D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Oofta]

So you do want a more complete explanation, and are not merely reflexively pushing back with a flat denial. Thanks for clarifying that.

Your anecdote has been noted. As has your belief that only your experiences matter (yeah, not really).

I can imagine that some people will not be happy with a PC they've created. It's why I allow people to do rebuilds if it makes sense. It's something I'll discuss with my player, and whether it would just make more sense to bring in a new PC.

In my limited experience, while some people have taken advantage of that, it's never been because of multi classing.

But ... some people claim it's always a trap. Can it be a bad choice? I guess. Is it always a bad choice? I've never seen any evidence that it is, I don't know why people would think so.

I understand wanting the game to be innately imbalanced, yes. It provides opportunities to exercise system mastery and de-facto punishes disfavored character concepts and play styles, passively, without the DM needing to enforce those preferences.

Not sure what you're saying here. I think 4E was in many ways a better game from a balance perspective, I also don't think it made it more enjoyable to play. YMMV.


EDIT: I don't need an in-depth analysis. Cliff notes version would work.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh, the concept of the Paladin - the pious knight in shining armor along the lines of Parsifal/Galahad and Lancelot, the highest echelon of the vassals of Charlemagne, the metaphorical name adopted by the main character in Have Gun, Will Travel, the Crusaders & Templars of history, etc - was popular enough before D&D.

And Lancelot at least is member of another story archetype the oath bound hero which is rather what D&D Paladin WAS - rather than just the pious knight or its namesake the penultimate military leaders of a church sponsored (but not really run) kingship or the less high ranking rebellious knights got slandered as being witches but were never the less greedy bastard invaders so I give no sympathy.

5e seemed to notice the distinction for that I give it a thumbs up.

 

[Garthanos]

But ... some people claim it's always a trap.

Dodge the jaws of a trap it clamps shut harmlessly it was still a trap.

 

[Oofta]

Dodge the jaws of a trap it clamps shut harmlessly it was still a trap.

So simply stating "it's a trap" makes it so?

 

[Oofta]

Dodge the jaws of a trap it clamps shut harmlessly it was still a trap.

If you don't like the way they implementing multi classing in 5E, fine. I disagree but to each his own.

Or are you saying that a bad option that has no negative impact at all is still a bad option? Because I'm confused. How is something bad if nothing bad happens?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think 4E was in many ways a better game from a balance perspective, I also don't think it made it more enjoyable to play.

If you were enjoying taking advantage of an imbalanced system (or, if you were at a table where absolutely no one was doing so, or conversely, absolutely everyone was doing so to exactly the same degree), and it's fixed up a little, your enjoyment may be somewhat reduced (or not noticeably impacted).

While even fairly minor game imbalances can manifest in play in ways that negatively impact the player experience (perhaps while also making one or some players very pleased, in a negative-sum sorta way). If you have a decent DM and/or relatively comparable levels of restraint or system mastery at the table, even a radically imbalanced game may only serve to narrow the scope of play - essentially re-imposing balance on a sub-set of the game's nominal range of play. "Style" is often used to sum-up the sub-set of a game's potential range that a group sticks to, for whatever reason.

Not sure what you're saying here.

One game-critic's 'trap' is another DM's 'incentive.'

 

[generic]

If you don't like the way they implementing multi classing in 5E, fine. I disagree but to each his own.

Or are you saying that a bad option that has no negative impact at all is still a bad option? Because I'm confused. How is something bad if nothing bad happens?

Because bad design can produce good results. For example, if I'm playing with a cracked and warped d20 that usually only rolls 1s, and it rolls a 20 when my friend uses it, that doesn't mean that its design is good, it means that there was an outcome which wasn't bad.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or are you saying that a bad option that has no negative impact at all is still a bad option? Because I'm confused. How is something bad if nothing bad happens?

Well, has no negative impact in one instance.

For example, say a chemical plant next to your house is releasing colorless, ordorless, highly carcinogenic fumes for decades. Several of your neighbors get cancer as a result, and sue. The company brings you in as a witness, you testify that you do not have cancer.
Case Dismissed?

 

[generic]

Well, has no negative impact in one instance.

For example, say a chemical plant next to your house is releasing colorless, ordorless, highly carcinogenic fumes for decades. Several of your neighbors get cancer as a result, and sue. The company brings you in as a witness, you testify that you do not have cancer.
Case Dismissed?

Same thing that I said... Hey!

 

[bedir than]

Still zero people have explained the "trap" of multi-classing. A declarative statement seems to be enough.