D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Obryn]

No. There is nothing a low-Wisdom cleric can do that a high-Wisdom cleric can't do as well or better. It's a crucial distinction. Dumping your Wisdom as a cleric means you sacrifice versatility (you don't get to use offensive clerical magic effectively) but not power; you can do "cleric stuff" all day and it works fine. As long as you stick to the options that aren't Wisdom-dependent, you can do just as well at them as the Wisdom monkey. Meanwhile, your narrowed array of cleric options is made up for by your superior abilities elsewhere.

Okay. I'm saying, when I talk about rebuilding, that while this might be just what you're looking for when *your* Rogue converts to religion (and that you're specifically fine with being restricted to Life domain and support spells) when *my* rogue converts I find it inadequate.

My rogue, you see, has completely forsaken his evil ways and converted to the worship of the Sun god. He'll blast his foes with holy might now, instead of a dagger. He has learned wisdom, at the expense of his physical conditioning. He's only a cleric now, basically.

If I'm restricted to multiclassing, and rebuilding isn't an option, this isn't possible. I can't become this kind of cleric. I want *this* to be supported by the rules.

 

[Dausuul]

Okay. I'm saying, when I talk about rebuilding, that while this might be just what you're looking for when *your* Rogue converts to religion (and that you're specifically fine with being restricted to Life domain and support spells) when *my* rogue converts I find it inadequate.

My rogue, you see, has completely forsaken his evil ways and converted to the worship of the Sun god. He'll blast his foes with holy might now, instead of a dagger. He has learned wisdom, at the expense of his physical conditioning. He's only a cleric now, basically.

If I'm restricted to multiclassing, and rebuilding isn't an option, this isn't possible. I can't become this kind of cleric. I want *this* to be supported by the rules.

Ah. Well, yeah, that's kind of a "rebuild required" scenario. And I certainly support having rules for rebuilding, whether or not they're tagged as optional. (Though honestly, I'm not sure what rules you need beyond a one-paragraph sidebar saying, "If you decide you want to drastically change your character, you may find this requires rebuilding. If your DM agrees, re-create the character as if you were creating a new character from scratch at your current level.")

But we're talking about multiclassing here, which was never intended to support that kind of wholesale conversion. Multiclassing assumes that you want to hang onto the abilities you had from your original class, and add abilities from a new class.

 

[Kobold Stew]

You get to prepare 11 spells at that level. Here's one array of non-Wisdom-dependent spells:

Level 1: Cure Wounds; Bless; Protection from Evil
Level 2: Prayer of Healing; Lesser Restoration
Level 3: Prayer; Protection from Energy
Level 4: Death Ward; Freedom of Movement
Level 5: Mass Cure Wounds; True Seeing

Basically, as long as you're willing to limit yourself to heals and buffs, you can do fine without Wisdom. And since you're so healing-oriented, the Life domain is a natural choice, which means you can use your Channel Divinity to Restore Health instead of Turn Undead.

Thanks for this -- it's more robust than I had seen (and also works well, though not ideally, with the War domain). I'm not allowed to XP you, but I am grateful.

 

[Obryn]

Ah. Well, yeah, that's kind of a "rebuild required" scenario. And I certainly support having rules for rebuilding, whether or not they're tagged as optional. (Though honestly, I'm not sure what rules you need beyond a one-paragraph sidebar saying, "If you decide you want to drastically change your character, you may find this requires rebuilding. If your DM agrees, re-create the character as if you were creating a new character from scratch at your current level.")

But we're talking about multiclassing here, which was never intended to support that kind of wholesale conversion. Multiclassing assumes that you want to hang onto the abilities you had from your original class, and add abilities from a new class.

Right, it's all gotten mixed together, which is why I've felt like I'm in a different thread.

Mind you, I have serious concerns about what this kind of multiclassing does to class archetypes - which, for me, are the whole reason I'm playing D&D instead of something else - but that's a different discussion.

 

[Li Shenron]

But again in Next a Wis 8 cleric isn't weaker at all, yes her "attack" spells will be easy to resist, but there is way more to be a cleric than attacking with divine magic. Such a character can still heal, buff, remove debuffs and I've never seen any problem with picking a finesse/ranged weapon to relly on. That kind of character isn't necesarilly weaker (and of course isn't broken either) so I don't see why I'm prevented from running this kind of character, specially since the restrictions put in place to prevent brokenn combos don't prevent broken combos at all (but rather encourage them).

I agree. In 3e such Cleric couldn't even cast the lowest spells. Yet those minimum stat requirements didn't really add anything to the game.

Requirements should really serve a purpose, but it has to be a sensible purpose. Then maybe they improve the game, for example by rewarding someone's investment. Perhaps a PC Fighter who invested some points in Wisdom gets access to a bunch of interesting feats, but even in that case it's not so obviously a positive thing, maybe there really is no reason why that feat shouldn't be available to all, and the requirement only decreases the utility of such feat to the game as a whole, because only a few can take it.

Personally, if we want requirement to act as rewards, I think the best solution is let the DM create narrative requirements. You know, old stuff like "you need to join/befriend/pay the Wizards of the Crescent Moon to learn the Moonbeam Mastery feat".

 

[MoonSong]

I agree. In 3e such Cleric couldn't even cast the lowest spells. Yet those minimum stat requirements didn't really add anything to the game.

Requirements should really serve a purpose, but it has to be a sensible purpose. Then maybe they improve the game, for example by rewarding someone's investment. Perhaps a PC Fighter who invested some points in Wisdom gets access to a bunch of interesting feats, but even in that case it's not so obviously a positive thing, maybe there really is no reason why that feat shouldn't be available to all, and the requirement only decreases the utility of such feat to the game as a whole, because only a few can take it.

Personally, if we want requirement to act as rewards, I think the best solution is let the DM create narrative requirements. You know, old stuff like "you need to join/befriend/pay the Wizards of the Crescent Moon to learn the Moonbeam Mastery feat".

Yes, in fact I cannot help but smile at thinking on how the current designer team was quick to forget the lessons form their predecessors. (3.0s "score requisites for classes are no fun, drop them" 3.5s DMG2 "Don't design PrCs requisites around ability scores, design them around minor choices", to be fair even 3.5 designers where quick to ignore their own advice so I don't blame the current team that much). I'm completely in favor of having narrative requirements to prevent abuse, the DMG should include a section with lots of useful advise on how to best do it.

(Though on a second thought ability score prerrequisites seem to be on the way of "Rulings not Rules", at least to me)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm completely in favor of having narrative requirements to prevent abuse, the DMG should include a section with lots of useful advise on how to best do it.

I'm fairly certain that the ability score requirements are only there to prevent abuse. They needed some way to prevent one PC from taking levels in every class in order to create some some of super-multiclassed monster. There's likely no way to create rules that prevent such abuse, some class feature combinations will almost always be broken. But the more class features you have from different classes the more likely they create an effect that wasn't foreseen(and is likely too powerful).

If they had just said "You can't have more than 3 classes" they'd have tons of people complaining that they were putting in stupid restrictions. However, if they put in stat requirements most people will view them as a roleplaying thing not as a restriction. It make SENSE to people because you have to be really good at something in order to excel in it. Meanwhile, it secretly serves its real purpose of preventing abuse. A single character might be good enough to take any 3, maybe 4 classes but is unlikely to be able to take them all.

As for narrative requirements....that one is difficult. I don't feel right restricting people's choices based on my whims(which is generally what narrative requirements means when I'm the DM). Because inevitably I'm going to have to make a decision based on almost no information and it's going to make someone angry.

As an example:

"I want to multiclass into cleric this level."
"What? Your character hasn't mentioned being religious in any way. You've never visited a church in the course of the game, you've just been in one dungeon or another for the whole campaign."
"I was raised in an orphanage. I was taught religion there. It's never come in game because it's never been important."

Is there reason to allow this multiclass or is the player just trying to abuse the system and rewriting his character's background in order to facilitate it?

I prefer a mechanical restriction on multiclassing. Partially so I don't have to be the bad guy and say no.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm fairly certain that the ability score requirements are only there to prevent abuse. They needed some way to prevent one PC from taking levels in every class in order to create some some of super-multiclassed monster. There's likely no way to create rules that prevent such abuse, some class feature combinations will almost always be broken. But the more class features you have from different classes the more likely they create an effect that wasn't foreseen(and is likely too powerful).

If they had just said "You can't have more than 3 classes" they'd have tons of people complaining that they were putting in stupid restrictions. However, if they put in stat requirements most people will view them as a roleplaying thing not as a restriction. It make SENSE to people because you have to be really good at something in order to excel in it. Meanwhile, it secretly serves its real purpose of preventing abuse. A single character might be good enough to take any 3, maybe 4 classes but is unlikely to be able to take them all.

As for narrative requirements....that one is difficult. I don't feel right restricting people's choices based on my whims(which is generally what narrative requirements means when I'm the DM). Because inevitably I'm going to have to make a decision based on almost no information and it's going to make someone angry.

As an example:

"I want to multiclass into cleric this level."
"What? Your character hasn't mentioned being religious in any way. You've never visited a church in the course of the game, you've just been in one dungeon or another for the whole campaign."
"I was raised in an orphanage. I was taught religion there. It's never come in game because it's never been important."

Is there reason to allow this multiclass or is the player just trying to abuse the system and rewriting his character's background in order to facilitate it?

I prefer a mechanical restriction on multiclassing. Partially so I don't have to be the bad guy and say no.

But this particular restriction doesn't work, the most potentially broken combos come from classes with score synergies, a wildshape focussed druid for example benefits greatly from a monk dip to get AC 20, and qualiffies naturally, as opossed by say a bard without the wisdom, but who wants to change gears to start being a monk, becuse he is tired of pertying so much and wants to start leading a more ascetic and discipplinned life and wants to start doing monk stuff for the rest of his career but will be easier to hit. Why reward powergaming by locking away benefits from non-powergamers.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm fairly certain that the ability score requirements are only there to prevent abuse. They needed some way to prevent one PC from taking levels in every class in order to create some some of super-multiclassed monster.

But why? Why this is even something that needs to be prevented in the first place?

And if that was really the purpose, they'd be better off by saying "you can't have more than X classes". Instead, the current, apparently "smart" restrictions, will NOT AT ALL prevent someone to play a ridiculous Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin/Monk/Rogue (you just to have a couple of good scores), while instead it might prevent someone else to play a totally reasonable Wizard/Fighter just because of the unforgivable mistake of having only Str 14 instead of 15. Until the next ability bump, you may say, then she'll raise it! Yes, so the "smart" restriction brilliantly became pure and simply a nuisance.

This is exactly the SAME problem of 3e multiclassing restrictrions, which were ridiculously meticulously planned "to prevent abuse" by giving XP penalties only on some specific combos, including exceptions to exceptions to exceptions. Only that those combos weren't really the broken ones.

The bottom line is actually that, restrictrions cannot be used to prevent abuses that aren't foreseen, exactly because if you can't foresee which combos will be overpowered, the restrictions will arbitrarily block balanced combos and allow some of the overpowered ones anyway.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But this particular restriction doesn't work, the most potentially broken combos come from classes with score synergies, a wildshape focussed druid for example benefits greatly from a monk dip to get AC 20, and qualiffies naturally, as opossed by say a bard without the wisdom, but who wants to change gears to start being a monk, becuse he is tired of pertying so much and wants to start leading a more ascetic and discipplinned life and wants to start doing monk stuff for the rest of his career but will be easier to hit. Why reward powergaming by locking away benefits from non-powergamers.

Having a high stat isn't powergaming. Especially not stats high enough to qualify for multiclassing. If this particular combination is too powerful, we should fix it for balance reasons.

Still, it likely prevents this from getting more out of hand. It's likely that if that character had no multiclassing restrictions at all, they'd also multi-class into Wizard to get the Enchanter class feature and give everyone disadvantage to hit them all the time. At least it limits the powergaming.

I like the idea of archetypes and anything that promotes sticking to one archetype as much as possible. I have no problem whatsoever saying "Sure, you want to be disciplined. I understand that, but you have difficulty concentrating. You can't focus well enough to control your Ki no matter how much the monks attempt to teach you. Your mind keeps wandering and you find yourself getting bored at the endless sitting around doing nothing. You just aren't cut out for all this meditating and self enlightenment."

It actually encourages roleplaying who your character is as opposed to trying to be something you aren't.