Blending the D&Ds

Zardnaar said:

The advantage of it though is the old scgool MCing which modern D&D has struggled with since 3E.

Click to expand...

I remember mcing oldschool to be very restrictive feeling? 3e was simple and freeform but very abusable as you have said.
However it looks like 5e fixed 3e multi-classing by removing the front loading factor of classes.

4e used arguably 2 complex methods of multiclassing one is a dabbling multiclassing bound to the feat system. Which is pretty flexible and can be engaged throughout the characters career but always feels like dabbling and a more convoluted hybriding that one has to decide on when you design the character,

Using both gives a huge amounts of variation but isn't anything close to elegance.

Zardnaar said:

For example in 5E bounded accuracy is great but they carried it a bit far and the monsters are really weak because of it. The 4E half level thing and having defences scale up to around 30 might have been a better idea but keeping the 5E ability score caps. 4E/OSR scaling defences (instead of 2 and in effect 1 for a lot of classes) was also a better idea conceptually IMHO.

Click to expand...

The monsters are boring in comparison to 4e ones at minimum because of it (and maybe you are right about them being weak a 4e ogre smash people to the ground with every swing is a lot more interesting and also powerful than the 5e counter part)

Yes the scaling defenses (and skills too) I rather like they capture heros getting all around awesome as they level.

Ability score caps with old school magic items (or something like boons added available along side magic items) could be reasonable alternatives.

Garthanos said:

4e used arguably 2 complex methods of multiclassing one is a dabbling multiclassing bound to the feat system. Which is pretty flexible and can be engaged throughout the characters career but always feels like dabbling and a more convoluted hybriding that one has to decide on when you design the character,

Using both gives a huge amounts of variation but isn't anything close to elegance.

Click to expand...

Oh and I forgot how backgrounds and themes also brought multi-classing elements to your character.

I could build a ranger that felt more like a 1e ranger ( than either of the two weapon rangers in 3e or 4e) using a Fighter class plus various of the above.

Garthanos said:

I remember mcing oldschool to be very restrictive feeling? 3e was simple and freeform but very abusable as you have said.
However it looks like 5e fixed 3e multi-classing by removing the front loading factor of classes.

4e used arguably 2 complex methods of multiclassing one is a dabbling multiclassing bound to the feat system. Which is pretty flexible and can be engaged throughout the characters career but always feels like dabbling and a more convoluted hybriding that one has to decide on when you design the character,

Using both gives a huge amounts of variation but isn't anything close to elegance.

Click to expand...

The 4E PHB system was fine, they just tried calling it MCing when it wasn't and it was still emi abusable for the most part being outright better than the skill training feat and you could take the feat and qualify for a new paragon path.

OSR MCing was restrictive in terms of what classes you could take (half elf had the greatest variety). SOme of the clones have overhauled that (MC how you like and/or add the xp tables togather so no mor level 5/7 Fighter/Thief you would be a level 6 Fighter/thief.

5E some of the classes are still front laoded (Fighter lvl 1 dip better saves, weapons, armor, fighting style), while there are other things like how cantrips scale and the Warlock.

Zardnaar said:

5E has its bugs with MCing,

Click to expand...

Ah could you elaborate?

Garthanos said:

Ah could you elaborate?

Click to expand...

Some classes are fornt laoded, some classes have way better saves than others so you are better starting as that class and switching to another (fighter1, thief XYZ), the way cantrips scale , the synergy between the charisma based casters vs the others, MC warlocks and Sorcerers. The saves are horribly unbalanced as well, the Thief gets two weak saves while the fighter get 2 really good ones and the Sorcerer probably has the best overall. Sorcerer1, Warlock 2 and then Sorcerer/Warlock whatever or the Hexblade/Paladin MC come to mind. THe Hexblade/Paladin can key everything off charisma for example (melee, ranged, and saves) and do it well. Warlocks can put out fighter level damage, the Sorlock can exceed it and at the higher levels in effect be action surging every combat (quickening EB). Only the cheesy fighter builds can keepup in damage and even then the Sorlock has other options.

Druid/Cleric is also abusable along with Bard/Druid. They may have overtuned the Bard as well, its not very Rogue like now and more full caster.

Zardnaar said:

The 4E PHB system was fine, they just tried calling it MCing when it wasn't and it was still emi abusable for the most part being outright better than the skill training feat and you could take the feat and qualify for a new paragon path.

Click to expand...

Well it is pretty minor though I agree it meant that a base line multi-class feat was a bit overpowered comparatively for someone who wanted versatile non combat ability, you had to be really shooting for specific broad skill set to end up taking a straight skill training feat. Why does my fighter need to dabble to be as skillful as most other classes was kind of derp on the non-combat balance arena.

Zardnaar said:

Some classes are fornt laoded, some classes have way better saves than others so you are better starting as that class and switching to another (fighter1, thief XYZ), the way cantrips scale , the synergy between the charisma based casters vs the others, MC warlocks and Sorcerers. THe saves are horribly unbalanced as well, the Thief gets two weak saves while the fighter get 2 really good ones and the Sorcerer probably has the best overall. Sorcerer1, Warlock 2 and then Sorcerer/Warlock whatever or the Hexblade/Paladin MC come to mind. THe Hexblade/Paladin can key everything off charisma for example (melee, ranged, and saves) and so it well.

Click to expand...

Thanks I rather like the Fort/Ref/Wil for the saving throw arena it can tame the flux.

This is the saving throw value impression I have based on frequency of use I have seen. Am I getting this right?

Con>Dex>Wis>Str>Cha>Int.

Strength seems like the best of the secondary saves and Con the best of the primary ones so the fighter gets both bests

Garthanos said:

Well it is pretty minor though I agree it meant that a base line multi-class feat was a bit overpowered comparatively for someone who wanted versatile non combat ability, you had to be really shooting for specific broad skill set to end up taking a straight skill training feat. Why does my fighter need to dabble to be as skillful as most other classes was kind of derp on the non-combat balance arena.

Click to expand...

This gets back to my precious comment about separating combat and non combat stuff. 5E kind of does this with some class features but if you use feats the non combat ones are competing with the combat ones. 2E split them up initially (late 2E they merged). 4E also gave it a shot with the U part of AEDU but failed on the feat thing.

If I had some sort of clone or homebrew I would either have fixed non combat things maybe with some player choice (like the 5E Rogue expertise, you get 2 skills but up to you what two skills you focus in) or in 3.X/4E terms some classes might get a bonus feat but from a limited list (skill training, skill focus, one of the language feats etc). A bonus feat is very powerful, a bonus feat from a limited selection not so much and a fixed bonus feat even less. SWSE kind of tried this as the expert type classes had a large variety of non combat feats to pick from.

Pathfinder 2 tried something similar in the early playtest in effect having lots of options but from a preselected list. PF2 could easily be tweaked into 4.5.





]

Garthanos said:

Thanks I rather like the Fort/Ref/Wil for the saving throw arena it can tame the flux.

This is the saving throw value impression I have based on frequency of use I have seen. Am I getting this right?

Con>Dex>Wis>Str>Cha>Int.

Strength seems like the best of the secondary saves and Con the best of the primary ones so the fighter gets both bests

Click to expand...

Something like that but stength saves are mostly getting knocked prone and there are spells like Banishment which are a charisma save so might be more important but yeah Con/Str and Con/Cha are def the best ones. Int is the worst, and out of the 3 good saves dex is the weakest and can be mitigated easily enough through good healing and mostly doesn't matter that much unless you are facing Dragons or packs of hell hounds. Or very low CR critters that can drop fireball/lightning bolt (CR 2-4). C&C actually handed the 6 saves better, everything is DC 12 or 18 but you add your level to it so if you are proficient in say Con and Cha the DC is 12 but even on your non proficient saves the DC is 18 and if you're level 8 you get +8 on all your saves.

I wold probably steal the basics of the 5E system, use fort/ref/will add your prof bonus to all of them and have a class bonus on each save. Or in 3.5 terms have base saves (at 20) +12/+10/+8 for a fighter, and nerf spell DCs into the ground ( and/or cap them at 20). Good saves future proof the game as well in terms of potential OP spells as the only risk is making a spell with no save and most spells with no save should be limited in some way-minor debuff, low AoE damage, decent single target damage something like that. Basically a 3-4 point difference between a good and bad save would be ideal. And might want to look at how ability scores modify them as even in 5E that is another +3-+5 generally on a save you are good at already.