D&D 5E Really concerned about class design
I personally don't have a problem with multiclassing, I was just trying to support a certain facet of the point made by others, that your argument was weak in this case.
So, because I actually like multiclassing, I can't tell you.
I guess we agree on something for once.
Oofta
Legend
I agree with a wide variety of people occasionally.I personally don't have a problem with multiclassing, I was just trying to support a certain facet of the point made by others, that your argument was weak in this case.
So, because I actually like multiclassing, I can't tell you.
I guess we agree on something for once.
As far as multi classing being a trap option I've just never heard the complaint from a real person so I was curious.
shadowoflameth
Adventurer
I see why the designers focused this way. In a practical sense, it is easier to make a sub-class than to make a class with two or more sub-class options. That said IMHO quality of play is not served by forcing every concept to be done this way. I could much more easily see the Artificer being a sub-class of Wizard for example that wrap my brain around Psion doing that. In this example it binds the Psion to class mechanics that weren't made for the concept. Sure many Wizard spells could be given a Psion flavor, Telekinesis, Detect Thoughts, but others like the summoning spells are less Psion in flavor to my own personal taste. The players complaining that MC is a trap, to me are separate question, but MC was never meant to mechanically be 'better' necessarily but to be fun. i.e. giving a character an unusual combo of abilities, like a warlock that can call a steed or a fighter that can do flurry of blows and go without armor.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Short answer (brace yourself, you'll like this one): Nothing.
Long answer: Multi-classing a level at a time, as if each class/level were a module you could just plug into your character is a brilliant, simple, even elegant mechanic. With just 12, minor, problems - the classes. They just aren't designed to work with it. They're kludged, in some cases, and in others left problematic. Combining full-caster classes, for instance, is functional* in 5e, while it wasn't in 3e. Conversely, in 3e combining full-BAB classes was perfectly functional, while in 5e, combining classes with the corresponding Extra Attack is not.
* sub-optimal, perhaps, but, that's not on MCing, nor on the classes, but on up-casting as a mechanic. So there's that, too.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
Why are we discussing trap multiclassing?
Obviously it can be considered a trap for newbies since it enables a lot of suboptimal builds.
But it is not a trap altogether. Most martial classes multiclass well. In particular, taking a couple of Fighter levels gains you more than the mid- to high-level abilities you give up in your original class. And I don't have to bring up the Sorlock, do I?
Since a competent minmaxer does not do multiclassing when it doesn't benefit her character, multiclassing isn't a trap to her.
Really, there's no reason to keep arguing whether it's a trap or not.
It can be. It isn't always. Let's move on.
Obviously it can be considered a trap for newbies since it enables a lot of suboptimal builds.
But it is not a trap altogether. Most martial classes multiclass well. In particular, taking a couple of Fighter levels gains you more than the mid- to high-level abilities you give up in your original class. And I don't have to bring up the Sorlock, do I?
Since a competent minmaxer does not do multiclassing when it doesn't benefit her character, multiclassing isn't a trap to her.
Really, there's no reason to keep arguing whether it's a trap or not.
It can be. It isn't always. Let's move on.
Oofta
Legend
Thanks for the response (and have some xp). I disagree though. Multi classing is a trade-off of what you want when. For it to be a trap, there would have to be some hidden cost that I just don't see. When I did my chamption fighter/rogue I knew full well that my back stab would suffer a bit. But I felt compensated by getting more critical hit, having two weapon fighting and the dual weapon feat all while in heavy (mithral) armor.
Then again it probably wasn't an optimal build. I had the minimum dex required to multi class and focused on strength because it fit my character. But I knew that going in so it wasn't a trap, just a decision.
Warpiglet
Adventurer
It wasn't optimal for what?
I have come to see the goal of the game is to foster the imagery and story I want to experience.
I used to say survival was the goal. Advancement. But some people play one shots or only for a few levels. Some play altruistic characters that would lay their life down for others (and so in game!):
For me there has to be some level of effectiveness (I don't like imagining ineffectual characters that only fail, but damn.
If I want to play a warrior with a little bit of magical tutelage, a few levels of wizard aren't going to ruin squat.
The only "trap" is playing a variant human lore bard because "optimal." And I don't like imagining lore bards so that is far from optimal for me.
"Trap" means mechanically inferior to the "optimal" build. If it's not a misnomer, it often ignores the actual goal of many players. The term gets used too frequently to have much meaning to me.
Oofta
Legend
Same here. I don't build or play characters because of some in depth analysis on a spreadsheet somewhere. First of all the "massive" differences tend to be a couple of points per round at higher levels. Second my fighter/rogue scratched an itch (an homage to one of my first PCs). Last, but not least, the spreadsheets never take into account utility and simple fun to play.
But according to some people, my PC would have been more "optimal" if I had been a different race, focused on dex and so on. They even have a spreadsheet to prove it. Then again, it seems to me that they are the same ones that complain about cookie cutter PCs and there not being enough options in 5E.
Similar Threads
