D&D 5E Q&A: Mage Cantrips, Multiclass req., and the Psion

[gyor]

Its your second class that has the requirements not your first right. So if I wanted to be say a Cleric with the Trickster domain and dump wis for dex and then multiclass into Rogue or Bard I would be able to do that right. Or are low wis clerics barred from multiclassing to another class period.

 

[Sadrik]

Giving them something to fall back on is a good idea, unless you WANT to see them have to fall back to cross bows or daggers....

I want them to fall back on magic items just like a fighter. Or at low levels, yes, wizards and casters once they expend their magic should resort to a staff or other simple weapon. For them to never have to pick up a weapon misses some of the history of d&d and sets up a few inconsistencies. Additionally, I think it removes a growth area for characters to achieve something. A wand of magic missiles meant something now it means nothing. Cantrips also auto-scale past 1st level spell damage output. Effectively making those damage spells worthless.

 

[Dausuul]

The idea is to prevent "accidental suck."

I'm a fan of the requirements as a default for this reason. If the game lets you be a really crappy cleric with 8 WIS, some folks who don't have system mastery are going to be a really crappy cleric, and that'll be surprising to them that the game lets them do something so very ineffective.

Better just to take the option off the table as a default.

Well, in that case the requirements should apply to single-class PCs too.

But that brings up the issue that 5E PCs are not actually all that dependent on their "prime stats." As others have already pointed out, you can be a devastatingly effective fighter with a Strength of 8; just pump your Dexterity and go the dual-wielding route. As long as you steer clear of spells with save DCs and Wisdom-dependent domain powers, your cleric will do fine with a crappy Wisdom. If you're a moon druid, you are actually well advised to pump Dexterity before Wisdom.

 

[Salamandyr]

The more I read protestations against ability score requirements, the more I think they're a good idea. I might be persuaded that some are too high, however.

What I find worrisome is that they seem to be coming at multiclassing from the point of view of encouraging synergistic comboes, like say Barbarian and Fighter-two very similar archetypes, and discouraging dissimilar archetypes from combining, which is exactly the opposite of what I want.

Me, I don't care if Barbarian and Fighter are even allowed. A straight class Barbarian, A straight class Fighter, and a multiclass Fighter/Barbarian all look pretty much exactly alike everywhere but the character sheet. I want multiclassing to allow me to combine things like Fighter and Wizard, or Rogue and Cleric.

 

[MoonSong]

The idea is to prevent "accidental suck."

I'm a fan of the requirements as a default for this reason. If the game lets you be a really crappy cleric with 8 WIS, some folks who don't have system mastery are going to be a really crappy cleric, and that'll be surprising to them that the game lets them do something so very ineffective.

Better just to take the option off the table as a default.

I don't think there's going to be much an issue with dropping that requirement.

I seriously doubt it'll be the case that some completely new player will accidentally make a crappy cleric with a wis penalty. And even if that is the case, where are the restrictions for taking cleric as your first class? why is a higher level character who has some stuff to fall back on not allowed to become a crappy cleric but someone who started as one is?

Also I'm a big defender of the "right to suck", as long as I contribute to the party and to the story who cares if I'm the most pathetic cleric/rouge anything out there? why should the system protect me from myself?

 

[MoonSong]

Well, in that case the requirements should apply to single-class PCs too.

But that brings up the issue that 5E PCs are not actually all that dependent on their "prime stats." As others have already pointed out, you can be a devastatingly effective fighter with a Strength of 8; just pump your Dexterity and go the dual-wielding route. As long as you steer clear of spells with save DCs and Wisdom-dependent domain powers, your cleric will do fine with a crappy Wisdom. If you're a moon druid, you are actually well advised to pump Dexterity before Wisdom.

Must spread xp, blah blah, but yes I approve

 

[Celebrim]

What I find worrisome is that they seem to be coming at multiclassing from the point of view of encouraging synergistic comboes, like say Barbarian and Fighter-two very similar archetypes, and discouraging dissimilar archetypes from combining, which is exactly the opposite of what I want.

Me, I don't care if Barbarian and Fighter are even allowed. A straight class Barbarian, A straight class Fighter, and a multiclass Fighter/Barbarian all look pretty much exactly alike everywhere but the character sheet. I want multiclassing to allow me to combine things like Fighter and Wizard, or Rogue and Cleric.

This was indeed the big hole in 3e style multi-classing, and I've never seen a perfect solution.

1e used the 'gestalt' approach but also had this idea called 'dual classing' that was mostly similar to 3e style. But as implemented neither were very balanced. Multi-classing was limited by the fact that demihumans couldn't obtain very high level and so were never OP in the long run, but in the short run they tended to be better than humans by virtue of being 'gestalt classed' and there was never a game reason for not running a demihuman was a X/thief and much reason to do so. Dual classing was flat out broken.

3e multiclassing worked well except for spellcasters. The solution that 3e tried to adopt was prestige classes, but the problem with the prestige class approach is that you then needed a carefully balanced prestige class for every combination of X and Y that was halfway between the two and supported partial advancement in the two classes simultaneously. That meant literally dozens of PrC's, some of which were probably never created. And in general, they always felt bland and limiting. I hated PrC's from the start, but resisted banning PrC's initially because I thought I needed things like Arcane Trickster to support some archetypes.

My solution has been to grant support to multi-classing through a simple generic feat tree that boosts your caster ability. This works really well, except that it probably over rewards dipping and over encourages multi-classing. There probably isn't really a lot of reason not to play a Wiz16/Ftr4 or a Rog16/Sor4 under my rules if you are strictly power-gaming. But for the most part it hasn't been a problem. It's an attractive and abusable feat tree by design, but so far no one has really created anything fundamentally broken using it, and at high level none of my characters are nearly as busted as the ones in 3.X dipping 3-5 PrC's to grab front-end abilities.

If someone can find a way to make say Brb10/Wiz10 look interesting and balanced with Wizard 20 or Barbarian 20, that's great.

 

[Salamandyr]

In my experience, unless you were making a higher level character already, nobody dual classed. It was too much work.

I like 0 thru 2nd multiclassing, which yes, is a bit like gestalting in 3e (not that I've ever had a DM who let me gestalt). I never thought 3e multiclassing was as awesome as most people did.

One of the things that 0 thru 2nd did was mandate what could be multiclassed, and what you could multiclass was always two different archetypes.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I hope the sorcerer ends up grabbing some concepts from the one we got for one packet. It's my favorite class design out of this edition.

Last I heard, elements of that class were being folded into the Eldritch Knight, which is some kind of fighter subclass for fighter/mages.

 

[sidonunspa]

I want them to fall back on magic items just like a fighter. Or at low levels, yes, wizards and casters once they expend their magic should resort to a staff or other simple weapon. For them to never have to pick up a weapon misses some of the history of d&d and sets up a few inconsistencies. Additionally, I think it removes a growth area for characters to achieve something. A wand of magic missiles meant something now it means nothing. Cantrips also auto-scale past 1st level spell damage output. Effectively making those damage spells worthless.

well except the fighter does not have to fall back to a magic items to do there job, they can swing that sword all day.. 3 times a round (or 4) at higher levels... and they are still a fighter

the wizard runs out of spells, and is suddenly not a wizard.. they are a 2nd class melee character...

the best way for you is to ban damaging cantrips and your done...

I'm currently playing a 1st edition D&D game, playing a cleric/magic-user for gods sake... and I have to fall back to wands all the time, very expensive wands..

we also have a magic-user in the party, there has been entire encounters where he simply does not cast any of his spells or use any magic items, because the fighters have unlimited resources and we don't want to have to camp just yet.

pulling out damaging cantrips is super easy, just ban them.. win... just don't be surprized when all your mages blow a feat to learn a sword (or all play elves)