D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Li Shenron]

But this one works well enough to at least prevent the worst of the issues.

I still think you're jumping to conclusions. We have no proof it prevents them, because we don't even have examples yet of what are those worst of the issues.

You made one possible 3.5 example of someone who "(1) wore heavy armor, (2) had a crap ton of hitpoints, (3) had a +17 BAB at level 20 and (4) could cast 9th level spells with no spell failure chance while wearing his armor". You can get 3 out of 4 of these features with a single-class Wizard in 5e, with the right feats (there might be currently missing a feat for light armor proficiencies, something likely to exist in the game however). Basically you can't get (2) from a single-class Wizard, but you can get the rest, without multiclassing. AFAIK if you try to build this as a Wizard/Fighter you'll have to trade-off spells for hit points and some additional combat features, and you can spare a couple of feats. Obviously your 3.5 combo was not made using core material only, and it is unfair to blame the core rules for broken splatbooks combos, because if the core rules should be designed to prevent broken combos, then the core rules would need to be designed to prevent all combos, which is against the principle that the game should allow flexibility character creation.

But the point is that the stat restrictions will not prevent any combo, they in fact allow broken combos, they only add an extra price tag. The problem is that a 15 score requirement costs nothing for someone who really wants to make a broken combo, especially in an edition which is more generous than ever with stats.

 

[ccooke]

I still think you're jumping to conclusions. We have no proof it prevents them, because we don't even have examples yet of what are those worst of the issues.

You made one possible 3.5 example of someone who "(1) wore heavy armor, (2) had a crap ton of hitpoints, (3) had a +17 BAB at level 20 and (4) could cast 9th level spells with no spell failure chance while wearing his armor". You can get 3 out of 4 of these features with a single-class Wizard in 5e, with the right feats (there might be currently missing a feat for light armor proficiencies, something likely to exist in the game however). Basically you can't get (2) from a single-class Wizard, but you can get the rest, without multiclassing. AFAIK if you try to build this as a Wizard/Fighter you'll have to trade-off spells for hit points and some additional combat features, and you can spare a couple of feats. Obviously your 3.5 combo was not made using core material only, and it is unfair to blame the core rules for broken splatbooks combos, because if the core rules should be designed to prevent broken combos, then the core rules would need to be designed to prevent all combos, which is against the principle that the game should allow flexibility character creation.

But the point is that the stat restrictions will not prevent any combo, they in fact allow broken combos, they only add an extra price tag. The problem is that a 15 score requirement costs nothing for someone who really wants to make a broken combo, especially in an edition which is more generous than ever with stats.

But even if you can do that in 5e, the end result is incredibly different to the end result of the 3.5e version described - but more importantly, to a 5e melee character.

Let's assume your single classed wizard is a Mountain Dwarf, so they have access to warhammers and medium armour. Getting heavy armour is a single feat away, then. Let's take a look at this 20th-level Wizard compared to a 5e 20th-level Fighter.

In the 3.5e example, with +17 BAB the fighter/wizard/etc monstrosity would attack as +17, +12, +7, +2 - four attacks each round. Your single-classed Mage character will have... one. Ever. Which means that for all their ability to hit things about as often as a Fighter, you're still crippled for melee damage unless you spend more resources on it. You could use up all of your feats to be a more solid melee combatant - maybe grab the Dual Wielder feat, maybe Polearm Master to make your staff a double weapon. Even so, you'll never get as many attacks as a Fighter would be able to, and most of the options will make your spells weaker (Two Weapon Fighting with two melee weapons means you can't be carrying a magic focus, so your spells no longer get your proficiency bonus to hit or to their DCs. The only magic focus in the game that can be used as a melee weapon is a staff). You will never be able to add an ability score to off-hand weapon attacks, either.

Which means that you will never* make a single-classed Mage that's a combat-monster of the same type as a Fighter.

That's not saying you can't make an interesting single-classed melee mage. The False Life spell is great, for instance, since it gives you 1d4+4 temporary hit points, +5 per spell slot level above 1st. You'd need to sink all your feats into it, but with a careful spell selection (avoiding spells with hit rolls or DCs) you could create a fun and interesting character. They just won't be able to deal anywhere near as much damage as a Fighter.


* Yes, WotC could ruin everything with a load of overpowered feats. They've done it before. But when they've done it before it's been later in the game's lifespan and my groups have always just stuck to core material.

 

[Li Shenron]

Which means that you will never* make a single-classed Mage that's a combat-monster of the same type as a Fighter.

That seems right. So what is your connection between this observation and the stat-based 5e multiclassing restrictions?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't have any examples from D&D Next. Though if I did they'd be pointless anyways, since I don't have access to at least 2 of the classes and a number of options that will be in the final game and many of the issues are likely already fixed.

But there were MANY examples of this back in 3.5e. Almost all of them were caused by multiclassing like crazy. I remember at least one character I made who wore heavy armor, had a crap ton of hitpoints, had a +17 BAB at level 20 and could cast 9th level spells with no spell failure chance while wearing his armor. He had a feat that let him channel spells into his weapon to do an extra +9 to hit and +9d4 damage while making his attacks touch attacks. It was extremely powerful. It required me to have 5 different classes to get all the class features, however.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see a different system for gating in possible over-multiclassers. But this one works well enough to at least prevent the worst of the issues.

Mind posting the build?

99% of these types of builds have errors.

 

[MoonSong]

I believe archetypes are better because they are simpler to understand and work with. It is easy for people to say "Wizard, that's the guy who casts fireballs and lightning bolts at people" or "Rogue, that's the sneaky guy with the daggers who stabs people in the back". These archetypes are intuitive, they are the kind of things even non-gamers thinks of when these words come up.

Isn't this an argument to remove customizing altogether and hand out pregens? even the most slightly option to customize opens room for breaking out of these "platonic archetypes" you mention. (Which aren't that useful considering the huge diversity of characters in fiction. Going by your wizard definition, Merlin has no place in the game -he never went out blasting the enemies of Camelot with fireballs and lightning bolts- not even good ol' Gandalf is good enough for the game -how he dare wield a sword?- )

Not to mention the other player's feelings when these characters are doing well: "I'll heal you! I'm a cleric and I specialized in healing!" "No thanks, I have a class feature that allows me to heal myself. Did I mention I also have the best AC in the group, the most hitpoints and do the most damage? It's cute that you think I need your help. Since all you can do is heal and I don't need that, why don't you sit over there and I'll let you bring me ale when I'm done killing the enemies."

You know what hurts a focused healer's feeling more than "no thanks I can do it myself" ? Being told "no thanks, the system will fully heal me overnight without having to spend a single resource". Also powergamed Clerics could do this on 3.5 and without needing a single multiclass. So, you see, multiclassing has nothing to do with brokeness on itslef

I'd imagine that given a Str 3 fighter could barely lift a sword that they'd be really bad at fighting. Realistically, swinging a sword around all day, practicing with heavy weapons and armor and being physically fit enough to strike blows through armor and do some of the maneuvers required to fight with all the weapons fighters are trained in, there would be a minimum strength required. It would be above average.

Then again, I think that the point of the system is that your character IS their primary class, they are just dabbling in other classes. I generally think of someone who starts as a level 1 Wizard, for instance, to be someone who started training at a young age, practiced for years to get everything right and is now a full fledged Wizard. A Fighter who multiclasses into Wizard is instead the guy who spent his entire life training with weapons and armors and practices martial maneuvers. He then picks up a spell book one day and says "I'm going to learn magic. I have 2 weeks, what can you teach me?" Only people who are exceptionally intelligent can learn magic in such a short period of time. They have to be able to read and understand advanced topics quickly. So they need to be REALLY naturally talented.

As for the Fighter who is str 3 and Dex 16. They might be a great fighter according to the rules, but I hate when people refer to the rules for everything. The rules MEAN something in the game world. Even though the character is mechanically super awesome, the character in question is a little absurd. Mechanically a 3 str doesn't hurt this character at all. That's because the rules are attempting to be abstract and easy to learn. In the game, the character has a max load of 30 lbs and shouldn't be able to effectively wield a sword at all. I wouldn't ever make this character. I'd also look down at someone who tried it for powergaming.

You know, there is a reason light weapons exist, even a machete is light enough to be carried comfortably by a young child with a single hand -not that small kids should handle bladed things, but they are capable of that as long as the weapon isn't taller than them-. And wanting to play a very weak fighter can be interesting on itself, it has nothing to do with powergaming but wanting a certain character. (and if that is the case, why my Str 8 ranger can be a ranger, but never start to seriously train and become a more focussed fighter?)

Besides, mark my words. Dipping and dabbling aren't the only reasons to multiclassing. As I've already stated over and over there are six basic reasons to multiclass

Rounding up - Get a perk for your PC
Dabbling - Get some extra ability to rely on
Mixing archetypes - the classical fighter/mage goes here, though it doesn't have to be 50-50
Organic Growth - Reflect changes on your characters life by changing class in response to the campaign events
Make-your-own-class - Express an archetype that hasn't been expressed in-game. Fringe things such as "Elven righteous nimble slayer of evil tiefling mages"
Powergaming - Nuff said. Though this can map to any of the former.

Even the last one can be legitimate with the right group.

I don't have any examples from D&D Next. Though if I did they'd be pointless anyways, since I don't have access to at least 2 of the classes and a number of options that will be in the final game and many of the issues are likely already fixed.

But there were MANY examples of this back in 3.5e. Almost all of them were caused by multiclassing like crazy. I remember at least one character I made who wore heavy armor, had a crap ton of hitpoints, had a +17 BAB at level 20 and could cast 9th level spells with no spell failure chance while wearing his armor. He had a feat that let him channel spells into his weapon to do an extra +9 to hit and +9d4 damage while making his attacks touch attacks. It was extremely powerful. It required me to have 5 different classes to get all the class features, however.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see a different system for gating in possible over-multiclassers. But this one works well enough to at least prevent the worst of the issues.

Cof, Cof, CodZilla...

More seriously, how many of those five classes were Base classes as opposed to Prestige Classes? As far as I know no base classes ever stacked spellcasting.

 

[Mistwell]

Saying "Single classes were also broken" isn't a very good response to "We should fix the multi-class broken issues". They're trying to do both.

 

[Dausuul]

Saying "Single classes were also broken" isn't a very good response to "We should fix the multi-class broken issues". They're trying to do both.

Agreed. However, there's really very little case for multiclassing being broken in the first place. Sure, many 3.5E splatbooks were loaded with prestige classes that you could stack to ridiculous effect; but that had a lot more to do with the prestige classes being broken than with multiclassing per se.

Even in 3.5E, you couldn't get anything really grotesque out of stacking the 11 core classes. You could squeeze out an incremental edge--dip two levels of fighter for some bonus feats, or one level of monk for Wisdom to AC, stuff like that. By 3E balance standards, it was small potatoes. And I still haven't seen an example of broken multiclassing in Next, let alone one that would be prevented by stat minimums.

 

[Mistwell]

Agreed. However, there's really very little case for multiclassing being broken in the first place.

Anyone familiar with the builds in the CharOp board of WOTC knows different. Better than 50% utilize one-level dips, often multiple times. It's an issue.

 

[Dausuul]

Anyone familiar with the builds in the CharOp board of WOTC knows different. Better than 50% utilize one-level dips, often multiple times. It's an issue.

Dips into what classes, specifically? To pick up what benefits?

Like I said: 3.5E prestige classes were grotesquely broken. We all know that. Obviously you could do all kinds of stupid shenanigans by sampling those buckets of balance fail. And many splatbooks had badly broken base classes as well. But what core class dips did people use to break the game?

 

[MoonSong]

Saying "Single classes were also broken" isn't a very good response to "We should fix the multi-class broken issues". They're trying to do both.

It was just a throw away line. Just an off commentary that had nothing to do with my argument (And by it I meant, yeah go through lots hoops and of splat to get a more expensive Codzilla). My point was: Was multiclassing the broken thing or was it the hundreds of poorly conceived Prestige Classes in splatbooks?.

Also I'm not against fixing multiclassing issues, but the current "solution" fixes nothing, if anything it makes things worse, it doesn't prevent powergaming abuses and reduces its flexibility for little to no gain.