D&D 5E Overpowered, Underpowered or Just Right

[Carbonfiber07]

Everyone, thank you for all the responses, as it really does help. I anticipate I will be having more rules interplay questions as the game unfolds. We have been putting off 5E for so long because the Pathfinder game was still going strong, but since that ended, I am really digging the simpler mechanics.

 

[Blue]

The fun thing is that the biggest problem with multiclassing is that it's too easy to accidentally make a underperforming character. Unlike 3.x or pathfinder, 5e multiclassing is not the "route to power". Playing AL at my FLGS when 5e was newish, it was funny how many people tried to make min/maxed multiclassed characters only to find themselves lagging behind generic single-classed characters.

Two main tenants not to lag behind for multiclass are:

• Don't miss ASIs. If you invest 3 levels, or 7 levels, invent the next and get your ASI/feat. It really hurts when you don't.
• Don't miss out on your 5th level (or 11th level) power bump for long. Most classes have a serious bump at 5th and a smaller one at 11th.

Now, fighter is one of the more cherry-pick-able classes (cleric 1 being another one) so they wont' be too bad off early on. But Rogue 3/Fighter 2 is weaker then Rogue 5 or Fighter 5. In additon to either of those having +2 to an ability or haivng a feat, Rogue 5 has Uncanny Dodge gives half damage to one attack every single round and an extra d6 of SA, while Fighter 5 has a subclass and gets two attacks (three with two-weapon fighting). It's not badly off, still within the curve of classes.

Oh, confirming what the others said, the bonus action for two-weapon fighting requires the Attack action to become available, not just making an attack. Casting a spell will not allow it, even if it is a cantrip that gives an attack, because it's the Cast a Spell action, not an Attack action.

Note that EK 7 will give War Magic, which gives the ability to make an attack as a bonus action after using your action to cast a cantrip. That will work, and is incompatible with two weapon fighting since you get a maximum of one bonus action a turn.

 

[Corwin]

The fun thing is that the biggest problem with multiclassing is that it's too easy to accidentally make a underperforming character.

Define "underperforming". And while you are at it, if you could please explain its practical impact to play, if any.

Unlike 3.x or pathfinder, 5e multiclassing is not the "route to power".

Or, there is no spoon. This is the kind of claims made by folks who go around warning of "traps" hidden in 5e. You know what I mean, terrible choices you can make that ruin your character because they make you suck. Just another spoon, IYAM.

Playing AL at my FLGS when 5e was newish, it was funny how many people tried to make min/maxed multiclassed characters only to find themselves lagging behind generic single-classed characters.

Again, you seem to be using a very specific, and narrow, definition of "lagging behind". Because, to me at least, its an exchange. You are trading increased effectiveness with a narrow skillset for flexibility. You clearly look down on that transaction. That doesn't make it objectively weaker. Just seeking something different than what you value.

Don't miss ASIs. If you invest 3 levels, or 7 levels, invent the next and get your ASI/feat. It really hurts when you don't.

No. It doesn't. Not really. Look, I get what you are thinking is a thing. The obvious bump provided by the ASI/feat. But lets say a 3rd level BM fighter has two choices: Take a 4th level in fighter for that ASI/feat. Or he can take a level in rogue. You contend that it "really hurts" not to take the ASI. For what? Are you one of those folks who insist you need to raise your stat to 20 before considering anything else? Cuz that's been shown to be untrue, thanks to bounded accuracy. Are you saying the opportunity to take a feat is a "must"? Well, the way I see it, the fighter who takes that rogue level effectively took a "feat" that gave him expertise in two skills, 1d6 sneak attack, and a secret language. Sounds like a pretty decent feat comparable to any other on the feat list. Is it postponing his 5th level fighter level for the extra attack? Of course. And that *is* a thing, I give you that. But its a conscious decision to delay that future increase in combat effectiveness for flexibility. You discount that, I get it. But many don't. And evidently neither do the devs. And, experience playing 5e has shown me, neither does practical play at the table.

I for one love that 5e multiclassing is actually interesting and full of hard choices. That's what informs me that is is a good subsystem. Every time you consider doing so, you know you are giving up something to get something else. Without that exchange, it would be, as you point out, a "path of power" akin to those other editions/systems. Which it clearly isn't. And since MC characters continue to contribute to play just fine every day across thousands of tables, you contention that it is "weak" is lacking practical evidence.

Don't miss out on your 5th level (or 11th level) power bump for long. Most classes have a serious bump at 5th and a smaller one at 11th.

And what are you claiming will happen if they don't take your advice? Is the character leading the party to a TPK because they missed the boat on the power bump? Is that your contention? Because I've played in plenty of games where a PC's MC path postponed those "power bumps" for multiple levels. Game played fine.

Now, fighter is one of the more cherry-pick-able classes (cleric 1 being another one) so they wont' be too bad off early on.

More unprovable personal opinion disguised as objective fact. Wow, but is that untrue.

But Rogue 3/Fighter 2 is weaker then Rogue 5 or Fighter 5. In additon to either of those having +2 to an ability or haivng a feat...

I already covered this above. The things you get for one are comparable to, sometimes greater than, what you can get from a single ASI/feat.

...Rogue 5 has Uncanny Dodge gives half damage to one attack every single round and an extra d6 of SA, while Fighter 5 has a subclass and gets two attacks (three with two-weapon fighting). It's not badly off, still within the curve of classes.

I will defend that Rogue 3/Fighter 2 is "withing the curve of classes". As long as, what you are trying for consists of things you get for taking those levels. I get that your infatuation with narrow power curves, within tightly defined categories, are paramount to you. But I don't think you are writing a book on what constitutes playing 5e as intended*.



(*something not only self-evident by the rules as they are written to work as they do, but that they can be played that way and the game continues to achieve its stated goal.)

 

[Blue]

Wow, I'm not sure how to respond. You call out a lot of things without providing a single counter-example, yet assert you are correct without actually providing facts refuting anything I say.

That's not even including personal attacks or the strawmen.

If you can provide specific facts, such as missing an ASI is in no way inferior to not missing an ASI, I'll be glad to discuss them. Until then, I stand by my original post as guidelines for keeping multiclass characters on par with single class characters.

 

[Corwin]

Wow, I'm not sure how to respond. You call out a lot of things without providing a single counter-example, yet assert you are correct without actually providing facts refuting anything I say.

Did I? Can you cite an example? I'm pretty sure you will see yourself as being incorrect once you take the time to read my post.

If you can provide specific facts, such as missing an ASI is in no way inferior to not missing an ASI, I'll be glad to discuss them.

Didn't you just accuse me of making a strawman? That's especially interesting to me because I'm quite certain I said no such thing. Again, taking the time to read what I wrote might help clear things up for you. At this point I'm certain you've not bothered to.

Until then, I stand by my original post as guidelines for keeping multiclass characters on par with single class characters.

Define "par". And while you are at it, if you could please explain its practical impact to play, if any.

 

[jaelis]

Everyone, thank you for all the responses, as it really does help. I anticipate I will be having more rules interplay questions as the game unfolds. We have been putting off 5E for so long because the Pathfinder game was still going strong, but since that ended, I am really digging the simpler mechanics.

Sounds like you've got the GFB stuff down now, but since it hasn't been mentioned, there is an official clarification in the Sage Advice Compendium:

Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?

Introduced in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, the green-flame blade and booming blade spells pose a number of questions, because they each do something unusual: require you to make a melee attack with a weapon as part of the spell’s casting.

First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do.) For example, if you use a longsword with green-flame blade, you use your Strength modifier for the weapon’s attack and damage rolls.

Second, neither green-flame blade nor booming blade works with Extra Attack or any other feature that requires the Attack action. Like other spells, these cantrips require the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action, and they can’t be used to make an opportunity attack, unless a special feature allows you to do so.

Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature. For example, if you have the Sneak Attack feature and cast green-flame blade with a finesse weapon, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit.

Lots of useful clarification in that document, you might give it a look through.

 

[Carbonfiber07]

Sounds like you've got the GFB stuff down now, but since it hasn't been mentioned, there is an official clarification in the Sage Advice Compendium:


Lots of useful clarification in that document, you might give it a look through.

Excellent. Thank you. And, yes, I will check out the Sage Advice Compendium.

 

[Blue]

Didn't you just accuse me of making a strawman? That's especially interesting to me because I'm quite certain I said no such thing.

Here's your strawman:

And what are you claiming will happen if they don't take your advice? Is the character leading the party to a TPK because they missed the boat on the power bump? Is that your contention?

Seems pretty clear to me. I never made any claim that performing poorly would lead to a TPK, but you attempt to redefine my statement as that.

If you are uncertain what you wrote, your own advice was to reread your post.

Define "par". And while you are at it, if you could please explain its practical impact to play, if any.

"par" is what a general replacement character of the same general niche would bring to the table. In baseball metrics it's VORP, "value over replacement player" - what an average player in that position would be expected to bring.

A character well below par will not be able to hold up their party of the party as well as a generic replacement character of the same niche.

This isn't a judgement on playing style - I've played intentionally flawed characters and enjoyed it. But when a player wants to create an effective character but the rules let them down, that's what I'm trying to avoid.

Here again are my statements. If you do not agree with please provide counter examples, not handwaving.

1. Delaying ASIs a long time (3 levels or more) can make a character less effective.
2. There is a power bump for the classes at 5th (and a lesser one at 11th) and delaying getting there can also can make a character less effective.

Please provide general cases to back up your statements, not just one-off corner cases.

 

[Corwin]

Seems pretty clear to me. I never made any claim that performing poorly would lead to a TPK, but you attempt to redefine my statement as that.

Are you familiar with question marks? <==See, there's one right there! Since you were nebulously critical originally, I needed to ask you questions to determine what it is you were alluding to, while refusing to come out and say. You keep hinting that a MC can be "weak" and therefor, what? What does that result in? What are you worried is going to happen at a table where this is theoretically occurring?

A character well below par will not be able to hold up their party of the party as well as a generic replacement character of the same niche.

Resulting in what, exactly? Better not say TPK... That would be unfortunate.

This isn't a judgement on playing style - I've played intentionally flawed characters and enjoyed it. But when a player wants to create an effective character but the rules let them down, that's what I'm trying to avoid.

You've yet to show any evidence that the examples you have given would meet that theoretical, undefinable baseline. Because you won't lay out what you think this "ineffective" character would results in during play. Let alone what qualifies.

1. Delaying ASIs a long time (3 levels or more) can make a character less effective.

Please finally define "effective". Seriously. Not kidding. Because "effective" can just as easily be defined as being achieved by the character taking the other class levels to get things the party really wants. Or, at least, benefits from. Such as a fighter taking rogue levels to get things like: expertise in several key skill the party needs, and eventually the arcane trickster starting package. When the party gets locked in the prison cell, try to tell them how "less effective" the fighter/rogue will be then... Or when they encounter the thieves' guild and the fighter can speak their language. How terrible was his choice then?... I really could list examples of instances, where a fighter/rogue would greatly benefit from the rogue level(s) he chose to take, all day. But I think we all can, so what's the point, amIright?

2. There is a power bump for the classes at 5th (and a lesser one at 11th) and delaying getting there can also can make a character less effective.

Resulting in what? Compared to what? You really can't say, can you?

You say a fighter 3/rogue 2 is a bad choice, right? You like to use white-room math to prove your untested theories. Go for it. Show me. Show me how that is notably weaker than a fighter 5. And why. Give me a concrete breakdown. If you have the right of it, shouldn't be too hard to prove.

Please provide general cases to back up your statements, not just one-off corner cases.

I gave specific examples in my previous post. And again here. Where are yours, BTW? Your continued attempts to discredit my opposition, to your general malaise and vague grousing, is going to fail. Because people can just scroll up and see for themselves.

 

[Dausuul]

Thanks for the reply. This coincides with Cap'n Kobolds response. I did not consider this, as I was assuming (apparently wrongly) that the GFB cantrip was an attack action because it says you get to make an attack as part of casting the spell. I think I follow what you guys are saying now and appreciate the clarification. Can you point to any PHB section that would support this? I think I am agreeing with your logic, just want to know if there is a rule somewhere that says something like this.

I don't have a PHB handy, so I can't give you a page number, but here's the relevant bit in the 5E SRD:

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it." (Emphasis mine.)

Notice that it specifies you must take the Attack action (and use that action to make an attack with a light melee weapon) to get the bonus action attack. The Attack action and the Cast a Spell action are two different things.