D&D General Multiclassing Shouldn't be Treated as the Default

[Theory of Games]

Remember when 4e crashed and Pathfinder soared? Then WotC asked the community what they wanted with DnDNext? I do. I remember players crying about how "crunchy and complicated" Pathfinder was. They said Pathfinder's crazy customization and optimization was too much and DnDNext needed to be easier to engage.

Now D&D players want what?

 

[MGibster]

Tell me you've never played BX without telling me you never played BX.

C'mon, you're 2 for 2 with the bad takes. Gives us one more for the thread

It’s okay if you have a different opinion, but that’s twice you’ve taken the opportunity to dunk on me in this thread. Maybe there’s a better, more constructive way to express your opinion?

 

[el-remmen]

... but does that choice/lack of choice even matter?

It does, if you play D&D as "the character builder game". And don't get me wrong - a lot of people really enjoy character building. If you have fun this way, good for you!

But ultimately, D&D is not a character building game. It's a roleplaying game. It's a bit like the person in a photography group who cares more about cameras - the lenses, the lighting equipment, the sensors, all the technical details - than you know, photography. They take photos sure, but it's more to test/prove/show off their camera and equipment than to create a beautiful/interesting image.

Martials not having any choices after level 3 is completely false. Every round you have a decision to make! Do you attack the goblins or attempts to hide? Or do you try to parlay? etc etc. It's only in the character building phase where this lack of choice exists, not in play. (and even this is not completely true anyway - feats/ASI for example).

I was coming here to say something similar. Character design choices may be limited after a point, but the actual game choices are endless. The question, as a couple of other people have brought up, then becomes, which kinds of choices matter most to you based on your playstyle.

 

[TiQuinn]

The whole LFQW thing was never anything I experienced or felt happened. I am still amused when people bring it up, frankly. Never in any version of D&D did I feel like the Fighters I played were substandard compared to the Wizards I played myself (or others played).

My group felt it distinctly by the time we hit 7th level in 2nd edition D&D games for any single class martial, even using Kits. It got a bit better when everyone switched to being a multi-class character and that became the new default for a new character who wanted to be martial but still have abilities that allowed them to keep pace with the single class casters.

When I first heard the phrase "LF/QW", it was like a lightbulb moment. YES. That was it. That was the exact thing we were experiencing.

 

[ezo]

I was coming here to say something similar. Character design choices may be limited after a point, but the actual game choices are endless. The question, as a couple of other people have brought up, then becomes, which kinds of choices matter most to you based on your playstyle.

Yeah, ditto for me... I just didn't really want to get into this debate? discussion? again.

 

[ezo]

That was the exact thing we were experiencing.

What--exactly--was this thing you were experiencing?

 

[FrogReaver]

New multiclass proposed rule.

Must take the multiclass feat for the class you wish to multiclass into. Gives +1 to one stat that is a stat pre req for this multiclass. While you have this feat you can multiclass into the other class.

Simple houserule that stops most mutliclassing dips by making doing so more expensive.

 

[Theory of Games]

It’s okay if you have a different opinion, but that’s twice you’ve taken the opportunity to dunk on me in this thread. Maybe there’s a better, more constructive way to express your opinion?

TBH I thought you were just being silly here. Your takes have been a little ridiculous.

 

[Corinnguard]

Remember when 4e crashed and Pathfinder soared? Then WotC asked the community what they wanted with DnDNext? I do. I remember players crying about how "crunchy and complicated" Pathfinder was. They said Pathfinder's crazy customization and optimization was too much and DnDNext needed to be easier to engage.

Now D&D players want what?

Crunchy and somewhat complicated?

 

[ezo]

New multiclass proposed rule.

Must take the multiclass feat for the class you wish to multiclass into. Gives +1 to one stat that is a stat pre req for this multiclass. While you have this feat you can multiclass into the other class.

Simple houserule that stops most mutliclassing dips by making doing so more expensive.

How does this stop dipping??

I mean, I love the idea of a feat to allow multiclassing. Our groups have toyed around with the idea ourselves so you cannot multiclass until 4th (or 5th depending on how you word it) level, unless you started as a variant human and took it at 1st level.

But, the more we thought about it, the more we realized it doesn't stop much really. A +1 to a stat for something you want anyway wasn't even in our original idea, but just makes it more attractive.

IME, most PCs dip once into another class for 1-3 levels at most, but otherwise put all their levels into their primary class.... OR they go the "balanced route" from the beginning and do a 1:1 split between two classes.

So, how do you see this really helping to stop class dipping?