D&D 5E Class bloat without multiclassing?

[FrogReaver]

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.

To me the character name doesn't have a direct correlation to the game world. A fighter class can represent anyone from a noble night, a holy warrior, a thug, a nomadic warrior, a soldier, a sailor, etc. All of those can be represented in game as a fighter. Some can also be represented as a Paladin or a rogue or a ranger or a barbarian etc.

I'm not of the opinion that classes cannot overlap in concept. When they do then you just have more choices on how to arrive at your concept.

 

[Gradine]

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.

My point is that CoDzilla was core. It wasn't bloat. It wasn't something new; it was always there. So I'm struggling to understand how something could be introduced in addition to the core, be objectively weaker than what was present in the core, and yet still be considered OP or game breaking. Core is the baseline. I can't think of a single non-core base class that people were really complaining were game-breaking or OP, either on their own or without. Archivist, maybe? But even then was really only because they were a full non-spontaneous caster.

To be fair, CoDzilla wasn't even really CoDzilla until Divine Metamagic became a thing. But that's feat bloat, not class bloat.

 

[Gradine]

Awesome.



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

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.

Well... yeah. I assumed that much, at least, was obvious. Woe be to the DM who tells their players "Everything is fair game!". Perhaps that is a point that isn't obvious enough, especially to new DM's. I would say more is always better, but not for every table or every game. I mean, here I am shouting "MORE IS ALWAYS BETTER" but even as a DM (especially back in 3.5) I would restrict or ban certain splatbooks ALL THE TIME. Even the ones I owned. Granted, mostly it was because I usually DMed new players, but still.

So I'm not not cognizant of the dangers of additional splat. All I'm saying is that the dangers are (usually) easily avoided and the benefits, in my opinion, outweigh the risks every time.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To me the character name doesn't have a direct correlation to the game world. A fighter class can represent anyone from a noble night, a holy warrior, a thug, a nomadic warrior, a soldier, a sailor, etc. All of those can be represented in game as a fighter.

A fighter can represent all of those things, because the fighter is a generic class which is supposed to reflect many different things. But if there was an actual sailor class, then it would be hard to argue that the fighter class is the best way to reflect a character who is a sailor.

I'm not of the opinion that classes cannot overlap in concept. When they do then you just have more choices on how to arrive at your concept.

That is certainly an opinion which is held, but it goes against the fundamental concept of an RPG system as a statistical model. If we want to know whether a given character is capable of performing a given task, then we need to be able to unambiguously determine how the system represents that character. When you have multiple mechanical models that each reflect the same individual, then whether they succeed or fail at a given task is going to come down to which model you use, rather than the actual in-game reality of the character.

Any game mechanic which offers different ways to represent the same in-game reality is a bad mechanic from that perspective.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

If there aren't, it's not really a severe problem. If a combo is so sub-optimal that no one plays it, sure it's imbalanced, but it's not imbalance that anyone actually suffers from.

If you /did/ see a lot of fighter4/wiz1 types moping around, being overshadowed, that'd be concerning.

My point is that CoDzilla was core. It wasn't bloat. It wasn't something new; it was always there.

IIRC (and it was a while ago, so probably, I don't RC), that was even the point CoDzilla was coined to make.

The game was born broken. If it's already broke, don't worry about breaking it.

"Oh, be careful with my Bag o' Glass, you might break it, and I won't be able to cut myself anymore!"

So I'm struggling to understand how something could be introduced in addition to the core, be objectively weaker than what was present in the core, and yet still be considered OP or game breaking.

It couldn't, by itself. If anything, it'd be just yet another 'trap option.' But, it would be Bloat, and could be cross-pollinated with something else to create something that was objectively more broken than core. Like Pun-Pun.

And I hear something called the 'Erudite' came pretty close to CoDzilla, with the right variant in place?

Archivist, maybe? But even then was really only because they were a full non-spontaneous caster.

Nod. Any of those, really. Full Prepped Caster was prettymuch a ticket to Tier 1, well unless you class list well and truly sucked, I suppose.

 

[FrogReaver]

"fundamental concept of RPG system as a statistical model" wth?

A fighter can represent all of those things, because the fighter is a generic class which is supposed to reflect many different things. But if there was an actual sailor class, then it would be hard to argue that the fighter class is the best way to reflect a character who is a sailor.

That is certainly an opinion which is held, but it goes against the fundamental concept of an RPG system as a statistical model. If we want to know whether a given character is capable of performing a given task, then we need to be able to unambiguously determine how the system represents that character. When you have multiple mechanical models that each reflect the same individual, then whether they succeed or fail at a given task is going to come down to which model you use, rather than the actual in-game reality of the character.

Any game mechanic which offers different ways to represent the same in-game reality is a bad mechanic from that perspective.

 

[Corwin]

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?

There aren't? Uh oh. I'll let an acquaintance know (though to be fair I think his character was a rogue 6 urchin who decided to take a level of sorcerer to represent a newly realized bloodline of power in his previously unknown ancestry. But I think that still falls within the spirit of your claim).

...but I've seen it at multiple tables within 100 miles of where I'm sitting, so my analysis seems to be accurate.

...from someone supposedly trying hard not to claim that their opinion (YMMV, not withstanding) is anything more than anecdotal? Again, I get it now. But that's not at the impression I walked away with. And at least one other person here had the same issue, because my initial entry into this particular sub-discussion came piggy-backed onto theirs.. S'all I'm sayin'. G'night.

 

[FrogReaver]

There aren't? Uh oh. I'll let an acquaintance know (though to be fair I think his character was a rogue 6 urchin who decided to take a level of sorcerer to represent a newly realized bloodline of power in his previously unknown ancestry. But I think that still falls within the spirit of your claim).

Not really no.

Find me one person that multiclasses a fighter or paladin or monk or ranger or barbarian 1 level before getting their first extra attack.... I'll wait for you.

 

[Corwin]

Not really no.

How so? Seems to fall in line with your point. His character organically grew into another class as a result of the play of the game as it unfolded*. Because if that's not it, what were you getting at, really?

[*at least that's how I heard it described. I wasn't playing in that campaign. But I'm not inclined to think him a liar.]

 

[FrogReaver]

How so? Seems to fall in line with your point. His character organically grew into another class as a result of the play of the game as it unfolded*. Because if that's not it, what were you getting at, really?

[*at least that's how I heard it described. I wasn't playing in that campaign. But I'm not inclined to think him a liar.]

Find me one person that multiclasses a fighter or paladin or monk or ranger or barbarian 1 level before getting their first extra attack.... I'll wait for you.