D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[bogmad]

I've asked before, but no one has answered: what assassin ability in the 5e play test materials is stopping a character from changing directions and becoming a cleric? Where specifically does the problem lie?

I think it's less precise assassin abilities stopping a change in direction, and more to do with the ability score requirements. If someone wants to take a level in order to badly cast a cleric spell every now and then, I say let him.

Maybe feats could fill that niche better than full multi-classing?
But what if he wants to go further by get better at being a cleric by virtue of experience (class level) instead of raw ability (ability score).

 

[Mistwell]

I've asked before, but no one has answered: what assassin ability in the 5e play test materials is stopping a character from changing directions and becoming a cleric? Where specifically does the problem lie?

He's saying the 15 wisdom requirement is what's stopping them.

 

[MoonSong]

I've asked before, but no one has answered: what assassin ability in the 5e play test materials is stopping a character from changing directions and becoming a cleric? Where specifically does the problem lie?

It isn't the assassin per se what is wrong, the thign that is wrong is that unless you planned it from the very beginning (which is the point here, those ind of changes happen oragically during play, they aren't scripted) odds are you are not going to have the Wisdom 15 if the story leads you to want to change gears for this character, which is baffling because my assassin isn't allowwed to become a bad cleric -but still a cleric- and then get better, but someone else on the same table can easily piece together from day one a broken druid/rogue/monk that doens't even need to sacrifice anything to be broken, while my assassin will have to wait ten levels and spend a lot of resources to be allowed to go cleric without getting so much better (and assuming the campaign lasts that long, that is ten unwanted levels of being an assassin)

 

[bogmad]

My take is that the ability score requirements work pretty well for a dual-class character concept if you've planned it out, but not so well for a 3e style multiclass decision made after some progression.

edit: Though I do prefer dual class characters better than willy nilly multiclassing. Though that's only like, my opinion, man. The question is which has this edition stated it's going to support.

 

[Obryn]

It isn't the assassin per se what is wrong, the thign that is wrong is that unless you planned it from the very beginning (which is the point here, those ind of changes happen oragically during play, they aren't scripted) odds are you are not going to have the Wisdom 15 if the story leads you to want to change gears for this character, which is baffling because my assassin isn't allowwed to become a bad cleric -but still a cleric- and then get better, but someone else on the same table can easily piece together from day one a broken druid/rogue/monk that doens't even need to sacrifice anything to be broken, while my assassin will have to wait ten levels and spend a lot of resources to be allowed to go cleric without getting so much better (and assuming the campaign lasts that long, that is ten unwanted levels of being an assassin)

That's precisely why the default option in this "redeemed rogue" scenario should be a total rebuild using whatever multiclassing rules are available. That way you get to have your cake and eat it, too, staying effective, matching the mechanics to your vision, while maintaining the ability score restrictions. I'm pretty sure those are there for a solid balance reason, and I'd be hesitant to remove them.

 

[Derren]

That's precisely why the default option in this "redeemed rogue" scenario should be a total rebuild using whatever multiclassing rules are available.

And what is your explanation for the rogue forgetting everything he knew till now and even alter his attributes (assuming that is what you mean by rebuild)?

 

[Obryn]

And what is your explanation for the rogue forgetting everything he knew till now and even alter his attributes (assuming that is what you mean by rebuild)?

I don't think I need one. This is D&D, it's not a competition, and if that's the way the player wants to take their character, I want to encourage and enable it. They shouldn't need to sacrifice effectiveness on the altar of good role-playing.

If you insisted, anything from training to divine intervention could work, but like I said, I don't see the need. Remember how hoary the 1e dual-classing rules were, after all.

 

[bogmad]

That's precisely why the default option in this "redeemed rogue" scenario should be a total rebuild using whatever multiclassing rules are available. That way you get to have your cake and eat it, too, staying effective, matching the mechanics to your vision, while maintaining the ability score restrictions. I'm pretty sure those are there for a solid balance reason, and I'd be hesitant to remove them.

The mechanics could match to my vision if that vision were of a guy who under miraculous conversion suddenly has his entire ability score array re-aligned.

In either case, as the rules stand, it may require house ruling or an advance module to rebuild.

In my current vision I'm imagining a guy more slowly converting and becoming better over several levels until he matures into a competent cleric, either by incremental proficiency advancement or even perhaps slowly adjusting his ability scores to be more convenient.

 

[Mistwell]

If someone can find a way to prevent the abuse found in 3e with multiclassing by powergames, while still allowing the non-powergamers to follow their story bliss and multiclass as the campaign naturally progresses, then I am all ears. Until then, I think the idea of a DM having the express authority to choose to allow a player to rebuild if the story makes sense is the most sensible idea so far.

 

[Derren]

I don't think I need one. This is D&D, it's not a competition, and if that's the way the player wants to take their character, I want to encourage and enable it. They shouldn't need to sacrifice effectiveness on the altar of good role-playing.

And when they do not want to sacrifice verisimilitude on the altar of (combat) effectiveness?