisational narration. Similarly, many people who are charismatic, witty, and good with the spoken word, are not necessarily great writers. Mercer hired people do do much of the writing/polishing of his campaign guide. Coleville has been done the brunt of the writing for his Strongholds book.

One advantage of Colville is that his style of DMing seems more reachable, which is kinda his whole shtick: convincing you that you can and should run games as a DM.
 
Last edited:

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I'm not surprise. I feel like I'm a much better writer than speaker. Many good writers mull over word choice, edit as much as put words on the page, and are thoughtful. These traits do not always translate to improvisational narration. Similarly, many people who are charismatic, witty, and good with the spoken word, are not necessarily great writers. Mercer hired people do do much of the writing/polishing of his campaign guide. Coleville has been done the brunt of the writing for his Strongholds book.

One advantage of Colville is that his style of DMing seems more reachable, which is kinda his whole shtick: convincing you that you can and should run games as a DM.

I actually watched part of the first episode of Colville's "The Chain" and, while I would say it needs a lot of improvement in some areas, I think it's a lot more like an actual gaming session than what we see on Critical Role. (Admittedly, I've only watched that very sporadically as well.)
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
I actually watched part of the first episode of Colville's "The Chain" and, while I would say it needs a lot of improvement in some areas, I think it's a lot more like an actual gaming session than what we see on Critical Role. (Admittedly, I've only watched that very sporadically as well.)

Absolutely, which was the surprise. I guess good to see that not every notable DM is also a natural storyteller, but it was not compelling to watch. I should probably give a more recent episode a go, just to see if it wasn’t first time nerves. The early Critical Roles were a bit dire, but mostly on the technical side.
 

Yardiff

Adventurer
Absolutely, which was the surprise. I guess good to see that not every notable DM is also a natural storyteller, but it was not compelling to watch. I should probably give a more recent episode a go, just to see if it wasn’t first time nerves. The early Critical Roles were a bit dire, but mostly on the technical side.

Maybe watching Matt's Campaign Diary video about session one will give you some insight.


Edit: I agree that session one wasn't what I was expecting from Matt.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top