D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[MoonSong]

I dunno. Isn't that how 3e did multiclassing?

Take 1 level of Fighter, know all weapons and armor. Take 1 level of Wizard after killing a few goblins, skip that apprenticeship part and start casting spells. Clear out a dungeon, take 6 ranks in blacksmithing, become an expert after never picking up a hammer.

Instant mastery is more or less the default, the way I see it.

D&D isn't - or shouldn't be - a point buy game. All this stuff about class and level is an abstraction; a kludge if you will. Let's not ascribe too much sanctity to it.

e: And as for forgetting it - Who says you forget? Maybe you choose not to use it, like how 1e dual-classing works. And eventually it fades from lack of practice. It works just fine. If you can deal with instant mastery, this hardly seems like a hurdle. Unless, of course, you're using a funny definition of "verisimilitude".

But 3.x multiclassing works just fine for this. You didn't have to derail campaigns, wait for countless levels or request special treatment from DM (unless yours was aprticularly stingy about it). also just writing one level worth of stuff is still simpler and faster than starting from scratch.

As for forgetting it, at that point the system is telling me how to play my own character, if my character still knows how to do something just won't do it normally, and the need arises to do that something, can I still do it if it isn't on the CS anymore?

Thank you to those who answered --

This is really about the multi classing prereqs? Going back and reading the posts about assassins and the road to Damascus, it's hard to map what's being said onto just that.

Sure, the ability prereqs are a rough tool.* But in a game where ability boosts are relatively easy to come by, it doesn't seem as onerous as many are making out.


* I'd prefer to let dex or str 15 qualify you for Fighter, and Dex or Cha qualify you for rogue. That sort of change is trivial at the table however, and I certainly have no desire to force my preferences onto others.

It is onerous, maybe this won't apply for you, but indeed applies to me and some others, in a worst case scenario my character Wisdom can be as low as 8 (and not because of minmaxing non-sense, but rather because it made sense for the nature of the character to have low wisdom) in order for that rogue to be able to turn cleric she needs 4 ability score increases (that is 16 levels of not being a cleric, thank you, and of course assuming the campaign lasts that long), even in less glaringly bad cases, that is still between 4 and 8 levels worth of stuff.

I think you still want to build in a safeguard for people dipping Class X at level 1, then never taking it again.

Perhaps your class at the first level is your primary class. Your primary class must be your highest level class until you reach level X in your primary class. A simpler rule that prevents a 1st level fighter taking 19 levels of mage.

I'm not fan of placing lock after lock behind fancy things, powergaming and munchkinism happen and will always be there, we can waste time and page count on placing safeguards against them at the expesnes of flexibility and portability, or we can just accept they happen and have fun (and nice things).

 

[Kobold Stew]

It is onerous, maybe this won't apply for you, but indeed applies to me and some others, in a worst case scenario my character Wisdom can be as low as 8 (and not because of minmaxing non-sense, but rather because it made sense for the nature of the character to have low wisdom) in order for that rogue to be able to turn cleric she needs 4 ability score increases (that is 16 levels of not being a cleric, thank you, and of course assuming the campaign lasts that long), even in less glaringly bad cases, that is still between 4 and 8 levels worth of stuff.

A character becoming a cleric with an 8 wisdom is going to have a DC of 7 for spells, and will do worse when using a holy symbol to enhance his or her spell casting.

Preventing such a character from multi-classing for a one-level dip seems to be a feature, not a bug in the design system to me.

If you are thinking that the player wants to become a cleric for the rest of his or her levels, then I'd suggest they need to adjust a whole lot more rules than just the minimum for entry (spell casting bonus, DCs, etc.).

I think it's reasonable to discuss where the limit should be (Wis 13, Wis 15, whatever) for a character who, with no background or training, wants to receive magic from a divinity. That's not just being religious -- anyone can be religious -- but you are asking to be granted healing abilities (among other things). Some threshold is not inappropriate in the vast majority of cases, and if to prevent the existence of obviously imbalanced design choices some edge cases (such as the cleric who does worse when using his holy symbol) are not possible, then I'm content to leave that to negotiations between the player and the DM.

 

[Obryn]

But 3.x multiclassing works just fine for this. You didn't have to derail campaigns, wait for countless levels or request special treatment from DM (unless yours was aprticularly stingy about it). also just writing one level worth of stuff is still simpler and faster than starting from scratch.

As for forgetting it, at that point the system is telling me how to play my own character, if my character still knows how to do something just won't do it normally, and the need arises to do that something, can I still do it if it isn't on the CS anymore?

The "instant knowledge" bit was in response to Derren's claims of verisimilitude, which I think are rather facile when we're dealing with level and skill advancement in D&D 3.0 or later.  But - to your point - instantly gaining knowledge in modern D&D isn't some kind of alien concept that only pops up when you allow rebuilding from scratch. It's everywhere; it can happen on every single level up in 3.x.

As for telling you how to play your character?  No, you're telling you how to play your character.  Rebuilding gives you total freedom on how you want to handle the change.

Let's take a step back, though, because I think you're so set on exactly how 3.x does this that you're missing the forest for the trees.

Situation: An assassin changes their ways and finds religion.

Now, how do we model this?  From lowest impact to highest...

(1) A change in roleplaying.  The assassin still has the same skills, but makes different decisions and refers to their god, etc. Benefit: Super easy, clear, "realistic." Problem: You're still an assassin, and if you go adventuring you'll be doing assassin stuff.

(2) Skills/feats. You spend whatever character stuff you need to, in order to pick up some capability in religious lore. If it's available to you, you can use something like 4e feat-based multiclassing to do that, plus pick up something like a healing spell. Benefit: Still pretty simple, some mechanical weight behind your roleplaying decisions. Problem: You're still an assassin, but at least you have some mechanical bits to leverage if you need to know about religion or whatever.

(3) Buffet-style multiclassing. You snag a level of Cleric. You have some rudimentary spellcasting, pick up some armor proficiencies and maybe weapon proficiencies. Benefit: Somewhat easy, and you retain your previous abilities even if you're not using them. Problem: You're still an assassin, but also now you're a bad cleric.

(4) Rebuilding. After your conversion, either all at once or in a series of stages, you start replacing your Assassin levels with Cleric levels to represent your conversion and throwing off your ties to the past. If need be, you can also move your stats around so you're no longer an awful cleric. Benefit: You're fully invested in this conversion and you become a capable member of your new class. Problem: It's more complicated to manage, and you necessarily have to "forget" how to do some stuff you used to know how to do - or decide that it's stuff your character will no longer do, even under threat of death. Ideally, you retain some Knowledge or Lore-style skills (Streetwise, etc.) to mechanically represent your history.

Out of these four options, I don't know why you're so wedded to the third. Writing "cleric" on your sheet isn't roleplaying, and sacrificing your character's mechanical effectiveness doesn't make you a better roleplayer. And if it's simplicity you want, the first or second are superior choices on that metric.

 

[bogmad]

(3) Buffet-style multiclassing. You snag a level of Cleric. You have some rudimentary spellcasting, pick up some armor proficiencies and maybe weapon proficiencies. Benefit: Somewhat easy, and you retain your previous abilities even if you're not using them. Problem: You're still an assassin, but also now you're a bad cleric.

Out of these four options, I don't know why you're so wedded to the third. Writing "cleric" on your sheet isn't roleplaying, and sacrificing your character's mechanical effectiveness doesn't make you a better roleplayer. And if it's simplicity you want, the first or second are superior choices on that metric.

Speaking for myself, I'm not incredibly wedded to the third but I am a little defensive about removing the possibility altogether. True, you're a bad cleric, but you're a cleric without the long wait or wasted resource fees, and it's not altogether a waste: you're another level, more hit points, etc, and you get to retain your previous skills and abilities. [added] You can then progress to being a better cleric by picking up more levels or upping your wisdom, after you've already made the (probably unwise) decision to be a bad cleric. [/edit]
I think your other options work better for some, maybe be even most scenarios, and this one works best for another.

True an 8 in wisdom is pretty unwise and I wouldn't have a big problem with saying it's too low to multiclass (or even singleclass?), but 15 just seems prohibitive to me, and not for reasons sufficient to my liking.

 

[MoonSong]

A character becoming a cleric with an 8 wisdom is going to have a DC of 7 for spells, and will do worse when using a holy symbol to enhance his or her spell casting.

Preventing such a character from multi-classing for a one-level dip seems to be a feature, not a bug in the design system to me.

If you are thinking that the player wants to become a cleric for the rest of his or her levels, then I'd suggest they need to adjust a whole lot more rules than just the minimum for entry (spell casting bonus, DCs, etc.).

I think it's reasonable to discuss where the limit should be (Wis 13, Wis 15, whatever) for a character who, with no background or training, wants to receive magic from a divinity. That's not just being religious -- anyone can be religious -- but you are asking to be granted healing abilities (among other things). Some threshold is not inappropriate in the vast majority of cases, and if to prevent the existence of obviously imbalanced design choices some edge cases (such as the cleric who does worse when using his holy symbol) are not possible, then I'm content to leave that to negotiations between the player and the DM.

First of all there are many ways of being an effective cleric, having a good spell DC is only one, (and holy symbol adds your proficiency bonus, not you wisdom again) moreover the current multiclassing is even worse. And of course I'm defending the for keeps multiclassing.

 

[Derren]

A character becoming a cleric with an 8 wisdom is going to have a DC of 7 for spells, and will do worse when using a holy symbol to enhance his or her spell casting.

You probably won't understand it, but for some people this is not a problem. They consider minmaxing for "effective" combat power not the one true way of gaming and want the options of making such a character without rules bending/breaking.

Out of these four options, I don't know why you're so wedded to the third.

Because that represents best what happens to the assassin who who forsworn his old ways in favor of religion. He neither forgets what he already can do but also does not progress in that "class" any further. And for some people that counts a lot more than DPR output, save DCs and other combat effectiveness metrics.

 

[Kobold Stew]

You probably won't understand it, but for some people this is not a problem. They consider minmaxing for "effective" combat power not the one true way of gaming and want the options of making such a character without rules bending/breaking.

Please do not ascribe to me an agenda which I do not possess. You know, if you have read the thread, that I am not advocating a min/maxed position, nor am I advocating One True Way.

Fight a straw man if you wish, but please don't give it my name.

 

[Johnny Champion]

Multi-classing is something I prefer NPCs to be able to do easily. Running into a Fighter/Mage NPC of mid level can be quite a challenge. However, for my PCs, I have a hard time following a paradigm that allows relatively unrestricted movement in classes; especially if we view it takes years to become trained in a class and to become 1st Level. But to go back and forth between classes, as if on a see-saw, breaks my sense of credulity. That being said, our D&D Next house rule states that in addition to ability score minimums, if you change class you can never go back to your previous class. It reflects a new life, abandoning the past and embracing your new calling. It the only way I would allow multi-classing.

 

[Obryn]

Because that represents best what happens to the assassin who who forsworn his old ways in favor of religion. He neither forgets what he already can do but also does not progress in that "class" any further. And for some people that counts a lot more than DPR output, save DCs and other combat effectiveness metrics.

Making an ineffective character does not mean you're role-playing better. Taking a level in cleric or whatever is likewise not equivalent to role playing a religious conversion.

You're confusing the issue again by equating 3e with the "best representation" and then criticizing other models simply for not being 3e.

I'm saying you can, and should, get both effectiveness and good role-playing opportunities.

 

[Derren]

Making an ineffective character does not mean you're role-playing better. Taking a level in cleric or whatever is likewise not equivalent to role playing a religious conversion.

You're confusing the issue again by equating 3e with the "best representation" and then criticizing other models simply for not being 3e.

I'm saying you can, and should, get both effectiveness and good role-playing opportunities.

Ah, isn't it easy to, when you run out of arguments, blame everything on baseless edition warring instead of having to actually consider that a previous edition did indeed do it better?
And sacrificing character concept for more combat power does not make you a good role-player either.

A assassin turning into a (very devout) priest simply is best represented by a class change in a class based system.