D&D 5E Class bloat without multiclassing?

[happyhermit]

...
Given the obvious that a class designed to fulfill a concept will do so better than any multiclassing combination...

That is not a given.

As to the OP, yeah for me class bloat is a significant issue, and lack of Multi-classing would not help that.

As an aside, even though I typically run without any multi-classing, removing it from the game system as an option would be a terrible idea. Many people love multiclassing and it is a pretty huge part of the game to remove for little gain (as it's implementation is optional anyways).

Classes are also by no means a complete replacement for multiclassing anyways, as one of our most frequent uses for it is an organic change of concept, fueled by events within the game. Classes that are chosen at char-gen don't provide that level of flexibility.

Also, even if multiclassing is removed, more classes aren't needed by any means. After all, I and many are getting along just peachy without either. With new-to-rpg players I have never had an issue implementing a character concept they liked even without feats or multiclassing, backgrounds go a long way. The same goes for 90% of other player/concept combinations I have seen. There is very rarely a particular player who wants a particular concept that isn't super easy to implement to their satisfaction, but that has been the case as long as I have been running and there are many solutions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

MCing is optional, so we already have classes (and especially sub-classes) that could have been left to MCing. Paladin, Ranger, Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Valor Bard, several Cleric domains - and I'm probably missing a few - could all have been done left to players to achieve with a bit of MCing.

 

[Gradine]

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.

You're taking a lot of things as "given" when they really aren't. I have laid out several arguments for why multi-classing with a huge range of feats isn't nearly as problematic as you seem to think it is. You have ignored those arguments. I have asked for examples of times in which the combination of multi-classing and class bloat broke a game. You have provided none.

Designing new content with an eye towards how it interacts with old content is something all that designers have to do with all new content; there's nothing special about classes and adding or removing multi-classing does absolutely nothing to change that (since again, using 3.5 as an example, the power creep problem was attributable almost entirely to feats and magic items and had practically nothing to do with new core classes or multiclass options).

You have still yet to provide a compelling argument for why it would be a good idea to restrict either multi-classing or class bloat, and have yet to respond at all to any of my arguments against it.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Given the fact that the developers have admitted they don't balance anything except against the PHB, I think it's a given that a multitude of new classes would eventually break it.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Gradine]

Given the fact that the developers have admitted they don't balance anything except against the PHB, I think it's a given that a multitude of new classes would eventually break it.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

How? And why? As I've said multiple times, 3.5 spit out close to 50 base classes, and not a single one alone nor in any combination came close to toppling the dominance of CoDzilla from the first PHB. You cannot simply take for a given that that is somehow going to change in 5e.

 

[ccs]

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

Yes. Its called bloat for a reason.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. Its called bloat for a reason.

Thanks for being yet another person to not explain the reasoning...

 

[Kabouter Games]

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.

You're taking a lot of things as "given" when they really aren't. I have laid out several arguments for why multi-classing with a huge range of feats isn't nearly as problematic as you seem to think it is. You have ignored those arguments. I have asked for examples of times in which the combination of multi-classing and class bloat broke a game. You have provided none.

Because it's not 5e?

Let me stop right here and say I have no intention of starting an edition war. I'm not arguing that one edition is "better" than another, or BadWrongFun anybody. The point of making this post is I want people to have as much fun as possible.

5e is a class-based game. It is designed to be enjoyable when a character is of a single class. And it is, if you let it. If it wasn't, multi-classing and feats wouldn't be optional. It works just fine with neither of those rules in play, and if allowed to be, if creatively approached within the basic rules as written, is quite enjoyable even with intricate, imaginative character concepts. As others have pointed out, character concepts can easily be addressed by selection of backgrounds and within-class archetypes. Only rarely have I seen a character concept which required something more, maybe - maybe - a feat.

Since 5e hit the shelves, I've experienced many different tables. I've seen tables where a fraction of the characters were multi-classed, or had feats, and I have to say in my opinion they did outshine the straight-class-by-the-book characters. To a greater or lesser extent, but outshine they did, without question. They unbalanced the table. I've done it myself - I have a couple of mechanically-awesome builds which by leaps and bounds overpowered the rest of the table. If everyone at the table was doing it (or was not), I did not notice that effect. The first time I encountered that, I replaced that character with another, completely non-optional-rules character and everything went swimmingly. That made a huge impression on me. I've been watching it happen ever since. Your experience may be different, of course, but I've seen it at multiple tables within 100 miles of where I'm sitting, so my analysis seems to be accurate.*

As someone who remembers the early days of D&D, and who gamed through the transition from story-based character-concept communication to mechanics-based, through the time of umpteen gajillion kits and classes and feats to the "book bloat" of 4e, it feels to me like the designers of 5e deliberately made 5e a mechanically simpler, class-based system which has infinitely more in common with OD&D and AD&D than any other version, and that the optional multi-classing and feats rules were tacked on to specifically appeal to those whose enjoyment of the game is predicated on optimization. It's also pretty clear from my experience that, compared to games and editions where intricate mechanical character builds were absolutely integral to the game, 5e's method is anemic at best. 5e is bad at being Pathfinder! Further, there is no reason to turn it into Pathfinder, because Pathfinder already exists.

Which is to say: If character optimization - by which I mean that you're not satisfied unless there's a game-engine-based, mechanical reason for your character to be what she is - is your thing, I respectfully submit that perhaps 5e isn't the game you really want to be playing. Even with 5e's optional rules, it's not going to be as satisfying an experience as that to which you're used, whether that's 3.5, 4, Pathfinder, Rolemaster, or some other skills-and-powers-based system. It seems to me painfully apparent that you'd be more satisfied with one of those games than trying to make 5e into a rather feeble approximation of what you want. After all, they already do what you want exceedingly well.

Again, I'm not trying to BadWrongFun anyone. I'm saying that if you want 5e to be Pathfinder, why not play Pathfinder? There's nothing wrong with that!

It's like those kits from the 1980s where you could bolt body bits onto a Pontiac Fiero to make it kind-of-from-a-distance look like a Ferrari. Underneath, it's still a Fiero - for them as like it, a perfectly serviceable car, and wholly unsatisfying for those who really wanted a Ferrari.

Make sense?

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

* Edited to add: If your intent by CharOp is to outshine everyone else at the table, maybe we do need to have a discussion about BadWrongFun. But we can take that to private messaging: If you'd like to defend that behavior, PM or email me and we'll discuss it civilly.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

It wouldn't be such a bad thing, since you wouldn't need to worry about interactions between class abilities, but it would still be a bad thing. As you add more classes, each existing class becomes less distinct, and it's easy to dilute class identity so far down that you can't even tell what class someone is by looking at them.

If you add a samurai class and a knight class, then the fighter class becomes less clear in what it is, and it becomes much more difficult to tell which of those three classes is the correct way to represent the non-magical warrior-type with the plate armor and the big sword.

 

[Gradine]

Because it's not 5e?

Let me stop right there and say I have no intention of starting an edition war. I'm not arguing that one edition is "better" than another, or BarWrongFun. The point of making this post is for people to have as much fun as possible.

What I am saying is that 5e is a class-based game. It is designed to be enjoyable when a character is of a single class. If it wasn't, multi-classing and feats wouldn't be optional. It works just fine with neither of those rules in play, and if allowed to be, if creatively approached within the basic rules as written, is quite enjoyable even with intricate, imaginative character concepts. As others have pointed out, character concepts can easily be addressed by selection of backgrounds and within-class archetypes. Only rarely have I seen a character concept which required something more, maybe - maybe - a feat.

Since 5e hit the shelves, I've experienced many different tables. I've seen tables where a fraction of the characters were multi-classed, or had feats, and I have to say in my opinion they did rather outshine the straight-class-by-the-book characters. Clearly they unbalanced the table. I've done it myself - I have a couple of mechanically-awesome builds which by leaps and bounds overpowered the rest of the table. If everyone at the table was doing it (or was not), I did not notice that effect. The first time I encountered that, I replaced that character with another, completely non-optional-rules character and everything went swimmingly. That made a huge impression on me.

As someone who remembers the early days of D&D, and who gamed through the transition from story-based character-concept communication to mechanics-based, through the time of umpteen gajillion kits and classes and feats to the "book bloat" of 4e, it feels to me like the designers of 5e deliberately made 5e a mechanically simpler, class-based system which has infinitely more in common with OD&D and AD&D than any other version, and that the optional multi-classing and feats rules were tacked on to specifically appeal to those whose enjoyment of the game is predicated on optimization. It's pretty clear from my experience that, compared to games and editions where intricate mechanical character builds were integral to the game, 5e's method is anemic at best. 5e is bad at being Pathfinder! Further, there is no reason to turn it into Pathfinder, because Pathfinder already exists.

Which is to say: If character optimization - by which I mean that you're not satisfied unless there's a game-engine-based, mechanical reason for your character to be what she is - is your thing, I respectfully submit that perhaps 5e isn't the game you really want to be playing. Even with the optional rules, it's not going to be as satisfying an experience as that to which you're used, whether that's 3.5, 4, or Pathfinder. It seems to me painfully apparent that you'd be more satisfied with one of those games than trying to make 5e into a rather feeble approximation of what you want. After all, they already do what you want exceedingly well.

Again, I'm not trying to BadWrongFun anyone. I'm saying that if you want 5e to be Pathfinder, why not play Pathfinder? There's nothing wrong with that!

It's like those kits from the 1980s where you could bolt body bits onto a Pontiac Fiero to make it kind-of-from-a-distance look like a Ferrari. Underneath, it's still a Fiero - for them as like it, a perfectly serviceable car, and wholly unsatisfying for those who really wanted a Ferrari.

Make sense?

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

Thank you for the response. I in fact will concede many of your points; my understanding of the rules of 5e is that multi-class characters, as they currently exist, are strictly worse than single-class characters (I'm not counting CharOp-inspired dips here, but perhaps I should be) of the same character level. I appreciate the anecdotal evidence that they, in fact, out-shine others or unbalance the table. I also recognize that 5e is not 3.5 or Pathfinder. But it seems that fears that "class bloat" combined with "multi-classing" will horrifically unbalance the game are unfounded strictly because that isn't at all what happened with 3.5 (I have zero experience with PF, so it may be that such fears are actually quite founded with examples from that game). 5e is a different game, but not so different that 3.X can't provide instructional examples from time to time.

My main argument is that there are generally who like a lot of character options (and thus, many many classes and also the ability to multi-class). There are CharOpers, and there are, to borrow a phrase from the Aesthetics of Fun, Expression seekers; the desire to come up with a character concept and then find the best way to mechanically express that character. For clarification, I am definitely in the latter category myself. And I recognize that 3.5 is probably the purest version of Expression-seeking in character creation/advancement in D&D. But 5e is, to be frank, a better-designed game at the core, and I for one would like to see what some of my favorite character options of yore would look like in this newer, better expression of the game. CharOpers, presumably, want more crunch to assign color ratings to (I'm being glib, of course; I don't think there's anything wrong with getting enjoyment over mastering a system by determining the most and least mechanically useful abilities, for a certain kind of campaign in any case).

In any case, these are the two main types of players who are going to want a) more classes and b) the ability to mix and match classes through multi-classing. I can't imagine either one of those groups of players that would be happier with one but not the other. I am, in fact, struggling to understand why somebody would want one and not the other. I get the argument for neither; that I can wrap my head around easily. But the end result of the both is the same: more character design options. So why restrict one but not the other?