D&D 5E Class bloat without multiclassing?

[Kabouter Games]

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.

I think this is less of a problem than you might think. You describe matters of flavor. Each is still a Fighter. They just look different and call their gear different things. The rulebooks even specifically address the Eastern flavor; a katana is a longsword, a wakizashi is a shortsword, a tanto is a dagger, mechanically. And ō-yoroi is mechanically plate armor.

If you're shouting commands at people, you're a Battlemaster, no matter if you call your armor dō or breastplate, kabuto or helmet, menpo or visor, kote or vambrace and couter, sune-ate or greaves, hai-date or cuisses...you get the picture.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

 

[Jester David]

Yes.

Even with multiclassing off the table - like in 4e - too many classes is bad.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think this is less of a problem than you might think. You describe matters of flavor. Each is still a Fighter. They just look different and call their gear different things. The rulebooks even specifically address the Eastern flavor; a katana is a longsword, a wakizashi is a shortsword, a tanto is a dagger, mechanically. And ō-yoroi is mechanically plate armor.

Certainly, as things currently stand, a samurai is just one kind of fighter. If class bloat led to the introduction of a samurai class, though, then it would be harder to tell whether someone was a fighter or a samurai just by looking at them, and what they were capable of doing would depend on which way you chose to model them rather than anything inherent to the character itself.

It's similar to the danger of reflavoring other classes. If you could reflavor the warlock mechanics into reflecting the sorcerer concept, then which spells they cast (and how often) would depend on the mechanical chassis rather than the in-game reality that the rules were supposed to reflect. You should never be faced with more than one true method for reflecting anything within the game world, and class bloat makes it difficult to determine which class is the correct choice for a given concept.

 

[Corwin]

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.

There are a lot of significant variables and criteria to consider. So I don't necessarily agree with this.

I appreciate the anecdotal evidence that they, in fact, out-shine others or unbalance the table.

However, I *definitely* don't agree with this.

 

[Kabouter Games]

But it seems that fears that "class bloat" combined with "multi-classing" will horrifically unbalance the game are unfounded [snip]

I rather agree. I don't think it'll unbalance the game, per se. I think it's an attempt to turn one game into another, and I think that's a terrible thing to do when all you have to do to be happy is play the game you like.

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.

I think that's fair.

I don't see a problem with taking the covers off and tinkering with it on your own time. If you want to use the basic, internal engine and develop more optimization opportunities for your table, you get down with your bad self and dance. In fact, you know as well as I that there's pages and pages in the PHB and DMG which cover how to create classes and races and feats.

I do see a problem when people insist that someone else take the covers off officially and muck about with it, to substantially change the flavor of the game as it exists, just to satisfy their specific approach to enjoying the game.*

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?

That's entirely consistent, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

* I'm not necessarily saying you want that, because you haven't said so explicitly or even implied it. But there are a whole raft of people here on ENWorld who do take that stance and get quite shirty about it.

 

[Kabouter Games]

Certainly, as things currently stand, a samurai is just one kind of fighter. If class bloat led to the introduction of a samurai class, though, then it would be harder to tell whether someone was a fighter or a samurai just by looking at them, and what they were capable of doing would depend on which way you chose to model them rather than anything inherent to the character itself.

That's a fair assessment, and one with which I agree wholeheartedly. To go farther, however, makes me teeter on the brink of BadWrongFun, so I won't. Maybe I'll save it for a blog post.

However, I *definitely* don't agree with this.

Okay. Why?

 

[Corwin]

Okay. Why?

Are you asking me why I don't believe that multiclass characters "out-shine others or unbalance the table"?

Because that is too broad a sweeping claim. Its an absolutism applied to something so variable in nature as to be meaningless.

 

[Gradine]

I rather agree. I don't think it'll unbalance the game, per se. I think it's an attempt to turn one game into another, and I think that's a terrible thing to do when all you have to do to be happy is play the game you like.



I think that's fair.

I don't see a problem with taking the covers off and tinkering with it on your own time. If you want to use the basic, internal engine and develop more optimization opportunities for your table, you get down with your bad self and dance. In fact, you know as well as I that there's pages and pages in the PHB and DMG which cover how to create classes and races and feats.

I do see a problem when people insist that someone else take the covers off officially and muck about with it, to substantially change the flavor of the game as it exists, just to satisfy their specific approach to enjoying the game.*



That's entirely consistent, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

* I'm not necessarily saying you want that, because you haven't said so explicitly or even implied it. But there are a whole raft of people here on ENWorld who do take that stance and get quite shirty about it.

I can appreciate where you're coming from, especially with the whole "turning it into entirely different game". I just don't quite agree with you that "an ever-expanding breadth of character options" is synonymous with "D&D 3.X". I think 5e with more classes would not just be 3.5 or PF; it would be be 5e... but with more classes.

On the one hand, I can appreciate the deliberate pace with which WotC is rolling out new content for 5e, and in fact turning the main creative drive for such content over to the fanbase via DM's Guild. On the same hand, I can see the dangers inherent in overloading a system with an ever-expanding breadth of character options. On the other hand, I always appreciate new content (and especially official new content, which at least carries with it the sense of being playtested and otherwise vetted by professionals) because I, as an expression-seeker, love learning about new types of characters to play as and explore. On that same other hand, I don't understand the resistance from the fan-base for such content, simply because of how easy it is to ban optional content from your table (and especially in light of the AL policy, which provides a really simply way of increasing character options while nipping unintended synergies in the bud). An addition, official or otherwise, is not any kind of change, substantial or otherwise, precisely because of how easily it can be ignored if accepting the addition does require some unwanted change to the "core" flavor.

 

[nswanson27]

I can appreciate where you're coming from, especially with the whole "turning it into entirely different game". I just don't quite agree with you that "an ever-expanding breadth of character options" is synonymous with "D&D 3.X". I think 5e with more classes would not just be 3.5 or PF; it would be be 5e... but with more classes.

On the one hand, I can appreciate the deliberate pace with which WotC is rolling out new content for 5e, and in fact turning the main creative drive for such content over to the fanbase via DM's Guild. On the same hand, I can see the dangers inherent in overloading a system with an ever-expanding breadth of character options. On the other hand, I always appreciate new content (and especially official new content, which at least carries with it the sense of being playtested and otherwise vetted by professionals) because I, as an expression-seeker, love learning about new types of characters to play as and explore. On that same other hand, I don't understand the resistance from the fan-base for such content, simply because of how easy it is to ban optional content from your table (and especially in light of the AL policy, which provides a really simply way of increasing character options while nipping unintended synergies in the bud). An addition, official or otherwise, is not any kind of change, substantial or otherwise, precisely because of how easily it can be ignored if accepting the addition does require some unwanted change to the "core" flavor.

Agreed. This last point makes this whole thing a non-debate, because everyone can win here, whether the OP's point is true or not.

 

[Kabouter Games]

Are you asking me why I don't believe that multiclass characters "out-shine others or unbalance the table"?

Because that is too broad a sweeping claim. Its an absolutism applied to something so variable in nature as to be meaningless.

Nevertheless, it is my experience. Like I said, yours may vary.

I can appreciate where you're coming from, especially with the whole "turning it into entirely different game". I just don't quite agree with you that "an ever-expanding breadth of character options" is synonymous with "D&D 3.X". I think 5e with more classes would not just be 3.5 or PF; it would be be 5e... but with more classes.

I don't have too much of a problem with new classes. I think that most of them can be done with changes in flavor and actual play than with official splat, that's all. If you want to have a bare-knuckle tavern brawler, you don't need a new class. You don't even need that feat! You can get exactly what you want if you play your Way of the Open Hand Monk inventively.

On the one hand, I can appreciate the deliberate pace with which WotC is rolling out new content for 5e, and in fact turning the main creative drive for such content over to the fanbase via DM's Guild. On the same hand, I can see the dangers inherent in overloading a system with an ever-expanding breadth of character options. On the other hand, I always appreciate new content (and especially official new content, which at least carries with it the sense of being playtested and otherwise vetted by professionals) because I, as an expression-seeker, love learning about new types of characters to play as and explore. On that same other hand, I don't understand the resistance from the fan-base for such content, simply because of how easy it is to ban optional content from your table (and especially in light of the AL policy, which provides a really simply way of increasing character options while nipping unintended synergies in the bud). An addition, official or otherwise, is not any kind of change, substantial or otherwise, precisely because of how easily it can be ignored if accepting the addition does require some unwanted change to the "core" flavor.

That's eminently reasonable. I do, however, want to give you something to think about.

I put it to you that the only thing restricting you from exploring new characters is you. If you want to play a swashbuckling pirate, or a knight errant in the Arthurian vein, or Conan, you can do all of that within the Fighter, as it exists as expressed in the PHB. It doesn't have to have anything to do with unique crunch, at least beyond the PHB Fighter class and the background you choose. It does depend on how you approach it at the table.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com