D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Li Shenron]

I would solve the issue with design in three ways:

• Place some requirements, both roleplaying and mechanical, on multiclassing. Emphasize the story of what it means. Make them find a mentor/college and study for at least a year...after all the party wizard studied for several years presumably, it is only fair. Make the player choose trade offs.
• Create a "Gish" class (call it whatever) to handle 50% of the multiclassers.
• Playtest the hell out of the multiclass rules, since you know there are players who will try to use them to break the game. The first step will probably be not to front-load classes and establish a relatively equal power level between classes on a level-by-level basis.

They are all reasonable ideas, although all have drawbacks too.

Requirements are damn hard to design sensibly. Narrative requirements perhaps even harder. Alignment is the prime example of an apparently simple and sensible narrative requirement, and yet it causes hatred every time it is mentioned! I am all in favor for narrative requirements, but I believe it's best to let the DM define them, instead of hard-code them into the game.
Mechanical requirements can be hard-coded, but IMHO they should be kept simple, and easy to modify. Generally speaking, mechanical requirements can prevent some abuse but will always also prevent some legit build and allow some other abuses. There is no solution, except acknowledging that again the DM is the only person who can keep everything in check. "Maximum N classes per PC" is my favourite example because it's so simple, it tends to treat every combo equally, but then it is immediately modifyable (on individual PCs) by the DM if the group notices it's too restrictive/forgiving for their tastes.

 

[Dausuul]

Place some requirements, both roleplaying and mechanical, on multiclassing. Emphasize the story of what it means. Make them find a mentor/college and study for at least a year...after all the party wizard studied for several years presumably, it is only fair. Make the player choose trade offs.

In many campaigns this is tantamount to a ban on multiclassing. If the party is on a quest to stop a diabolical plot, the BBEG is not going to put her plans on hold for a year while some PC goes off to learn to be a fighter. On the other hand, in an episodic campaign where the PCs initiate their adventures, it might pose little or no hardship. This is the sort of thing that should be at the DM's discretion, not written into the core rules.

(And I still maintain that going from "fighter 19" to "fighter 19/wizard 1" should have less stringent training requirements than going to "fighter 20." It's a lot easier to pick up the basics of a new skill than it is to further hone a skill where you are already one of the best in the world.)

As far as I'm concerned, the aim of the core rules should be to ensure that multiclassing remains balanced, full stop. That doesn't mean "accept that multiclassing will result in overpowered characters and try to compensate with ad hoc restrictions." If they can make multiclassing balanced, ad hoc restrictions won't be necessary and can be left up to the DM to impose for narrative purposes. If they can't, they should junk multiclassing altogether. If they find that they can keep it balanced under some circumstances but not others (e.g., two classes but not three), they should apply restrictions that directly target those circumstances (you can only have two classes).

 

[Kobold Stew]

In many campaigns this is tantamount to a ban on multi classing.

Yes, I agree. And in another entire group of campaigns (where characters start at 5th or 10th level or whatever), narrative requirements are overcome trivially.

Narrative expectations can be placed there, but they are necessarily arbitrary and not concerned with balance. Mechanics are concerned with balance.

 

[MoonSong]

In many campaigns this is tantamount to a ban on multiclassing. If the party is on a quest to stop a diabolical plot, the BBEG is not going to put her plans on hold for a year while some PC goes off to learn to be a fighter. On the other hand, in an episodic campaign where the PCs initiate their adventures, it might pose little or no hardship. This is the sort of thing that should be at the DM's discretion, not written into the core rules.

(And I still maintain that going from "fighter 19" to "fighter 19/wizard 1" should have less stringent training requirements than going to "fighter 20." It's a lot easier to pick up the basics of a new skill than it is to further hone a skill where you are already one of the best in the world.)

As far as I'm concerned, the aim of the core rules should be to ensure that multiclassing remains balanced, full stop. That doesn't mean "accept that multiclassing will result in overpowered characters and try to compensate with ad hoc restrictions." If they can make multiclassing balanced, ad hoc restrictions won't be necessary and can be left up to the DM to impose for narrative purposes. If they can't, they should junk multiclassing altogether. If they find that they can keep it balanced under some circumstances but not others (e.g., two classes but not three), they should apply restrictions that directly target those circumstances (you can only have two classes).

Yes, I agree. And in another entire group of campaigns (where characters start at 5th or 10th level or whatever), narrative requirements are overcome trivially.

Narrative expectations can be placed there, but they are necessarily arbitrary and not concerned with balance. Mechanics are concerned with balance.

This is why I said I'd rather have multiclassing have no outright restrictions, just mention "Your DM may place some limits on multiclassing" then give out a few pages of advice on the DMG about the different ways to place limits on it and what things should be watched for, including a line somewhere else saying "You can always say no, just don't be a D¡*k about it, though if you are placng so much limits on it probably just outright removing it might be a better idea".

And of course it should be balanced, many things have been done to do that, just needs more work.

 

[Mistwell]

As much as I don't like the game of optimization through combining classes, it is a legitimate playstyle in D&D, and incidentally it has made WotC a fortune in splatbooks sales in the 3e era.

The core of the problem is that such playstyle can be incredibly irritating for other players at the game table. How are we going to solve the table incompatibility between the optimization-lovers and the optimization-haters? By cutting off either half of the gamerbase from the next edition? You can forget about that, WotC would never willingly cut off so many potential customers! And what if they decided to cut off your side instead, because they think it's slightly smaller?

Character Optimization fans will play the game even if it's much harder to optimize. They're not playing because the game allows optimization - they're playing for the same reason the non-optimizers are playing, because the game is a fun social game. They just also play the optimization game if they can, for a variety of reasons (including a perception it's necessary to keep up). If they can't, there is no evidence they simply won't play the game.

 

[Dausuul]

Character Optimization fans will play the game even if it's much harder to optimize. They're not playing because the game allows optimization - they're playing for the same reason the non-optimizers are playing, because the game is a fun social game. They just also play the optimization game if they can, for a variety of reasons (including a perception it's necessary to keep up). If they can't, there is no evidence they simply won't play the game.

Indeed. It should also be noted that "optimizer" is not the same as "munchkin." The goal of optimization is to build a character that is most effective at doing what you want the character to do. It's not incompatible with concept-driven character design, and indeed it can be essential if you have an oddball concept that doesn't match any of the standard archetypes. Trying to build such a concept often requires optimization to ensure that the character is able to function effectively.

Of course, optimization can also be used to produce horribly broken combat monsters who twist the rules till they scream. Not all optimizers are munchkins, and not all munchkins are optimizers, but all competent munchkins are optimizers.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I envision organically grown characters who take classes to fit their story which sometimes means lopsided multiclassing (the assassin seeking redemption for example).
But nice of you to admit that you are not really into this role playing thing.

I've found that few things spoil the story and roleplaying faster than a character that is designed to exploit lax multiclassing rules.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'd say that point is debatable. I think one person might think that's the case and someone else might not. Which is precisely what I like about it. One person will REALLY want those high level spells but others may be willing to make the tradeoff.

Here's what I'd be down with: a 20th level character who has all the primary class features of a 15th level fighter and a 15th level wizard, but who has no subclasses. I might even go as low as 13th level in each class, but at that point it's probably better just to use the rules as is and take fighter 7/wizard 13. Giving up subclasses to multiclass and still keep some 11th+ level abilities is probably worth it for the sort of playstyle I'm talking about.

 

[Derren]

I've found that few things spoil the story and roleplaying faster than a character that is designed to exploit lax multiclassing rules.

And an assassin who has forsworn his trade, yet continues to get better at assassinating people because the system forces him to is the paragon of roleplaying?

 

[Kobold Stew]

And an assassin who has forsworn his trade, yet continues to get better at assassinating people because the system forces him to is the paragon of roleplaying?

This canard has been brought up before, with no support: how precisely does an assassin get better at assassinating?