D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Kobold Stew]

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)

Thats a pretty silly answer.
Why would a assassin rogue who does not want to assassinate people still get better at assassinations?

So when he gets better at assassinating people just by existing

I'm finding this a tough conversation to follow: what ability are you looking at that improves a character's ability to assassinate sleeping victims? I'm just not seeing it.

The "assassinate" ability (rogue 3) would seem to be the obvious choice, but it's about attacking surprised opponents in combat. And it's a static bonus under specific combat circumstances that does not improve.

Are you talking about "assassinate" plus an increase in sneak attack? Obviously, even if a character foregoes assassination, a rogue would still gain that bonus. Rogue is a great class for lawful good characters, and the flexibility in rogue design (particularly in earlier iterations of the play test) really represent its versatility.

For the character choosing the assassination path, there is nothing specific to killing people in their sleep. Can someone clarify please?

I would argue that the best class as an actual assassin (killing sleeping victims, the terms defined here) is the druid, but that's another discussion.

 

[Mistwell]

He also could, within days, if he were a little bit stronger. No year long training required.

Right. Because in my view, and apparently the views of the authors of the game, you can gain entry into a class through either: 1) training, which takes years, or 2) natural aptitude, which is represented by ability scores.

It's not a perfect system (because they need to draw a bight line for simplicities sake rather than a scale), but I think it does a fair job of emulating how one can realistically gain entry to a "profession" which has a high level of talent and/or skill required. For example, if one is 7' tall, one will be welcomed to play professional basketball even if they have no training at all (and I can name several professional basketball players that were like that). On the other hand, if one is 5'5" and wants to play basketball, they better train at it for years like Earl Boykins did.

To be clear, this is not just my own position. Here is what it says in the playtest document itself, "Adopting a new class without the full extent of training that a beginning character has means that you must be a quick study, with natural aptitude reflected in unusually high ability scores. "

 

[MoonSong]

First of all, sorry [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], I didn't want to make you feel bad, but "just roleplay it" is kind of a non-answer, (akin to "just try harder" or "be motivated") and also can make people feel bad, it can be read as "that is non-important", or even "this is isn't a problem, you just s|_|ck". So I just want to apologize before forgetting this all up so we don't derail things.

To be clear, this is not just my own position. Here is what it says in the playtest document itself, "Adopting a new class without the full extent of training that a beginning character has means that you must be a quick study, with natural aptitude reflected in unusually high ability scores. "

Yes, the document claims that is the reason, but it is very obviously an ex post facto justification, they decided first they were going to limit multiclassing with ability scores, then wrote something to justify it. And it leaves out one key element of real life: motivation, if you just wish it and work really hard to get it, you can learn new things, it won't happen overnight, but won't take you another lifetime to do it either.

 

[Kyle Ropp]

Yes, the document claims that is the reason, but it is very obviously an ex post facto justification, they decided first they were going to limit multiclassing with ability scores, then wrote something to justify it. And it leaves out one key element of real life: motivation, if you just wish it and work really hard to get it, you can learn new things, it won't happen overnight, but won't take you another lifetime to do it either.

lets say you are running a rogue that turns from an assassin to a priest
in game that can be shown as multiclassing OR reflavoring existing abilities

Death strike ( lvl 16 rogue assassation) becomes lets say... wrathful smite its the same move but call it something different... because 1) thats how the game balances itself and 2) not many churches would even accept a former assassin

 

[bogmad]

2) not many churches would even accept a former assassin

Who's to say a made up church in a fantasy setting would not accept a former assassin? Hell, who says this former assassin who has a religious conversion decides to tell the church the full details of his former life? What if they accept him under pretense, but his conviction is enough to really speak to the god that grants divine, cleric-classed spells?

"Sorry your wisdom isn't high enough to mechanically reflect your characters conviction and belief in his god" seems a very unsatisfactory reason to disallow multi-classing.

Now to say "you haven't spent the years of training a 1st level character does to attain the full abilities and proficiencies of a new class," that seems entirely satisfactory. In that case he may get the cleric spells, but he's not casting with the full ability score bonus or number of proficiencies, which seems to fit with the story of the character better than "you will never be anything but a ruthless assassin, and your only option in giving that up is to suck and be unable to do anything else."

Even if you do want to say "in reality you will suck at anything else forever," how is that fun for a roleplaying game that is supposed to be [at least I'd hope] about creativity and imagination?

 

[Kyle Ropp]

Who's to say a made up church in a fantasy setting would not accept a former assassin? Hell, who says this former assassin who has a religious conversion decides to tell the church the full details of his former life? What if they accept him under pretense, but his conviction is enough to really speak to the god that grants divine, cleric-classed spells?

"Sorry your wisdom isn't high enough to mechanically reflect your characters conviction and belief in his god" seems a very unsatisfactory reason to disallow multi-classing.

Now to say "you haven't spent the years of training a 1st level character does to attain the full abilities and proficiencies of a new class," that seems entirely satisfactory. In that case he may get the cleric spells, but he's not casting with the full ability score bonus or number of proficiencies, which seems to fit with the story of the character better than "you will never be anything but a ruthless assassin, and your only option in giving that up is to suck and be unable to do anything else."

Even if you do want to say "in reality you will suck at anything else forever," how is that fun for a roleplaying game that is supposed to be [at least I'd hope] about creativity and imagination?

A drug addict can become religious, but that doesnt make him a priest

 

[bogmad]

A drug addict can become religious, but that doesnt make him a priest

Yet there are plenty of priests that are also drug addicts. Go figure.

[edit] not to say that there's a preponderance of junkie priests, but there's nothing preventing priests from having some pretty harsh vices. I think bringing real world examples of priests with issues isn't really the way to go at all, but there's definitely nothing saying I can't (or shouldn't) have them in my games. [/edit]

 

[Fanaelialae]

"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)

We've seen retraining rules in the last two editions, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them in 5e. If that's the case, your rogue might be able to spend time studying scripture instead of practicing his lock picking, thereby moving points from his Dexterity to his Wisdom, enabling him to become a cleric.

Also, if it were my campaign and the player were doing so for obvious RP reasons, I would probably just waive the Wisdom requirement. Rule 0 tends to be abused as the answer to life, the universe, and everything (or is that Rule 42?) but in this case I feel like it's appropriate.

 

[Kyle Ropp]

Yet there are plenty of priests that are also drug addicts. Go figure.

[edit] not to say that there's a preponderance of junkie priests, but there's nothing preventing priests from having some pretty harsh vices. I think bringing real world examples of priests with issues isn't really the way to go at all, but there's definitely nothing saying I can't (or shouldn't) have them in my games. [/edit]

the difference here is that seminary is hard (13+ wis hard) a random ned flanders isnt going to be qualified to be a rev. lovejoy

 

[MoonSong]

the difference here is that seminary is hard (13+ wis hard) a random ned flanders isnt going to be qualified to be a rev. lovejoy

Actually, real life seminars are very intellectually demanding, as in study a lot demanding, not be very wise and experienced demanding, otherwise it would be futile to have young seminarists. Even D&D seems to agree with it, Religion or Knowledge:Religion are Int based, not Wis based. So why the need for such a high Wis? (Hint because reasons...)