D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Wulfgar76]

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?

And for every Assassin who has a change of heart, theres a hundred Wizards who suddenly learn how to cast spells in full plate and wield a battle axe.

 

[Ichneumon]

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?

Then he sticks to plying his trade against monsters and the monstrous. They're supposed to die.

 

[Derren]

And for every Assassin who has a change of heart, theres a hundred Wizards who suddenly learn how to cast spells in full plate and wield a battle axe.

Which is a problem with fighter frontloading or lack of spellcasting rules (yes, I know, too complicated, yadayadayada) but not with multiclassing.

 

[Obryn]

Which is a problem with fighter frontloading or lack of spellcasting rules (yes, I know, too complicated, yadayadayada) but not with multiclassing.

Sure it is, because neither of those are broken, independently of one another.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

You're absolutely right, and so is [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] about narrative restrictions bring arbitrary (in the sense that the DM could just make them up him or herself).

Without a radical redesign the system cannot keep it all in check, the DM must intervene at the extremi to make sure the multi-class system is not abused.

To that end, in a gaming climate of "more power to the player", it is far easier to impose a default restriction and let the DM wave it as he or she sees fit, rather than it is to assume a default of unrestricted class access and let the DM impose restrictions. The difference is in how players react to working within the rules and the sense of being imposed upon by a DM's house rule, and the implications it has for convention/organized play.

 

[Dausuul]

Sure it is, because neither of those are broken, independently of one another.

It's only a problem if wizards sacrificing a wizard level in order to be able to cast in armor is broken. Which I really don't think it is. It's a decent trade-off in Next, unlike in 3E where the cardinal rule of multiclassing was never ever ever give up caster levels, but you're penalizing your character across the entire range of your abilities. In exchange, you get a single big boost to your AC, which is not nearly as useful to you as it would be to a front-line warrior, plus a handful of minor perks like weapon proficiencies you'll hardly ever use and a couple of bonus hit points.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's only a problem if wizards sacrificing a wizard level in order to be able to cast in armor is broken. Which I really don't think it is. It's a decent trade-off in Next, unlike in 3E where the cardinal rule of multiclassing was never ever ever give up caster levels, but you're penalizing your character across the entire range of your abilities. In exchange, you get a single big boost to your AC, which is not nearly as useful to you as it would be to a front-line warrior, plus a handful of minor perks like weapon proficiencies you'll hardly ever use and a couple of bonus hit points.

That's my suspicion too. It'd be interesting to get the perspective from a couple of players who play wizards--one who dips a level or two of fighter, one who doesn't--in the same party after several levels.

 

[Obryn]

It's only a problem if wizards sacrificing a wizard level in order to be able to cast in armor is broken. Which I really don't think it is. It's a decent trade-off in Next, unlike in 3E where the cardinal rule of multiclassing was never ever ever give up caster levels, but you're penalizing your character across the entire range of your abilities. In exchange, you get a single big boost to your AC, which is not nearly as useful to you as it would be to a front-line warrior, plus a handful of minor perks like weapon proficiencies you'll hardly ever use and a couple of bonus hit points.

That's only one possibility, though. Casting in armor is maybe okay, imo. I'm a lot more concerned about the "everything else."

But I'll just come out and ask - if getting a spell level earlier is that big a deal, and is more important than whatever else you'd get through multiclassing, isn't that kind of indicative of deeper problems?

 

[Wulfgar76]

It's only a problem if wizards sacrificing a wizard level in order to be able to cast in armor is broken. Which I really don't think it is.

And what about taking 1 more level in fighter to get action surge?
So for sacrificing 2 caster levels you get heavy armor, all weapons, and the ability to cast 2 spells a round (as an encounter power).
That's a bit of a no brainer I say.

 

[Dausuul]

And what about taking 1 more level in fighter to get action surge?
So for sacrificing 2 caster levels you get heavy armor, all weapons, and the ability to cast 2 spells a round (as an encounter power).
That's a bit of a no brainer I say.

Which is something I've acknowledged above is a problem, but the issue here is Action Surge, not armor proficiency. Even if you didn't get the heavy armor, this would be strong-bordering-on-broken. Action Surge should not allow you to cast spells.