• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
The backgrounds should be: Choose X number of proficiencies from this list.

And then if you get that proficiency from your class, you can choose a different one you didn't have from that background list, rather than from the entire game's list of proficiencies.

That way, you don't have people taking backgrounds just for the intentional redundancy to enable them to pick anything they want.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


the Jester

Legend
The backgrounds should be: Choose X number of proficiencies from this list.

And then if you get that proficiency from your class, you can choose a different one you didn't have from that background list, rather than from the entire game's list of proficiencies.

That way, you don't have people taking backgrounds just for the intentional redundancy to enable them to pick anything they want.

This is a good idea!
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I recall once, a long time ago, popping on on the CharOps board to see the best way to build a Shadowdancer. It turns out, the best way is Barbarian1/Fighter1/Rogue3/Guildthief5/Shadowdancer10. That's TOTALLY what I think when I think "shadowdancer", right?

I'd like to see either some strict limit on MC (two/three classes max) to keep dippers from doing so. The pre-req idea is a serviceable substitute.



Well no, but might we suppose that most people wanting to play a Fighter won't be wanting to put weak stats into Strength anyway, for example?

You don't need to regulate people's initial choices of Class, just provide the encouragement of the best use of Ability scores to support the choice. Multi-classing, however, does need some control - I think the prerequisites work pretty well in that respect.

I can imagine a character with 6 Strength and 16 Intelligence starting off in the wrong Class as a Fighter, before realising that his true calling lay in the use of magic. I can't really see the reverse being true however.

The prerrequisite idea is awful, I'm not against it as an optional rule, but as a beseline I hate it. It really only punishes players and enforces cookie cutter bland characters, also such strict prerrequisites greatly detract from one of the biggest strengths of level by level multiclassing and that is organic character growth. I can still remember two of my characters who weren't exactly a good fit score-wise but still made sense to multiclass, a nimble sorcerer with a wis penalty who multiclassed paladin, and a charming rogue with a somewhat low wis (13-14) who mutliclassed cleric, none of them were a by the book memeber for the second class, and in some aspects they were suboptimal, but story wise it made all the sense in the world for them to do that multiclass and they were pretty fun to play. whereas this new system with heavy prerrequisites says "screw them, none should dare enter a new class if aren't already a living stereotype of it"

Besides you don't want dipping, you are out of luck, the system already allows for a character who can easily get six classes, stat dex 13 wis 15, con 13 (very easy given the high point buy and the godly humans) start as rogue (or paladin, or fighter or bard) then feel free to take levels in druid, cleric, ranger, barbarian and monk as you see fit. Heck stat up a human as dex 15 wis 15 Str 15 int 10 con 13 cha 13, start as mage or bard, bingo you get a character that can have 9 out of the ten classes. But no my slightly above average wisdom assassin cannot repent and turn to a life of cleric on an attempt to redeem herself, because she dared to evolve organically instead of rigidly planning such a turn from day one . [Besides I also dislike the mage prerrequisite automatically is assuming a wizard (high int), not a warlock (high cha or con) nor a sorcerer (high cha) nor a psion (who could easilly favor wis along with int)]

So as you can see the current prerrequisites don't work that way, they don't prevent the mad level dipping some are quick to demonize, but instead they are only there to stop people who want to use it with moderation.
 

Kinak

First Post
The backgrounds should be: Choose X number of proficiencies from this list.
Yeah, this works much better.

It also has the benefit of handling expansion smoothly, both at the table and over the course of the edition. If I think it's stupid that bounty hunters can't be trained in Intimidation, I can add that to the list without it upsetting balance in the slightest (you still get three skills, no problems). Similarly, if they add an investigator's kit in the Obligatory Gear Book, you can put it in as an option for Bounty Hunter proficiencies without having to change or retcon anything.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

Greg K

Legend
The prerrequisite idea is awful, I'm not against it as an optional rule, but as a beseline I hate it. It really only punishes players and enforces cookie cutter bland characters, also such strict prerrequisites greatly detract from one of the biggest strengths of level by level multiclassing and that is organic character growth. .

I would agree, but I don't see organic growth in multiclassing at the moment ven without it.
1) There are no other prerequisites
2) There is no requirement for a trainer or time to train.
3) The classes are so front loaded that you gain a whole bunch of proficiencies, a skill and features by dipping into martial classes rather than picking up stuff slowly.
4) You don't need to first spend time learning cantrips/orisons before you can cast first level spells. Nor do you need to learn any type of other prerequisite (e.g., magic theory, about nature before you bond with it, etc)
Essentially, it is, a repackaging of the default 3e multiclass rules which, despite 3e being my favorite edition, were horrible for organic (my opinion of course) with a poor pre-requisite slapped on top.
Removing the pre-requisite does not make it organic (although it can be if a campaign has a lot of downtime
 
Last edited:

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
So as you can see the current prerrequisites don't work that way, they don't prevent the mad level dipping some are quick to demonize, but instead they are only there to stop people who want to use it with moderation.

I personally like the ability requirements, but they are not the only means within the game to add a cost to multiclassing. And for the life of me I do not know why the other part of the equation isn't getting more attention, because as you said the ability requirements are relatively minor, and you get ability score increases that can eventually get you into the class if you want to.

But the other part of the equation is the loss of ability/feat increase roughly every four levels of a class. You do not get these increases based on your character level. You only get them at certain levels of a particular class. So if you constantly multiclass, you never get them. Heck, if you spend three levels in a class and never go back to it, you never get the increase/feat.

People have been talking about this as if it's a "trap" for new players. But I disagree. Folks are approaching it with the mentality of having played 3e and 4e where you get feats and ability increases based on your overall character level. But a new player doesn't come in with that bias from prior editions. This is the game to them, this is where they learn how things work, and a new player will see how it's the classes that come with the ability/feat at certain levels, not the character's overall level. I don't see it as a trap for new players - new players will spot this much easier than older players who are used to prior editions and the customs from those additions that focus on character level rather than class level for those sorts of things. Besides, if it's really a big concern, they just need to add a sidebar on "To Multiclass or Not?" that mentions the delay in the ability/feat increase.

Anyway, I think the benefit of level-dipping is roughly equal to the costs of doing it, with those costs being the minimum ability requirements, delay in ability/feat increase, and delay in primary class abilities. It's not a "punishment", it's the reasonable costs applied to balance out the benefits of all those first level abilities from a new class.
 
Last edited:


One thing I'm impressed about is that Rangers and Paladins finally get their own unique spells in a core book which aren't watered down versions of Druid and Cleric spells. I really like the arrow volley spells and the smite spells, it's better than waiting for a splatbook before such spells come out.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
2) Why would duplicating the XP column in each class's chart not be good for the game?

Are you sure about this? After all, as soon as a PC is multiclassing, that column would not be valid anymore, it would be confusing...

I know that on average I tend to prefer not reprinting stuff, so I might be biased, but I don't think it's a big deal at all to check two tables when levelling up, it's not that it happens every session. Although what they could do, is have rounded numbers in the XP progression rather than the current numbers.

Actually, I noticed that each class duplicates the proficiency bonus progression, and I think I'd prefer that gone too...
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top