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

[Hussar]

I wasn't talking about monsters. I was talking about humans and demihumans.

Which you pretty much never fight so it never matters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is front-loading a lot less trouble without multi-classing being a thing?

I've wondered about how it would work if there were one or two "apprentice levels" below 1st level that someone would take if multi-classing (maybe you need one of them if in a similar class and two if in a very different class?). Would that would be great for a more realistic skill training system but be so harsh mechanics wise that lots of people wouldn't play them? And then I wonder if that would be an ok thing if you already had lots of classes filling the in-between roles (like Magus and the hybrid classes in PF1e) and lots of archetypes? (I'm assuming those that like finding the most powerful 1 or 2 level dips would really disagree).

Based on 4e, where "multiclassing" in the a la carté sense was not a thing? Yes, front loading is much easier in that context.

Unfortunately, yes, your "training levels" would almost certainly be enough to put most people off of multiclassing entirely. We can see this with Level Adjustment in 3.X. It was supposed to make playing powerful races balanced. Instead, it made playing powerful races anathema. There's a very good reason the 5e team didn't even bother trying to bring that idea forward.

 

[Cadence]

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

Who cares?

I was thinking that the players might want to know why they had limits?

 

[Minigiant]

Based on 4e, where "multiclassing" in the a la carté sense was not a thing? Yes, front loading is much easier in that context.

Unfortunately, yes, your "training levels" would almost certainly be enough to put most people off of multiclassing entirely. We can see this with Level Adjustment in 3.X. It was supposed to make playing powerful races balanced. Instead, it made playing powerful races anathema. There's a very good reason the 5e team didn't even bother trying to bring that idea forward.

I wonder if class upgrading could have worked.

What if you couldn't multiclass into Fighter. You could only multiclass into Warrior. Then at Warrior level 3, if you had STR or DEX 13 you can trade all your Warrior levels for Fighter levels. If you didn't meet the prereqs, you had to wait until level 5.

This way you could front load the Fighter class since no one could dip fighter.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

Who cares?

Wait, you play a Ranger?

Lul. There goes all your credibility.

(JOKING!!!)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I wonder if class upgrading could have worked.

What if you couldn't multiclass into Fighter. You could only multiclass into Warrior. Then at Warrior level 3, if you had STR or DEX 13 you can trade all your Warrior levels for Fighter levels. If you didn't meet the prereqs, you had to wait until level 5.

This way you could front load the Fighter class since no one could dip fighter.

It's an interesting idea, reminds me of the "class vs job" concept in Final Fantasy. Would put a stop to small dips. At that point it becomes a matter of asking whether the other costs are sufficiently balanced to make it worthwhile but not no-brainer, which requires testing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I saw it, but I had already decided that 4e wasn't for me by then, so the only irritating thing about 4e at that point to me was that they kept producing it instead of something I'd prefer.

Feat-based multiclassing can work, provided you allow enough room for feats at character creation. For example, I'm in the "no ASIs after 1st level" camp, so there's an opportunity cost gone right there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which you pretty much never fight so it never matters.

It matters to worldbuilding and verisimilitude. At least to me. You and I have long had different opinions on how much gamism is too much.

 

[Minigiant]

It's an interesting idea, reminds me of the "class vs job" concept in Final Fantasy. Would put a stop to small dips. At that point it becomes a matter of asking whether the other costs are sufficiently balanced to make it worthwhile but not no-brainer, which requires testing.

I was thinking more like NPC classes

Aristocrat-> Bard, Fighter, Rogue
Commoner-> Barbarian, Rogue, Warlock,
Expert-> Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Mage-> Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Magewright-> Artificer, Warlock, Wizard
Priest-> Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Smith-> Artificer, Fighter
Warrior-> Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger

Of course testing would be needed. But it would help solidify a link between training types and open up lower magic worlds.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I found 4e feat and paragon multiclassing to be a mixed bag.

I played a 4e ranger feat multiclassed into wizard and it was fun but I recognized the sub par power cost in a very finely tuned balanced system. A straight ranger could have been more mechanically powerful than a staff fighting ranger wizard with scorching bursts and lightning bolt.

The level 1 feat is very strong, giving a bonus themed weak encounter power (a wizard at will as an encounter power for the wizard one). Plus qualifying as the multi-class for feats and such.

The next three are just straight equal level power swaps of your original class for one from the multiclass. This is the one where the powers are all balanced well so they are basically equivalent power wise, but you are down three feats compared to non-multiclassed characters. This is trading power for flavor and variety, a power downgrade.

The paragon path multiclass is OK, but you are down the four dedicated prerequisite multiclass feats to get there while everyone else is equally powerful in their class stuff but has four bonus feats to power up with.