D&D 5E Class bloat without multiclassing?

[Sacrosanct]

You say yes. Why yes if there is no multiclassing?

Your question would class bloat be a problem with no multiclassing (inferring there would be a lot more classes to cover what you couldn't do from multi-classing). And IMO, more class bloat is a bad thing. Just my opinion.

 

[FrogReaver]

Aren't we already doing that with the optional feats and optional multiclassing rules?

Having some optional classes could work well for the basic game. Just acknowledge that they are only guaranteed to work well without other optional rules and be done with it?

Yes if you want a simple character you let the existing classes inspire you and go with that. They already cover a very broad range of concepts. If you have something specific in mind that isn't covered then you don't want a simple character, and you use multiclassing.

Optional classes would address that to a degree but now you're making the DM deal with deciding what to allow and what not, which is (a) a headache and (b) annoying to your player unless you simply agree to everything, which is then no longer effectively optional.

 

[FrogReaver]

But...

You never answered why class bloat is bad without multiclassing.

Your question would class bloat be a problem with no multiclassing (inferring there would be a lot more classes to cover what you couldn't do from multi-classing). And IMO, more class bloat is a bad thing. Just my opinion.

 

[Waterbizkit]

I'm posting from my phone, and not with any fancy apps, so I'll try to keep this brief since formatting is a beast posting like this...

Yes, I feel that even without multi-classing "class bloat" would be a bad thing. My reasoning on this is fairly simple: I don't believe the two concepts achieve the same goal. I'm finding it difficult to articulate my point concisely, go figure, so I'll try to put it like this: churning out new classes to where it might reach the point of causing system bloat doesn't mean any of those classes will be an adequate stand-in for some concept better achieved through multi-classing under the current system.

Essentially it's too much of a gamble to me to say "Sure, bloat the system with an array of classes in the hopes that it does what multi-classing already can... except maybe it won't and we'll still have the bloat."

I don't know, does that make any sense? Probably not, but like I said I'm having a hard time right now putting my thoughts into an intelligent point. Probably because I'm at working posting on my phone... so this is less than ideal. Anyway, I'm bloat-shy I suppose, so I'm opposed to it just on general principle.

 

[Corwin]

I have a character made up of three different classes. Not really qualifying as a "dip" in any though. Because theoretically he'll end up something like 5/5/10 at 20th level. Could I have made due with two classes, or even just one? I guess. But it wouldn't have really invoked the kinds of flavor the concept was going for. The intricacies of the character's origins and career. The aesthetics of his uniqueness and capabilities. So multiclassing gets me where I want to be. Without multiclassing, the character, as envisioned, would have to have a unique single class created for it. Or, hope beyond hope, find one published that does exactly the trick. But that's nigh impossible.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But...

You never answered why class bloat is bad without multiclassing.

Yeah I did. I think it's bad in general already. without multiclassing, and the assumed greater class bloat from that, it would be even worse.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why is it bad in general already?

Yeah I did. I think it's bad in general already. without multiclassing, and the assumed greater class bloat from that, it would be even worse.

 

[nswanson27]

If there were no multiclassing rules in 5e would class bloat be such a bad thing?

For 5e this this seems a pretty hypothetical topic. Coming up on 3 years and still no new classes.

 

[Gradine]

Because you cannot continue to create unique level 1 and 2 abilities and not expect some combination of them to not be OP

Why not? 1st & 2nd level abilities are, by definition, class- or archetype-defining but not especially powerful. Any combination of the same might end up having more synergy tan intended, but I'd be shocked to find anything game-breakingly powerful.

I mean, by the last time I counted 3.5 had something close to 50 base classes available by the end of the run. Name me a low-level multi-class combination from that edition that was more powerful or game-breaking than taking another level of Cleric or Druid. Without depending on a feat or magic item combination. I'm no CharOper by any means, but I can't really think of anything. Once again, class bloat did not really contribute to 3.5's power creep in any significant way. And 5e makes multiclassing cost more than 3.5 did.

But more important to that is my final point, which is this. Say that, due to unintended synergy, Butler 2/Dandy 3 is, strictly speaking, better than your Life Cleric 5. I have to ask... so what? What does it matter, in the long run? Don't forget that the Cleric as an ASI/Feat at this point, which makes a difference.

Look, CharOpers are going to CharOp. Other tables are only going to build PCs in the way that makes sense to them in-character. BOTH of these types of players benefit from more options, more classes, more multi-classing. I don't see a compelling argument for restricting it to one or the other.

 

[FrogReaver]

I do. With multiclassing the designer needs to make sure the new abilities mesh correctly with the others. This makes it harder and harder to create new classes and unique abilities with more classes in the game.

Without multiclassing that requirement drops. Now it's much easier to build a balanced class with unique abilities. Given the obvious that a class designed to fulfill a concept will do so better than any multiclassing combination... I wonder why we anyone would want multiclassing to slow down new classes.

Why not? 1st & 2nd level abilities are, by definition, class- or archetype-defining but not especially powerful. Any combination of the same might end up having more synergy tan intended, but I'd be shocked to find anything game-breakingly powerful.

I mean, by the last time I counted 3.5 had something close to 50 base classes available by the end of the run. Name me a low-level multi-class combination from that edition that was more powerful or game-breaking than taking another level of Cleric or Druid. Without depending on a feat or magic item combination. I'm no CharOper by any means, but I can't really think of anything. Once again, class bloat did not really contribute to 3.5's power creep in any significant way. And 5e makes multiclassing cost more than 3.5 did.

But more important to that is my final point, which is this. Say that, due to unintended synergy, Butler 2/Dandy 3 is, strictly speaking, better than your Life Cleric 5. I have to ask... so what? What does it matter, in the long run? Don't forget that the Cleric as an ASI/Feat at this point, which makes a difference.

Look, CharOpers are going to CharOp. Other tables are only going to build PCs in the way that makes sense to them in-character. BOTH of these types of players benefit from more options, more classes, more multi-classing. I don't see a compelling argument for restricting it to one or the other.