D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Micah Sweet]

Okay.

Because you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are not a lot of other ways (that I'm familiar with) that produce satisfying results.

There's 2e style multiclassing which is only available at character creation. If you remove that restriction it either becomes absurdly good or unusable, depending on the experience system it's coupled to. (To say nothing of the fact that this type of progression basically requires XP, and won't really work with something like milestones.)

2e style dual classing is a wonky and ludicrous approach even before examining it from a balance perspective.

There's feat style multiclassing like we saw in 4e, which worked okay in 4e (but not phenomenally) but wouldn't work in a system where you aren't regularly getting feats because having to wait four levels to multiclass is fundamentally unsatisfying. Many campaigns will end in that time.

Is there some perfect multiclassing solution you're aware of that I'm overlooking here?

While I agree that 3e style multiclassing isn't perfect, I don't agree that it can't be improved to work well. We've even had some suggestions to that end in this very thread.

Hence why I think your suggestion is similarly absurd to fixing spellcasting by removing spellcasters. (You know, there are fully functioning RPGs out there without playable spellcasters. Even fantasy RPGs.)

Sounds like  you find feat-based multiclassing "fundamentally unsatisfying". You're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't make it true for everyone.

Besides, just put certain feats on a different axis (say combat/noncombat) and you can include more room for feats.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Too bad you’re messing around with the basic fabric of reality, that rubber’s band gonna spring back and slap you in the face sometimes If you don’t want to, just stick to the more safe options and don’t over exert yourself.

I'm replacing the limits with danger. The more you try to reshape reality, the more dangerous it is to you. I could even see one of the consequences to be to disable your spell casting until the next long rest.

I don't mind Cantrips, because they are, in effect, refluffed weapon attacks. They help sell that 'this guy is a spell caster' and they're some of the least impactful spells people learn.


That could work.

Damage dealing spell: You take the damage.
Illusion and Divination: You get blinded/confused.
Transmutation: You fall down paralyzed for a time.
Echantment: Any enchantment already in place fizzles out, your proficiency bonus becomes 0 for a turn.
Summons: They turn against you and your ally and you can't dismiss them anymore.
Mind reading and other Psionic stuff: You take psychic damage

Stuff like that.

There are tons of these in Dungeon Crawl Classics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, in that case 'Firebolt' wouldn't exist. It'd just be 'Fireball' but the safe version is just you lobbing a softball sized ball of flame at 1 dude, while the normal version would be the one that explodes into something big enough to hit multiple people (maybe the range could have a little randomness to it so you COULD hit your allies by accident? Like it's got a random 15/20/25 radius?)

Random spells feel like it could screw you over and take away agency... I'd rather have restrictions on school you can pick from instead so you know what you get into at first level. I don't mind the chance of not learning found spells, I just wouldn't want to make it too fiddly a system.

You're not losing agency if you choose to take an action that has potentially random effects.

 

[Maxperson]

Also delete bounded accuracy.

I don't think they can. Proficiency is what bounds everything. Proficiency to attack, skills, limiting it to +6 over 20 levels, etc., is what keeps numbers bounded to lower numbers. They'd have to completely re-write the game to get rid of it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sounds like  you find feat-based multiclassing "fundamentally unsatisfying". You're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't make it true for everyone.

Besides, just put certain feats on a different axis (say combat/noncombat) and you can include more room for feats.

By this I assume you were not around during the dung-storm that swirled around feat based multiclassing during the days of 4e.

I actually didn't mind the 4e feat based multiclassing. I didn't think it was great, but it was... okay.

A very vocal number of folks on these boards, however, had a lot lower opinion thereof than I did. That was a regularly seen artillery shell on the battlegrounds of ye fourthe edition wars of olde.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They'd have to completely re-write the game to get rid of it.

Yes.

 

[Garthanos]

There's feat style multiclassing like we saw in 4e, which worked okay in 4e (but not phenomenally) but wouldn't work in a system where you aren't regularly getting feats because having to wait four levels to multiclass is fundamentally unsatisfying. Many campaigns will end in that time.

4e Multiclassing was fairly complex especially by end game.

You had Hybrids (explicitly) and Themes (umm thematically) which were very much also capable of generating multiclassing style benefits.

Even feats not labelled multiclassing like taking ritualist (with hundreds of rituals) could generate multiclass effects. And it was strewn many places including in skills (see skill powers) or in the core skill abilities like Arcana that enabled detecting magic or the acrobatics feature skill power that allows one to reduce falling damage (akin to a monks ability), martial practices had abilities that were very much monk inspired too (they really should have followed through on that). Anyways 4e may not have had the swap out every level flexibility ... but it definitely didnt lock down classes in chains of steel.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, in that case 'Firebolt' wouldn't exist. It'd just be 'Fireball' but the safe version is just you lobbing a softball sized ball of flame at 1 dude, while the normal version would be the one that explodes into something big enough to hit multiple people (maybe the range could have a little randomness to it so you COULD hit your allies by accident? Like it's got a random 15/20/25 radius?)

Random spells feel like it could screw you over and take away agency... I'd rather have restrictions on school you can pick from instead so you know what you get into at first level. I don't mind the chance of not learning found spells, I just wouldn't want to make it too fiddly a system.

You're not losing agency if you choose to take an action that has potentially random effects.

I think that there are a couple of different ways to approach it. You could start with something more bespoke in terms of spells, like @Undrave alludes to, but have it be 'simpler'. Your Arcane Blast spell can be a cone (15'), blast (60'), line (90'), does d6 damage per level, and you select the elemental rider upon casting. Make all of the spells along these lines, which consolidates a lot of things, removes (or makes rituals) the more problematic ones, and then set your casting DC or whatever that might trigger your backlash. If you know the spell, you can cast it, no limits. (Just spitballing)

A non-preparation system could be styled on the Path Magic from an old Dragon Mag, where you needed to learn certain spells (burning hands, for ex, before you could learn fireball). Wizards could then select "Paths" that they followed, and only cast spells from those specialties.

Another I saw was specialist wizards, who when they selected, say, Necromancy, they could not cast any other schools, but could select from all Necromancy Spells in the game (so clerical, duidical, and wizard, etc.). That would be a specialty with some specialness, and would easily remove the broad utility of spells.

However, if I were to run 5e again, I'm either going to run no full casters, or all casters will run off the Warlock Chassis with bespoke spells and abilities (clerical, druid, and Wizard), though I'm not sure what I do with half casters under that system.

 

[Minigiant]

Bounded Accuracy is fine. It was used wrong because WOTC catered too heavily to grognards who never switch over anyway.

WOTC just got the class features and how to distributed it wrong and their "Thou Shall not Rewrite the PHB" policy kept them from fixing their mistakes.

More classes should have Expertise in skills, tools, and DCs, and proficiency in more that 2 saving throws. More Armor Types were needed as DCs. And more actions should have been core (Demoralize, Disarm, Feint, Mark, Point Out, Sunder, Taunt) where proficiency could be applied.

 

[Hussar]

What would be the in world reason the fighter can only push people back a couple times a day, or choke them a couple times a day? For Wizards right now it's the memorization mechanic and something about room in their brain.

An exertion cost for the great fighter abilities (like A5e) feels like a way to go for me. And no reason for it to be just fighters if there is some other mechanic that is being spammed it could be used there too.

What is the reason my ranger can make 17 attacks in a single round but only attacking one target with each attack?

Who cares?