D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Help Me Break the Game!

[omniknight]

So 14 pages in, it looks like banning multi-classing would go a long way toward 'break-proofing' 5e.

Not really. The only thing I've seen mentioned in this thread so far that would truly break the game is the Necromancer that controls many dozens of undead mooks. That is entirely possible from straight Wizard sub-Necromancy plus Animate Dead. In fact, that sub-class per the RAW naturally leads into that broken state without any extra effort on the player's part.

 

[evilbob]

So 14 pages in, it looks like banning multi-classing would go a long way toward 'break-proofing' 5e.

Actually, no, that's the opposite conclusion I would come to from this thread. I think multiclassing has a few potential tricks to it, but nothing like it was in 3.5. It's fairly safe; the advantages you can get are either small or potentially rivaled by another class anyway.

 

[Werebat]

So 14 pages in, it looks like banning multi-classing would go a long way toward 'break-proofing' 5e.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious. So what is the big problem with multi-classing? Would certain types of multi-classing be OK and others not OK?

 

[sidonunspa]

I don't think anyone has mentioned Eldritch Blast cheese yet.

If you take two levels in Warlock, you can get EB and Agonizing Blast (and another Invocation of your choice, which could be the knock-back invocation, for example, or for pure DPR, the half-damage-on-a-miss-with-EB one, assuming that made it into the PHB). So you'd attack with CHA + proficiency and do 1d10+CHA damage and do half-damage on a miss, would be doing so at range, and any time you could cast a Cantrip (fr'ex, Bard at 7th gets cantrip and melee, no?), and you get extra beams (same again as first beam) at 5/10/20, so basically Fighter attack progression. With a 120ft range spell which does half-damage on a miss.

Combine with various classes for various levels of eyebrow-raising pain.

I predict that WotC will nerf this like it was 4th Edition, of course.

why waste time taking only two levels of warlock?

if you want to fight in melee take 1 level of fighter and go warlock all the way, hell maybe go Paladen 2 warlock X so you can expend spell slots to smite in melee..

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

What about the Warlock invocations? Certain ones require level pre-reqs. Are those total character level or Warlock level, as it only says you get invocations at certain warlock levels but nothing about the pre-reqs.

It has to be based on class level, just like elemental monk powers, or else multiclassing is ridiculously messed up.

 

[Deltabeoulve]

I can see it going both ways at this point. If you read the Monk Elemental powers, it specifically says class levels. It also HAS to be the monk at that point because of the ki requirement for each one. No such thing for the Invocations...so either it was left open on purpose...or its just something that needs to be clarified in the near future.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

why waste time taking only two levels of warlock?

if you want to fight in melee take 1 level of fighter and go warlock all the way, hell maybe go Paladen 2 warlock X so you can expend spell slots to smite in melee..

Or you could take 2 levels of fighter for awesome action surge, or 3 for battle master maneuvers or expanded crit, or 4 for a feat, or 11 for a third attack... Basically, the actually seem to have approached what 3e never could: you can progress your character based on your idea for the archetype, and the mechanics will mostly keep up!

 

[jadrax]

I can see it going both ways at this point. If you read the Monk Elemental powers, it specifically says class levels. It also HAS to be the monk at that point because of the ki requirement for each one. No such thing for the Invocations...so either it was left open on purpose...or its just something that needs to be clarified in the near future.

Yes. I actually think the fact that the Monk Elemental powers actually specify you use Class Level rather than overall level is a pretty good argument that the Warlock powers are based on Character Level as there is no disclaimer.

 

[sidonunspa]

Or you could take 2 levels of fighter for awesome action surge, or 3 for battle master maneuvers or expanded crit, or 4 for a feat, or 11 for a third attack... Basically, the actually seem to have approached what 3e never could: you can progress your character based on your idea for the archetype, and the mechanics will mostly keep up!

I see that but you can be a blade pack warlock, take two levels of fighter (I rather Paladin myself), take the feat that gives you combat maneuvers like a battle master, and you can focus on Cha and Str... no need to boost dex, especially if you get heavy armor.

 

[Werebat]

Actually, no, that's the opposite conclusion I would come to from this thread. I think multiclassing has a few potential tricks to it, but nothing like it was in 3.5. It's fairly safe; the advantages you can get are either small or potentially rivaled by another class anyway.

How unreasonable would it be for a DM to houserule a restriction on multiclassing so that a character could never have more than one level of difference between the levels gained in any of the classes that they have?

So, for example, a character could be a warlock/fighter, but they'd be committing to end up as Warlock10/Fighter10 by 20th level?

Seems like it would reign in some of the "splash of this, splash of that" optimization we're seeing starting to be advocated.