D&D (2024) Are single class martials still going to be viable in 2024?

[Mistwell]

The more I read rules from the new book, the more I think the 2024 book encourages single-class builds more than the 2014 build. Most recently I noticed most of the "proficiency bonus times a day" abilities are no "ability score bonus times a day." So it scales very close to how it used to (slightly more at lower levels, slightly less at higher level), but mostly scales with class unless you're combining two classes with the same primary stat.

 

[ECMO3]

Giving up the capstone for a fighter (or monk or barbarian) seems like a poor choice but I get that it's often like the carrot that's never reached. Delaying other abilities is also an issue, however, and I don't think damage is everything. ;-)

I like most of your post.

I played a lot 1-20 games in 5E in the past 3 years (currently playing my 6th and 7th and am at level 15) and I don't even think it is a huge carrot when you know you will get to it. It is usually less than 5% of a campaign, so the most of the campaign you don't have it. By the time you would get it you have world-changing spells and legendary magic items so it isn't even that big of a deal.

 

[Kinematics]

I'm not sure I agree with the premise being based on damage, or how we're defining "viable" here. I'm getting the impression that the most damage is what's important and everything less than is being othered as not "viable". I don't think "viable" starts at the top and our baseline is off.

I broadly agree. My particular post was to debunk the idea that the monk dip completely blew away the other damage options, but my real preference is to have a solid baseline to work from, not max damage.

Basically, how good do you have to be to not be a drain in combat? Yes, that's going to vary table by table, but that useful minimum is what I'd mark as what's "viable". Looking at max damage does become a bit distracting, though.

I know Treantmonk sets his baseline at "warlock spamming Eldritch Blast". And yeah, going below that is probably verging on "doing it wrong", though I think there's a little buffer around it.

But it would be good to have a "reasonable" baseline to gauge against. Basically, how much do you need to put into doing damage, and how much freedom do you have to do whatever else you want. It's just hard to determine where that baseline should be.

 

[Ashrym]

I like most of your post.

I played a lot 1-20 games in 5E in the past 3 years (currently playing my 6th and 7th and am at level 15) and I don't even think it is a huge carrot when you know you will get to it. It is usually less than 5% of a campaign, so the most of the campaign you don't have it. By the time you would get it you have world-changing spells and legendary magic items so it isn't even that big of a deal.

Some 20th level abilities are definitely worth taking if a person expects that level of play. Others (like the ranger capstone) are a lot less appealing.

Elmo understands.

 

[Ashrym]

I broadly agree. My particular post was to debunk the idea that the monk dip completely blew away the other damage options, but my real preference is to have a solid baseline to work from, not max damage.

Basically, how good do you have to be to not be a drain in combat. Yes, that's going to vary table by table, but that useful minimum is what I'd mark as what's "viable". Looking at max damage does become a bit distracting, though.

I know Treantmonk sets his baseline at "warlock spamming Eldritch Blast". And yeah, going below that is probably verging on "doing it wrong", though I think there's a little buffer around it.

But it would be good to have a "reasonable" baseline to gauge against. Basically, how much do you need to put into doing damage, and how much freedom do you have to do whatever else you want. It's just hard to determine where that baseline should be.

We also would need a way to compare the trade-offs taken instead of damage to compare individual aspects of a build plus a stack ranking comparison overall.

Sounds like a lot of work.

 

[Distracted DM]

Level by level multi-classing is the ultimate example of optimizing the fun out of the game. I'm not saying everybody who goes all into it don't have a perfectly valid motivation for doing so it's just that more often not they end up more dissatisfied.

I wish that 5e multiclassing/dipping didn't bother me as much as it does- I can't put my finger on why, but I wish it didn't bother me. I have exactly one player that insists on making a powerful multiclass build in almost every game she can, and it kills a little bit of the joy of running for me.

I basically want to house rule it out, say that you need to have 3 levels in a class to benefit from the synergy benefits or something else.

 

[ECMO3]

Some 20th level abilities are definitely worth taking if a person expects that level of play. Others (like the ranger capstone) are a lot less appealing.

I think this is key. If you are going to keep playing your characters after level 20 in some sort of neverending story then yes.
Personally in all the 20 level games I have played, level 20 was 1or 2 sessions total (and never actually 2 full sessions). Shortly after gaining level 20 the quest was over, the multiverse was saved and it was time to roll up 1st level characters and move on to the next campaign.

If you are going to keep playing with Epic Boons and more stories involving your 20th level party then it changes things a lot IMO. I have never had that happen in my games though, despite making level 20 frequently.

 

[ECMO3]

Level by level multi-classing is the ultimate example of optimizing the fun out of the game. I'm not saying everybody who goes all into it don't have a perfectly valid motivation for doing so it's just that more often not they end up more dissatisfied.

For me multiclassing is what puts the fun in the game. Usually a single class concept can't capture what I wat to do creatively.

While much of this thread is about optimizing, I very rarely all out optimize. I pick specific things to make playing the character idea I want workable. This often includes figuring out how to get some defenses so as not to be a liability with a low Constitution.

I have had the strongest player at the table, but I have had one of the weakest at times too. Multiclass characters are always a lot more flavorful IMO and it is really the easiest way to bring spells to Fighters and Rogues.

Here are a couple of the multiclassed 5E PCs I am playing now. The Kobold and Damphir are far from optimized in terms of combat. The Winter Ealdrin is closer to optimized, but even she dipped Fey Lock for story reasons when she could have dipped Hexblade or Undead.

D&D Beyond Character Sheet

The World's most intelligent Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheet.

www.dndbeyond.com

D&D Beyond Character Sheet

The World's most intelligent Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheet.

www.dndbeyond.com

D&D Beyond Character Sheet

The World's most intelligent Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheet.

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Distracted DM]

Multiclass characters are always a lot more flavorful IMO

Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Clint_L]

I think this is key. If you are going to keep playing your characters after level 20 in some sort of neverending story then yes.

To be fair, this seems more likely with the 2024 rules adding the possibility of continued advancement via epic boons. I'm interested to see how that plays out. Though ultimately we are talking about probably less than 1% of characters.

Certainly with my current monk character, that capstone is a HUGE carrot. Even if we don't play at that level for long, I just want to see what it feels like playing a monk with that kind of power. First thing she does is find an ancient gold or red dragon to beat up and steal lunch money from.