D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[jodyjohnson]

We've only had a single example of the multi-classing rules.

Depending on what shakes out during the current closed testing I can think of a number of rules I would apply to change them that work thematically for my campaigns (training times, stat prereqs, banned combos, race limits, etc).

The Wizard in plate armor is a good example of a 'cow killing' that some might welcome and some won't.

Personally, if you're supposed to be a glass-cannon you don't get to be made of Glassteel.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It doesn't seem too broken to me. It just makes the mage better at something he's bad at, and worse at something he's supposed to be good at. I'd rather have the extra spell or two.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It doesn't seem too broken to me. It just makes the mage better at something he's bad at, and worse at something he's supposed to be good at. I'd rather have the extra spell or two.

Plus a possibly significant class feature. Single levels often mean more in Next than they did in 3e.

 

[Shadowsoul]

I think we will see spell casting failure when wearing armour in the final game.

 

[1of3]

He needs a 15 strength to multiclass into fighter, which he does not have, so the build is not legal. That is, unless he started as a Fighter and then multiclassed into Mage, which does not appear to be the case from your description.

Which makes the rule terrible. If multiclassing works level by level, it should not be dependent on the order of levels taken.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm kind of a fan of requiring you to meet the class pre-requisites of your current class in order to multiclass out of it. They might have to be adjusted a bit (to allow a fighter to pick Dex instead of Str for instance). So if you want to go from fighter to wizard, you'd have to have a 15 in both. The multiple attribute dependency it creates probably compensates for the 1st level class benefits for at least some of the combos.

Which makes the rule terrible. If multiclassing works level by level, it should not be dependent on the order of levels taken.

I agree, and I also agree with Sword of Spirit's solution.

 

[Sadras]

I think we will see spell casting failure when wearing armour in the final game.

Yeah, IMO this was a rubbish rule, very much created for balance but with no logical or scientific backing. Sure I could dream up a reason why on this world metal and magic do not co-exist but it is still stupid considering the presence of metal affecting/transmuting spells - at least in D&D history.

He needs a 15 strength to multiclass into fighter, which he does not have, so the build is not legal. That is, unless he started as a Fighter and then multiclassed into Mage, which does not appear to be the case from your description.

We evolved from 4e, where he was a swordmage. I need to refresh my memory why I think I allowed it again.

Which makes the rule terrible. If multiclassing works level by level, it should not be dependent on the order of levels taken.

I have to agree with this assessment. I'd prefer a limitation on proficiencies - but it might require me to look into every class and determine what class feature/proficiency isn't available from get go at 1st.

 

[dd.stevenson]

The Wizard in plate armor is a good example of a 'cow killing' that some might welcome and some won't. (snip)

I will be absolutely floored if this makes it into the final release.

Wizards not generally wearing armor is one of the D&D-isms that has infused the art and meta-plot of D&D settings in every era. It's an aspect of the game that D&D-inspired IPs (books, CRPGs including WoW, fantasy movies, etc.) have copied almost without exception. It's pretty well established in the literature that preceded D&D.

Whether I would welcome this change from a gameplay perspective (tbh, I might), I don't see how this change could have any effect other than to devalue the D&D IP. Not unless it added a hell of a lot of fun to the game.

 

[Stalker0]

If D&D accurately simulated the reality of armor, most PCs would be in full plate from the mid-levels on*.

And this is why armor works the way it does. Dnd's goal is to model a wide range of archetypes...the guy in heavy armor is supposed to work alongside the sneak thief in leather and both should be competitive enough that neither is a burden to the other.

Its the same reason armor uses AC instead of DR...it allows a dagger to be somewhat competitive with a greatsword...both at least have an equal chance of hitting.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm kind of a fan of requiring you to meet the class pre-requisites of your current class in order to multiclass out of it. They might have to be adjusted a bit (to allow a fighter to pick Dex instead of Str for instance). So if you want to go from fighter to wizard, you'd have to have a 15 in both. The multiple attribute dependency it creates probably compensates for the 1st level class benefits for at least some of the combos.

I'm of the opossite opinion, using ability scores to balance out multiclassing is a terrible idea, you suddenly need to have system mastery so just your assasin rogue can repent and change her ways and turn to religion, or a paladin to give up on his faith and turn savage and relentless (or just for a swashbuckling streetrat sorcerer to change his ways and turn into a sweashbuckling paladin). Also it makes multiclassing dependent on the point buy, DMs can no longer fiddle with it to customize their campaigns without messing with multiclassing (too low and multiclassing no longer is an option, too high and this limit becomes meaningless). Finally it prevents original and quirky characters from developping while allowing only the most stereotypical and munchkinized ones in. No thanks.