D&D 5E Class bloat without multiclassing?

[FrogReaver]

If there were no multiclassing rules in 5e would class bloat be such a bad thing?

 

[Corwin]

I could argue that, without multiclassing, it would be practically *required*. But because of multiclassing, nowhere near as desirable.

 

[jaelis]

Between the two, I'd rather have multiclassing.

Multiclassing is an option that is easy to ignore. If you're not into complications and system mastery, just stick to one class and you're good.

A ton of classes would all, nominally at least, be on an equal footing. It would make creating characters more complicated and in practice would introduce balance issues. (We already run into that with classes we have, like barb vs fighter vs ranger and wiz vs sorc vs warlock.)

And I guess I just don't see the need for a lot more classes. Warlord I'm neutral on. Psionics seems reasonable to add as an option, but again that's an easy one to leave out if it doesn't suit your game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Multiclassing is hard to ignore and achieve a functioning character concept unless you are lucky enough to pick a concept that fits neatly into 1 of the 11ish class boxes already in the game.

As such if you play without multiclassing more classes are really needed. Perhaps make them optional classes?

Between the two, I'd rather have multiclassing.

Multiclassing is an option that is easy to ignore. If you're not into complications and system mastery, just stick to one class and you're good.

A ton of classes would all, nominally at least, be on an equal footing. It would make creating characters more complicated and in practice would introduce balance issues. (We already run into that with classes we have, like barb vs fighter vs ranger and wiz vs sorc vs warlock.)

And I guess I just don't see the need for a lot more classes. Warlord I'm neutral on. Psionics seems reasonable to add as an option, but again that's an easy one to leave out if it doesn't suit your game.

 

[mellored]

What's needed is a good modular fighting-man class. One where you can pick maneuvers like casters pick spells.

That would reduce both multi-classing and bloat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

IMO, yes. But then again, I think class bloat is a bad thing in general. If 5e didn't allow multiclassing, there would still be plenty of options to replicate 95% of character concepts with how backgrounds and feats work.

For example, one of my favorite PCs of all time is a Halfling f/t from AD&D. I converted him over to 5e as a fighter with the urchin background and dungeon delver feat. No multiclassing at all.

 

[FrogReaver]

You say yes. Why yes if there is no multiclassing?

IMO, yes. But then again, I think class bloat is a bad thing in general. If 5e didn't allow multiclassing, there would still be plenty of options to replicate 95% of character concepts with how backgrounds and feats work.

For example, one of my favorite PCs of all time is a Halfling f/t from AD&D. I converted him over to 5e as a fighter with the urchin background and dungeon delver feat. No multiclassing at all.

 

[Gradine]

Why can't we have both?

I'm serious. A few "dips" here or there aren't going to break the game wide open no matter how many new classes you add. Especially if there's at least some care taken in not front-loading them. But even then... so what? Let the tables who like trying out interesting concepts having multi-classing and more classes. Let CharOpers CharOp.

You're not going to break 5e by multiclassing; you could hardly manage it in 3.5 (which was utterly destroyed by feat bloat, not class bloat). 5e multiclassing has enough baked in disadvantages as it is.

 

[jaelis]

Multiclassing is hard to ignore and achieve a functioning character concept unless you are lucky enough to pick a concept that fits neatly into 1 of the 11ish class boxes already in the game.

Yes if you want a simple character you let the existing classes inspire you and go with that. They already cover a very broad range of concepts. If you have something specific in mind that isn't covered then you don't want a simple character, and you use multiclassing.

Optional classes would address that to a degree but now you're making the DM deal with deciding what to allow and what not, which is (a) a headache and (b) annoying to your player unless you simply agree to everything, which is then no longer effectively optional.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because you cannot continue to create unique level 1 and 2 abilities and not expect some combination of them to not be OP

Why can't we have both?

I'm serious. A few "dips" here or there aren't going to break the game wide open no matter how many new classes you add. Especially if there's at least some care taken in not front-loading them. But even then... so what? Let the tables who like trying out interesting concepts having multi-classing and more classes. Let CharOpers CharOp.

You're not going to break 5e by multiclassing; you could hardly manage it in 3.5 (which was utterly destroyed by feat bloat, not class bloat). 5e multiclassing has enough baked in disadvantages as it is.