D&D 5E Class bloat without multiclassing?

[Kabouter Games]

I don't agree with this. Not all desires for new classes are for flavor and theme purposes only. Cool new mechanics, or certain combos of old mechanics that you can't get (or can't easily get without having a mechanically poor char) are what make getting a new class fun and exciting for a lot of players. Assuming that player's should be ok with uniqueness in flavor without uniqueness in mechanics... that isn't really understanding what makes a lot of players like D&D.

Which goes back to what I wrote earlier. There already exists a variety of games/systems/editions which fully embrace mechanically unique character generation.

That is, in absolute terms, AD&D was insanely complex, and not just complex, but needlessly complicated. (Don't get me wrong, 1e AD&D was my first love of RPGs, and still favorite edition, if I must pick a favorite for that reason, but I will hold that at arms length and look at it analytically, and when I do, I have to acknowledge that it's insane.)

Very true. I was reminded of the weapon type vs. armor type tables in a thread here the other day. [shudder] Nevertheless, it was a class-based system. You were a Fighter, or Magic-User, or Thief. You could switch careers, but it was switching careers, not "dipping" for class benefits.

I think it was more specifically to appeal to fans of 3.x, and it's telling that those two components stand out as explicitly optional, while bits and pieces of 4e that could have been made optional like Healing Surges (in the bowdlerized form of HD) became core.

That is interesting. I hadn't considered that. Thank you!

I think 5e, to a small extent, wrote off the most ardent fans of 3.5/PF (or perhaps the most-resentful-of-WotC fringe of those fans, to put it another way).

Frankly, I'd think less of 5e's designers if they hadn't.

I think they realized they could never satisfy that extreme without maintaining the system as it existed, which made a new edition ... wouldn't be new.

And let's face it, there was (and is) a very vocal community of grognards who bitch at the R in OSR, who hate everything that GGG didn't supervise. These are the same people who think TSR and WotC are money-grubbing weasels, and probably haven't left their mother's basement since the release of the AD&D Monster Manual except to go to Radio Shack to get that spiffy new 14.4 modem.

Ironically, though, both 5e & PF are quite good at being D&D, IMHO.

Agreed. I prefer 5e to PF, because of my background in AD&D; 5e's class-based system is simpler to me than the bewildering constellation of feats and abilities and stuff in PF. But PF is still a really awesome game. I enjoy playing it from time to time, though I don't think I've mastered it enough to confidently referee.

But it's a necessary thing for 5e to present tools to do, because it's not exclusively for fans of the classic game, but also those fans of the modern game who aren't so bitter that they refuse to give WotC a 2nd (5th? 13th?) chance. Thus the tentative 'modular' design, with things like Feats and MCing presented, but explicitly 'optional' and any subsequent supplements very optional, indeed.

True. *grumble*

But, there's plenty more that could be released, and hopefully will be, without having to have the least impact on the basic-pdf or the PH-only campaigns out there.

I wasn't going to go down this road, but now it's been mentioned twice (that I've noticed), so I'm going to address it.

That puts a great and unnecessary onus on the DM. In my considered opinion, a good DM doesn't say "No" to a player if he or she can help it. A good DM works with a player to successfully complete the thing the player wants to do, whether it's character design or that character performing an action in-game. When the game company puts out oodles of splat, and the DM wants to do things simply, there's no clean way for the DM to get what she wants out of the game without saying "No."

Let's use the example from up-thread, where I talked about Samurai.

Situation A. Someone comes into your game wanting to play a Samurai. You can say, "Great! Let's get out the Basic Rules PDF and talk about how we can do that."

Situation B. Someone comes into your game wanting to play a Samurai, waving a class guide they've bought from DMs Guild.* Or, worse, which they've specifically gone out and paid at lot more of their hard-earned for Volo's Guide to Kara-Tur or some other official splat to make their character.

In A, player and DM positively respond to each other and collaborate to create something. In B, the player presents the DM with a fait accompli, putting the onus entirely on the DM to either work like hell to integrate a very non-standard character, or be compelled to say, "No."

I think you can guess which I find preferable.

To be sure, that's an expectations thing: Players and DMs should be discussing such things at chargen (what I call "Session Zero"). I do understand that a DM can choose not to allow anything at his or her table. But that really sucks, both for the DM - who denies the request - and the player - whose request is denied. I just think B is not necessary. If something in the core rules is broken, splat away; fix it, with my compliments. If it ain't broke, you're putting out new stuff for the sake of putting out new stuff. If that new stuff makes my life more complicated, UR DOIN IT RONG, Wizards/TSR/Paizo.

Hell, that's why I went back to 1e AD&D after 2e went off the rails with splat - not because the game got more complicated, but because I couldn't keep up with the sheer volume of splat output. At least not enough to confidently referee the %#$%@ game. It was easier to just say, "Sod it, let's go back to last year at this time" and completely reset.

Again, all the above is my opinion only. Everyone should play like it makes them happy.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

* It's hard for me to knock DMs Guild, because I have stuff up there myself. But having seen some of the classes and archetypes on offer there, and how piss-poor the ratings system is, all I can say is caveat emptor, because there's some real dreck.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which goes back to what I wrote earlier. There already exists a variety of games/systems/editions which fully embrace mechanically unique character generation.

Sure, but those of them that were D&D, 5e has some 'obligation' (vague non-binding marketing-speak promise, if we're being cynical, which I've been trying not to be, but, it's my nature) to call back and to support the styles of fans thereof.

Nevertheless, it was a class-based system. You were a Fighter, or Magic-User, or Thief. You could switch careers, but it was switching careers, not "dipping" for class benefits.

Every edition of D&D has been class-based. And you could advance in 2-3 classes simultaneously, in the classic game, not just 'switch careers.' The two used two different systems, while 3e allowed both (and more), with one, arguably-simpler one.

That is interesting. I hadn't considered that. Thank you!

You're very welcome. Relatively recent insight, really, though considering it's been out over two years.

I think they realized they could never satisfy that extreme without maintaining the system as it existed, which made a new edition ... wouldn't be new.

Tip of the iceberg: each edition had its own fans who wanted to do the fun stuff they could do with that edition, so 5e really needed to cover as much of that fun stuff as possible, even from the beginning. It did surprisingly well, but still has some to back-fill.

That puts a great and unnecessary onus on the DM.

Great, yes, that's the flip side of being 'Empowered.' Unnecessary, no, because it lets the game get away with being more things to more people, without being the wrong thing to any of the ones that take up that great responsibility of DMing.

The DM is prettymuch the foundation this edition is built upon - and the guy fixing its roof.

In my considered opinion, a good DM doesn't say "No" to a player if he or she can help it.... there's no clean way for the DM to get what she wants out of the game without saying "No."

Then maybe there's an issue with what the DM wants, or with the opinion that a good DM doesn't say 'No.'

I'm OK with the first-say-yes style, mostly, but in 5e, y'gotta say 'No,' (and a lotta other things, too), sometimes. Because you have too much of the power to cede a lot of it just to avoid an uncomfortable situation.

I think you can guess which I find preferable.

Essentially, saying 'no' without having to actually say it. Which is, well, I'll try to find a nice way to say it...

...nope, sorry can't find one.

I'll go with: Worse than just saying 'no.'

Hell, that's why I went back to 1e AD&D after 2e went off the rails with splat - not because the game got more complicated, but because I couldn't keep up with the sheer volume of splat output.

Ironically, I jumped ship to Hero System (wildly complex!) and Storyteller (splatterriffic) when 2e exceeded my tolerance for bloat.

It's hard for me to knock DMs Guild, because I have stuff up there myself. But having seen some of the classes and archetypes on offer there, and how piss-poor the ratings system is, all I can say is caveat emptor, because there's some real dreck.

Unavoidable, but all the more reason to have more official options so people aren't tempted to push the crazy stuff on you.

"Can I use the DMsG 'Oriental Abominations' Supreme Samurai Class, the one who can kill everything within six miles in one action with Supreme Cleave?"
"Er, no*, use the official Samurai class from Volo's Guide to Kara-Tur, instead, we're all-official at this table."







* yeah, had to say no, sorry.

What's needed is a good modular fighting-man ]class. One where you can pick maneuvers like casters pick spells.

That would reduce both multi-classing and bloat.

That describes a battle master doesn't it?

Not the bolded bits, no. Nothing modular about it, it's an archetype, not a class, and (though 'casters' is ambiguous since wizards and sorcerers pick their spells differently, for instance) it doesn't pick maneuvers every level from a long list divided into 9 dramatically scaling levels of power.

 

[auburn2]

Double post

 

[auburn2]

In general I would be against more classes.

It is hard to envison a character that would not be covered by some combination of what we already have, particularly when you consider feat and background combinations, Even if there is I think adding custom feats, backgrounds, spells or invocations would get it done without needing any more classes.

As far as being OP, I don;t see it as such for three reasons.
1. The combinations are available to anyone, including the enemies.

2. There are built in disadvantages with mutli-classing and they are pretty significant regardless of how many levels you take in another class. Take 1 level and you lose your capstone (which may or may not be a big deal), but even after that unless you dip in 4 level increments you will be behind on feats/abilities multiple times during your progression. If you go in 4 level increments you will miss out on major increases which come at level 5 (like for example multi-attacks and 3rd level spells). Either you have to get behind your sinlge-classer on ability increases or you have to wait until total level 9 to get these boons for one class and level 13 for the other.

3. What class combination is most powerful depends a lot on the situation and what you are fighting but in general during the mid levels (3-10) I think a bladesinger with a good dex and intel is more powerful than any single or multi-class combination available and those are the levels where multi-classing has the most to offer. I say that from experience since I am playing a 9th level bladesinger who has not been damaged with a weapon attack since 5th level ... and she doesn't even have song of defense yet.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Let me first say I think multiclassing utterly fails at adding much to the character concept. There is rarely a multiclass option that is worth taking before level 5 (from a mechanics peraspective) and if so it's only for a dip into the class which rarely works either. (It's not as bad if you don't start at low levels).

I think more classes and multiclassing both attempt to achieve the same goal. However, there are some characters that multiclassing does a poor job of realizing, just like you pointed out above that their are a few characters that a new class does a poor job of realizing.

I'd wager that the number of characters that classes can realize is vastly larger than the number of characters that multiclassing can realize.

This sounds like a great argument for having both. However, multiclassing adds a much steeper cost to class creation than otherwise. If balance is cared for at all there will eventually come a point where there are so many classes and multiclass combinations to consider in making a new class that such a class will take 10 times as long to create as it used to. Without multiclassing the release of a new class is going to only take slightly longer for each new one.

So which is a better method for creating a level 1 character to fulfill a concept at level 1-5? A unique class of course. Your power features stay on course and you still get whatever concept you had desired (assuming a class exists for it).

 

[FrogReaver]

Couldn't tell ya a lot about 3.5. I know enough to be dangerous. Here's what I know. There are already 2 different passive +dmg level 1 abilities. 4 that is semi passive but requires a bonus action and a daily resource. There is also another that requires a bonus action but has some pretty severe restrictions on it. It wouldn't take very many more +dmg abilities for things to start getting out of hand with multiclassing. 4-5 classes with unique abilities that do similar things and then you could race to extra attack and then take the next 5 levels taking nothing but abilities that add more damage. Heck add in 10-20 more of such classes and taking extra attack may actually be considered poor optimization.

Is more damage going to break the game. I suppose it depends on your players expectations. I know the game would be broken for me if I played a PHB fighter and multiclass expert over there was taking 1 level in a bunch of different classes and was vastly surpassing me in damage for pretty much my whole career.

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]

Yes the organic character development that rarely actually is organic instead of an attempt at cherry picking mechanics you like or think are strong. I wonder why there are no fighter 4 / wizard 1 around?

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Or we could do away with multiclassing and have more classes/sub classes to cover them

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Invoking CoDzilla as the test to see if something is OP or game breaking is ridiculous. There are many OP and gamebreaking things that don't rise to the level of CoDzilla.

Let me say it this way. Just because something isn't stronger than CoDzilla doesn't mean it wasn't OP or game breaking.

 

[Kabouter Games]

I'm all for taking new twists on re-flavoring classes. I've done this with the Monk multiple times; I had a Wood Elf Shadow Monk that was a guerrilla fighter dual-wielding hand-axes. I've re-used Way of Open Fist to represent Soulknives and Way of Five Elements for Pyrokineticists... and that works...

Awesome.

...to a point.

Uh, oh...I knew there was a "But!"

See, inspiration is not a bolt of lightning. It is not a muse whispering in your ear. Inspiration is content. It is the sum total of everything we see and read and experience. I can't decide I want to play Conan if I've never heard of Conan. I didn't know I wanted to play a character like an Archivist until I bought Heroes of Horror. I didn't know I wanted to play an Incarnate until my buddy walked in with a copy of Magic of Incarnum. New mechanics are just as much sources of inspiration as anything else; they have the added bonus of already being expressed mechanically in the system. I don't necessarily want new classes so I can play something I already want to play (although I've said as much in other threads and possibly this one, but you're right, if I really wanted to play that concept with what we have now I'd find away); what I love is the idea of picking up a new book, reading a new class and thinking "wow, this is awesome, I want to play a character like this."

I get what you're saying. It happened to me when I bought the AD&D Unearthed Arcana book and saw the Cavalier class. Here was that brave to the point of foolish, confident to the point of arrogant, recklessly indifferent to his own safety, noble-born knight in shining armor I'd wanted to play all along.

It's important to point out that I had been playing it already. For the better part of a year. By working together with my DM to bring my character to life. But now it was easy! I didn't have to do anything, because it was codified. With even more cool stuff to do! Which was arguably overpowered (since that argument's been going on for thirty years, we should leave it alone)! Which was a complete pain in my DM's arse, because it introduced new mechanics which he felt obliged to agree to because I'd bought the book!

In other words, I agree that inspiration comes from many different sources. All I'm saying is that inspiration can have PITA ramifications if it comes from non-core splat. Players should be cognizant of that when they bring something to the table from a non-core splatbook. Work with your DM to develop the character. Presenting your DM with splat forces her to be reactive, and the game should be proactive for everyone involved.

Ah, okay. Perhaps your point may have been better served had it been presented as less... global. But, cool. In that case, I'll continue to express that my experience with 5e has lead me to a different opinion, and we can go our separate ways.

No harm done, but to be fair, I didn't. I described my experience, and explicitly admitted that your experience may differ from mine. Here's the post, if you'd like to read it again.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com