D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Obryn]

But it doesn't prevent abuses, right now such PC can start wizard with fighter specs then change to fighter and go ahead unimpeded.... Also an Int 15 requirement means nothing if the DM decides on uing a higher point buy method or something as crazy as 5d6 drop lowest two, rerroll ones.

I agree with both of these. They are still problems. Well, the second not so much, but superior stats can still happen with standard rolling methods. (which is why point buy is good, but never mind that for now.)

This abuse is more or less an automatic failing of combining together two things:

(1) Buffet-style at-will multiclassing
(2) interesting classes with flavorful and powerful features from low levels.

Combine those, it's a recipe for disaster. I'd rather have #2 than #1, but it looks like we get both and I hope WotC finds some way to put the brakes on. I don't think stat requirements are the best way of going about it, but at least it's better than nothing.

E: Radical solution. You only get one... What are they called, themes, subclasses, specializations? Anyway, you only get one - the one from your first class. Or your second if it's higher level, I guess. You only get the base features of whatever you multiclass to.

 

[smetzger]

First off I am not familiar with the 5e rules.

IMO The goal of multiclassing rules should be balance.
The goal of multiclassing rules should NOT be to try and prevent what some people think are stupid/cumbersome/weird combos. That should be left to the DM.

In general characters with higher level ability scores are 'better'.
In general single dipping into a class will give you lots of abilities.

I fail to see how allowing 'better' characters only to switch classes/multiclass/single dip into other classes makes for balanced multi-classing.

Therefore I think upping minimum ability scores for multiclassers does not work.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

It all seems to boil down to affinities. Can it be a cool idea to have an assassin find religion and become a holy roller? Sure. Is it plausible for every assassin in the world to be able to instantly convert to cleric on a whim -- not so much. Certain things just aren't plausible choices, which is part of the point of an ability score based system -- rating affinities in certain areas. Could the specific stat requirements use a few tweaks? Maybe. The idea, however, is fairly solid -- it lends both plausibility and reliability to the multiclassing system, something that hopefully disuades abuse of that system. If you want to play an assassin that finds the higher calling, assign his stats to reflect that affinity from the start. A class based system that quantifies those affinities through ability scores is not likely the best system for someone looking for unrestricted choices -- the moment classes and specific ability scores were introduced to represent aptitude in those classes, infinite choice went out the window.

 

[Obryn]

I fail to see how allowing 'better' characters only to switch classes/multiclass/single dip into other classes makes for balanced multi-classing.

That's a solid point, if we're rolling for stats, but not so much if we're using point-buy. Since dice rolling is the default in Next, it does get kind of hairy.

 

[pemerton]

My solution? Rebuild. Your character is the same person with the same history and same equipment. After some narratively-appropriate events, training, divine intervention, etc., shuffle around your stuff to fit the new mechanics.

This is D&D; there's no need to be a hardass about changing stuff around on your character or even rebuilding from scratch.

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

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.

Rebuilding from scratch should be an option that's explicitly allowed.

Rebuilding gives you total freedom on how you want to handle the change.

your character is the same person in the game world with the same history and experiences.

<snip>

A character is more than the numbers on their sheet.

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.

Just awesome. Though if you cut through too many Gordian knots the curtain is going to fall and we're going to be embarrassed by all that visible machinery!

Anyway, here is a link to an old thread where I explained the rebuilding scenario and mechanical process for a PC in my game (human wizard MC invoker became deva invoker MC wizard). In other words, I fully support your proposal, including that it be written into the rules.

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

Why? In real life I can learn a new field of study by studying it without getting more puissant overall - I practice one thing and my skill/knowledge in another area fades. (Eg my knowledge of theoretical sociology is much better now than it was 10 years ago, but my memory of Claremont X-Men has faded, as I have swapped one field of research for another).

A rebuild captures this as well or better than 3E-style multi-classing, which is purely additive rather than substitutive.

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.

<snip>

for some people that counts a lot more than DPR output, save DCs and other combat effectiveness metrics.

sacrificing character concept for more combat power does not make you a good role-player either.

Not all of us think of game mechanics as combat mechanics: that's a narrowness of vision that you are projecting onto others.

The reason my players want characters that are mechanically effective relative to one another, and relative to the mechanical characteristics of the ingame situations that their PCs will confront, is so that they can drive the game rather than be led by the GM. Mechanically impotent PCs who are led by the GM might be a virtue in a game like CoC, but I don't think it's any sort of general virtue in RPGing. In my experience it breeds railroading GMs and passive players. And this has nothing to do with combat as a site of conflict resolution.

 

[Obryn]

Not all of us think of game mechanics as combat mechanics: that's a narrowness of vision that you are projecting onto others.

The reason my players want characters that are mechanically effective relative to one another, and relative to the mechanical characteristics of the ingame situations that their PCs will confront, is so that they can drive the game rather than be led by the GM. Mechanically impotent PCs who are led by the GM might be a virtue in a game like CoC, but I don't think it's any sort of general virtue in RPGing. In my experience it breeds railroading GMs and passive players. And this has nothing to do with combat as a site of conflict resolution.

Well said. Can't rep you though.

 

[bogmad]

Not all of us think of game mechanics as combat mechanics: that's a narrowness of vision that you are projecting onto others.

.

Then again, not everyone has the "broad" vision you are effectively saying we should adopt. Some do think of the game as a set of more defined mechanics (not necessarily combat). Is there room for both, or is it necessary we adopt your projected vision?

Rebuilding is great. I'm not against it, and I may prefer it in some cases, but it's not multi-classing, is it?

It looks like your preference is just to throw out 3e style multi-classing altogether; how is that a broad view?

 

[pemerton]

Then again, not everyone has the "broad" vision you are effectively saying we should adopt.

I'm not saying that anyone has to think of game mechanics as extending beyond combat. Some people only want to play a combat game. Others want to play a non-combat game that is adjudicated entirely freeform rather than mechanically.

My point is that [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] is imputing to [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] an identity of "mechanical effectiveness" and "combat power" that Obryn (and many others) do not agree with.

Some do think of the game as a set of more defined mechanics (not necessarily combat). Is there room for both, or is it necessary we adopt your projected vision?

I don't understand. As best I can tell you think you're disagreeing with me, but I don't know what you're disagreeing about. I think of the game as a set of defined mechanics: PC build, scene-framing (which includes mechanics for defining conflicts, like monster-building and DC setting) and action resolution.

My point, which was made in response to Derren, is that those mechanics need not be confined to combat mechanics, and that when I think about the mechanical effectiveness of a character I am not necessarily thinking about his/her combat effectiveness.

Rebuilding is great. I'm not against it, and I may prefer it in some cases, but it's not multi-classing, is it?

No. I don't think I said that it is, did I? I know that [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] didn't say that it is, given that one of the posts I quoted talks about rebuilding being an opportunity to take advantage of whatever multi-class rules might exist.

It looks like your preference is just to throw out 3e style multi-classing altogether

I didn't say anything about 3E-style multi-classing. All I did (besides disagreeing with some points made by Derren) was to strongly endorse Obryn's suggestion that reubiling be an expressly permitted part of the PC build rules, and provide a link to an example from my own campaign.

I think there are big issues with 3E multi-classing, namely that playable PCs depend upon 1st level being front-loaded, and this front-loading tends to lead to broken-ness when players are allowed to level-dip later on, which then leads to adjustments to 1st level to try and balance multi-classing which then has distorting effects on class design, such as the elimination of front-loading which then means I don't actually get to play the character I envisioned until I've gained multiple levels. (Personally I prefer the 4e approach to hybrids: design classes to be their own thing; present hybrid options; and warn everyone involved that they might break the game through over- or under-power and that it is therefore up to game participants to handle with care.)

If a decent, balanced 3E-style system can be developed that doesn't distort class design more generally, go for it! If it doesn't, on its own, do a very good job of handling the assassin-to-cleric mid-career conversion, I don't regard that as much of a strike against it.

But all these issues have nothing to do with whether or not rebuilding should be part of the game. Nor do they tell us anything about the best way for handlng a PC's mid-life career change.

 

[Wulfgar76]

What about this as a ham-fisted, old-school fix to all possible multiclassing abuses:

If you multiclass, you may only ever have 2 classes, and niether class may never be more than 1 level behind the other.

(I will now duck for cover)

 

[bogmad]

My point is that @Derren is imputing to @Obryn an identity of "mechanical effectiveness" and "combat power" that Obryn (and many others) do not agree with.

I don't understand. As best I can tell you think you're disagreeing with me, but I don't know what you're disagreeing about. I think of the game as a set of defined mechanics: PC build, scene-framing (which includes mechanics for defining conflicts, like monster-building and DC setting) and action resolution.

My point, which was made in response to Derren, is that those mechanics need not be confined to combat mechanics, and that when I think about the mechanical effectiveness of a character I am not necessarily thinking about his/her combat effectiveness.

No. I don't think I said that it is, did I? I know that @Obryn didn't say that it is, given that one of the posts I quoted talks about rebuilding being an opportunity to take advantage of whatever multi-class rules might exist.

I didn't say anything about 3E-style multi-classing. All I did (besides disagreeing with some points made by Derren) was to strongly endorse Obryn's suggestion that reubiling be an expressly permitted part of the PC build rules, and provide a link to an example from my own campaign.

I think there are big issues with 3E multi-classing, namely that playable PCs depend upon 1st level being front-loaded, and this front-loading tends to lead to broken-ness when players are allowed to level-dip later on, which then leads to adjustments to 1st level to try and balance multi-classing which then has distorting effects on class design, such as the elimination of front-loading which then means I don't actually get to play the character I envisioned until I've gained multiple levels. (Personally I prefer the 4e approach to hybrids: design classes to be their own thing; present hybrid options; and warn everyone involved that they might break the game through over- or under-power and that it is therefore up to game participants to handle with care.)

If a decent, balanced 3E-style system can be developed that doesn't distort class design more generally, go for it! If it doesn't, on its own, do a very good job of handling the assassin-to-cleric mid-career conversion, I don't regard that as much of a strike against it.

But all these issues have nothing to do with whether or not rebuilding should be part of the game. Nor do they tell us anything about the best way for handlng a PC's mid-life career change.

This whole thread is about multi-classing in 5e, which has a lot of affinities to 3e style. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but by your posts and the very nature of the thread I was making some assumptions (apparently true!) on what your thoughts were to 3e "buffet style" multiclassing. "Combat mechanics" are neither here nor there, we're talking about class mechanics. It just happens that most of the Class mechanics center on combat. Whatever these noncombat rules are, I didn't see reference to them, nor was I commenting on them.

The last several pages of this thread have kept going back to one example, that of the low wisdom rogue who finds religion, and not only becomes religious, but also decides to change careers to become a cleric.

Obryn's assertion (and yours; someone please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you're fine with him never being able to do this with RAW. If he wants to do decide to dabble in cleric he should either
A.) Roleplay a religious rogue without any of the mechanical underpinnings of the cleric class, perhaps dabbliing in some feats
B.) Spend up to 15 levels to raise his wisdom score until he meets the multiclass requirements and jumps straight to being a competant cleric with high proficiency and attack roles

or, what seems to be your most fervent suggestion,
C.) Work with his DM to rebuild his character, either instantly or incrementally, and replace some or all mechanics of the rogue class with the cleric class. This will have the effect of some of the abilities and proficiencies he's gained as a rogue disappearing, but you need not worry about that since your character is more than his character sheet. This will also have the effect of not cursing the character to ineffectiveness while he's a doing his cleric-things with an abysmally low wisdom score.

Why not D.) Just let the guy multiclass, take a level in cleric and be bad at it?
Going with the RAW right now it would take some house ruling to allow the rogue to take a level in cleric. I'm fine with that actually. Except that doing that now ends up with potential brokenness from all the front loading at lv 1 (though by design not as much as was present in 3e). The multiclass stat requirements are supposed to keep this brokenness at bay, except they don't: a higher stated guy who's able to take the level is arguably more broken than the low score guy.

We're real close to letting everyone have their way I think. You can go with option A. through C. and get what you and Obryn want. I just think there's ways to change the RAW a bit so that you could also have option D.) without "breaking" the game, where a guy gets to be maybe not the best cleric, but also retains all the expertise (as laid out on his character sheet) he's gained so far.

Incremental proficiency gain for multiclass characters is a step in the right direction maybe.