Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 9388405" data-attributes="member: 58416">Assume multiclassing? No. Though, generally speaking, I don't believe that multiclassing as a concept is all that complicated. I suppose that it does take some thought to weigh being great at one thing versus good at two things, but that shouldn't particularly matter if "bounded accuracy" is a reality of the game. To be fair, I will admit to having a different point of view when it comes to what I find complicated and what I don't find complicated. For example, I found neither the 2014 Druid nor 4th Edition to be complicated; in contrast, the Yugioh card game makes no sense to me at all. So, it could be that I'm struggling to understand how other people are looking at D&D.That being said, I feel that some 5e class design tends to include levels that aren't very exciting.I would also posit that some of the struggle to balance aspects of 2014 D&D came from design assumptions that don't make sense to me. For example, supposedly, a creature capable of quick movement and/or having reliable access to alternative modes of movement has no effect on CR. That doesn't seem logical to me, and my belief is that it is more difficult to gauge the power of player options if the methods for measuring the potential targets against which those options will be used is based upon faulty reasoning.</blockquote>