D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Kobold Stew]

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

Can you expand on this for me, please? My sense is just the opposite -- that with apprentice levels, a 1-level dip means a lot less than it did in 3e. (The only exception I can think of is the skills/proficiencies you get from Rogue and Bard, where it is more powerful than the cross-class skill points you got in 3e).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

I don't agree that it really affects need for system mastery--unless you are talking about the rule as it currently stands as well as the adjustment I favor. If that's the case, then yes, I agree that using ability scores for multiclassing prerequisites at all isn't the best solution. My suggestion was a bandaid. I've considered the point buy concerns, but I don't think it's really that big of a deal*. If the DM is handing out such high point buy that ability score prereqs are meaningless, then he is unlikely to be concerned about multiclassing being overpowered. It is true however that the phenomenon you described could happen.

Tangentially, I think the adventurer's midlife crisis has always been exceedingly rare--yes, so rare that it doesn't need to be overly considered. Back in AD&D the ability prerequisites for dual-classing were so high (15 in prime req of current class, 17 in prime req of next class--this with randomly rolled stats and no normal stat advancement) that if you rolled high enough stats to have a character capable of dual-classing you were aware of it from the start. In 3e you tended to plan ahead. In either version if you really wanted to play a different character, you generally just made a new character. Especially in 3e, you'd generally be gimping yourself to make an unplanned class change.

* - Funny how we decide these things. I can find myself on exactly the other side of this sort of disagreement, claiming that something of similar practical effect does matter very much, depending on the issue.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Can you expand on this for me, please? My sense is just the opposite -- that with apprentice levels, a 1-level dip means a lot less than it did in 3e. (The only exception I can think of is the skills/proficiencies you get from Rogue and Bard, where it is more powerful than the cross-class skill points you got in 3e).

I meant it in the opposite direction. The level you are giving up in your higher class to dip into another could mean delaying something really significant (or missing it entirely in the case of 20th level features).

 

[Kobold Stew]

I meant it in the opposite direction. The level you are giving up in your higher class to dip into another could mean delaying something really significant (or missing it entirely in the case of 20th level features).

Ah! in that case, we agree!

 

[Li Shenron]

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

I am also of the opinion that generally it would be best if the multiclassing results don't depend on the order of level. At least because creating a mid/high-level PC or NPC shouldn't require to think about the order.

 

[thewok]

I don't multiclass much at all. The exception is Star Wars Saga Edition, which I thought had a pretty good multiclass system. There, you'd get one of the new class' starting features, rather than all of them. So, when I MCed into Jedi, I could take Force Sensitivity or Weapon Proficiency (Lightsabers), but not both, which a 1st-level character would get.

 

[MasterTrancer]

(snip)

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

(snip)

Indeed it would look like an ironclad...however, stemming from other posts I had this nice picture in mind of an abjurer clad in plate armor...sort of a magical tank; mind, no blasting spells, maybe some little utilities...a competely different wizard-like character. Maybe a sub-class, if I understood the concept as would be applied in DDN?

What do you think about?

 

[MoonSong]

I don't agree that it really affects need for system mastery--unless you are talking about the rule as it currently stands as well as the adjustment I favor. If that's the case, then yes, I agree that using ability scores for multiclassing prerequisites at all isn't the best solution. My suggestion was a bandaid. I've considered the point buy concerns, but I don't think it's really that big of a deal*. If the DM is handing out such high point buy that ability score prereqs are meaningless, then he is unlikely to be concerned about multiclassing being overpowered. It is true however that the phenomenon you described could happen.

Tangentially, I think the adventurer's midlife crisis has always been exceedingly rare--yes, so rare that it doesn't need to be overly considered. Back in AD&D the ability prerequisites for dual-classing were so high (15 in prime req of current class, 17 in prime req of next class--this with randomly rolled stats and no normal stat advancement) that if you rolled high enough stats to have a character capable of dual-classing you were aware of it from the start. In 3e you tended to plan ahead. In either version if you really wanted to play a different character, you generally just made a new character. Especially in 3e, you'd generally be gimping yourself to make an unplanned class change.

* - Funny how we decide these things. I can find myself on exactly the other side of this sort of disagreement, claiming that something of similar practical effect does matter very much, depending on the issue.

I've seen DMs hand over higher point buys in order to give MAD classes a fighting chance, I don't think it is fair to burden them with unexpected broken multiclass combos, I'd rather have multiclass be balanced enough to not need such limits. As for this "midlife crisis" thing, I guess it is a playstyle thing (and one reason I don't fully bought into 4e where it is impossible) I've seen it happen, and I do it often, mainly because while I have a fuzzy plan ahead, I never have a set path in mind from the very beginning, I play my characters as they currently are, not as they will someday be, I consider them changing paths midway or multiple times a prerrogative, it all depends on what happens to them as they interact to the world. I don't find fun at all having my assassin that has grown sick of killing just getting better and better at it without being able to change her ways despite it being the only natural progression In character, just because as her player I rolled badly, or lacked the foresight to get all 13's, or played on a lower powered campaign where 13 is a high stat.

 

[Mistwell]

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,

No, you just role play him as being religious. The class is not the thing that does this for you. Same with the rest of your examples. You don't need the rules to give you some special benefit (the new class) because you have a role playing reason for it - just role play the thing you find compelling.

 

[MoonSong]

No, you just role play him as being religious. The class is not the thing that does this for you. Same with the rest of your examples. You don't need the rules to give you some special benefit (the new class) because you have a role playing reason for it - just role play the thing you find compelling.

"just roleplay it" is too general to be an answer, and it borders on being an ad hominem, can you give me a more cnrete example of how does it solve this issue? By changing her ways I didn.t mean "I've changed, now when I murder people on their sleep I pray to the god on their behalf, oh hw good I've turned out", I meant: to stop using poison and instead trying to learn how to heal people (considering my character WIS will be abysmally low or I wouldn't be prevented form going cleric). To stop murdering people in their sleep and instead learn to fight openly in defense of others (taking int account that my character will just keep getting better at doing the former and wil always get squashed when attempting the later),obviously there will be times when temptation of resuming old habits will resume, but when this change involves no longer doing what I used to do, and I.'m not allowed to start doing something different, how then am I supossed to keep helping my party?. Why is my character prevented from doing something reasonable (this isn't really outrageous) with multiclasing just beacause it wasn't propperly balanced? (Because something that rellies on static limits on what is one of the most common dials out there isn't really balanced)