D&D 5E Class bloat without multiclassing?

[Kabouter Games]

Every edition of D&D has been class-based.

In name only. When you could so structure a Paladin that she had a higher Open Locks than the Rogue, classes became lip-service material, at best a template onto which numbers could be written.

And you could advance in 2-3 classes simultaneously, in the classic game, not just 'switch careers.'

Only after a certain point. If you switched from, say, Fighter to Thief, you had to use the Thief tables for everything. If once you used your Fighter abilities, you lost the XP for the entire adventure. Until your Thief levels surpassed your Fighter levels; then you could use the abilities interchangeably. That's what I meant by changing careers.

The later systems removed that consequence, in my opinion for the worse.

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.

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.'

That was very poorly worded on my part. I'm not saying a good DM never says "No." I'm saying a good DM starts from a position of "Let's work on it and see what we come up with." Only after every reasonable method of accommodating the player's concept is exhausted should the DM say no.

That's why I have to take great issue with "worse than just saying no."

Of course there's...

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.

...which is entirely reasonable.

Ciao,

Bob (who really has to stop posting on ENWorld and get back to work on the material he's going to throw at his players day after tomorrow. ;P )

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

If you don't see it as such, then that would explain why you don't see the damage caused by such mechanics - you simply don't care about the integrity of the game in that manner. Which isn't all that uncommon of a position, really, but it does make it difficult for those of us who do place value in such things.

That's the point. It's not organic. If it was organic then you would see Fighter 4 / Wizard 1 because it just organically happened and fit into the story at that point. But you don't see that multiclass combination thus proving the art of multiclassing into a totally different class doesn't happen organically but instead is planned and that which is planned is not organic.

I may have missed the point where you defined "organic" in this context. Even if a fighter develops a sudden interest in magic, through the natural course of events, they may still choose to hold off on pursuing that line of advancement until their current progression plateaus. There's nothing unnatural or meta-gamey about characters making decisions on the basis of information which is available to them.

To put it in real-world terms, if I'm three years into a four-year degree in architecture and then I develop an over-whelming interest in botany, I may still well choose to finish out my current degree before starting those classes. Having a degree in architecture is going to make things much easier for me while I begin to pursue a second field of study, in much the same way that hitting Fighter 5 before multi-classing to Wizard is going to make things much easier for the character in the example. That is the natural way which we would expect the scenario to play out, based on what we know of how their world works.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In name only. When you could so structure a Paladin that she had a higher Open Locks than the Rogue, classes became lip-service material, at best a template onto which numbers could be written.

OK, I see the point, yes, classes in 3.5 reached a height of mix-n-match usage that hasn't been seen since. I don't agree that freed it from being a class-based system. But I guess we can agree it was the least-class-based D&D ever got.

Only after a certain point.

From 1st level, so long as you weren't human. The game had two different systems (at least, the Bard was also slightly odd, that way, and then it had non-class-based psionics) for combining classes.

That was very poorly worded on my part. I'm not saying a good DM never says "No." I'm saying a good DM starts from a position of "Let's work on it and see what we come up with." Only after every reasonable method of accommodating the player's concept is exhausted should the DM say no.

I don't see how that attitude couldn't work in an option-rich environment. I can see how it consistently /didn't work/ in the context of 3.x with the 'RAW' zietgeist of the day, but I don't believe it necessarily must be so.

5e's been very clear about the role of the DM, and the optional nature of specific materials.

Bob (who really has to stop posting on ENWorld and get back to work on the material he's going to throw at his players day after tomorrow. ;P )

Go forth and DM, and may your game be awesome!

 

[FrogReaver]

Well I would love to understand the first part. I simply do not understand the term or the idea st this time. Feel free to elaborate if you wish. I'd be interested.

The second i disagree with. A fighter in game doesn't know his current class plateaus at any level. He doesn't know what extra attack is because extra attack doesn't simulate him swinging twice as fast instead it's about him being better skilled and more of his attacks in a round finding openings.

I suppose if you believe he character can know he will reach a plateau that's one thing but I can't say that makes sense to me.

If you don't see it as such, then that would explain why you don't see the damage caused by such mechanics - you simply don't care about the integrity of the game in that manner. Which isn't all that uncommon of a position, really, but it does make it difficult for those of us who do place value in such things.

I may have missed the point where you defined "organic" in this context. Even if a fighter develops a sudden interest in magic, through the natural course of events, they may still choose to hold off on pursuing that line of advancement until their current progression plateaus. There's nothing unnatural or meta-gamey about characters making decisions on the basis of information which is available to them.

To put it in real-world terms, if I'm three years into a four-year degree in architecture and then I develop an over-whelming interest in botany, I may still well choose to finish out my current degree before starting those classes. Having a degree in architecture is going to make things much easier for me while I begin to pursue a second field of study, in much the same way that hitting Fighter 5 before multi-classing to Wizard is going to make things much easier for the character in the example. That is the natural way which we would expect the scenario to play out, based on what we know of how their world works.

 

[mellored]

That describes a battle master doesn't it?

Kinda, but it's short handed as a sub-class.

Make it a full class and you could fit barbarian, ranger, rogue, all together. Plus everything in between.

 

[Corwin]

I've still not seen that Fighter 4 / Wizard 1 or anything remotely like it. Your rogue/monk/warlock may fit if only you had elaborated a bit more on whether you were monk 4 and then took something other than monk 5...

I confess you have me at a loss. I'm not getting the distinction. Are you somehow isolating that specific combination of levels as being uniquely important on its own? Because I don't get it.

Seems they all answer the pertinent question: "Are you delaying Extra Attack?", or to put a finer point on it, "Did your leveling choice(s) prevent you from getting Extra Attack at 5th level?"

How much more minutia-driven must we get before you see that people accept that reality and do it anyway? Because they still manage to survive the adventuring day in spite of having delayed that Extra Attack. I posted a thread about such a notion, BTW.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah yes, the tactic of classifying your adversary as making distinctions that don't matter so you can answer in a way you would prefer. Well the distinctions do matter. I explicitly asked about whether anyone had seen a level 4 fighter ranger barbarian monk paladin ever skip taking their first extra attack before multiclassing. While you want to say, yes people delay extra attack, that isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking about a specific type of delay because I know that no one does it and because that subset I am talking about is enough to prove my point that characters don't multiclass based on story but that everyone that multiclasses at least considers mechanics before doing so. (ie not organic)

I confess you have me at a loss. I'm not getting the distinction. Are you somehow isolating that specific combination of levels as being uniquely important on its own? Because I don't get it.

Seems they all answer the pertinent question: "Are you delaying Extra Attack?", or to put a finer point on it, "Did your leveling choice(s) prevent you from getting Extra Attack at 5th level?"

How much more minutia-driven must we get before you see that people accept that reality and do it anyway? Because they still manage to survive the adventuring day in spite of having delayed that Extra Attack. I posted a thread about such a notion, BTW.

 

[Corwin]

Ah yes, the tactic of classifying your adversary as making distinctions that don't matter so you can answer in a way you would prefer.

I'm sure there's a falacy to describe what you are doing here.

Well the distinctions do matter.

How so? Exactly? Please elaborate on why only that specific combination is relevant.

I explicitly asked about whether anyone had seen a level 4 fighter ranger barbarian monk paladin ever skip taking their first extra attack before multiclassing.

Not everyone who plays 5e posts here, so you may want to broaden your query to include more than this tiny fraction of the D&D community.

While you want to say, yes people delay extra attack, that isn't what I'm asking.

Yet they both result in the *exact* same thing. How is that not so?

I'm asking about a specific type of delay because I know that no one does it...

Unsupportable conjecture.

...and because that subset I am talking about is enough to prove my point that characters don't multiclass based on story but that everyone that multiclasses at least considers mechanics before doing so. (ie not organic)

You use fighter 4/wizard 1 as the sole benchmark hoping to prove whether *anyone* *ever* multiclasses for in-story, organic reasons. I love it! For whatever reason this reminds me of that ol' classic, where the conman tries to sell his mark a talisman that's supposed to repel rhinos. When the mark asked if it works, the conman says, "Well, do you see any rhinos around?"

 

[FrogReaver]

I covered my query with nearly half the classes in the PHB. No one has yet brought something that fits. Out of all those classes not one person has came forward and said "You're crazy! I have that character!" Now you want to compare me to a conman. Have your fun. I can't prove it either way. But I have a heck of a lot more evidence than you do at the moment. Sometimes silence is the best evidence of all

So maybe we should approach this from a different place. Do you believe anyone plays any classes like what I'm asking for?

I'm sure there's a falacy to describe what you are doing here.


How so? Exactly? Please elaborate on why only that specific combination is relevant.


Not everyone who plays 5e posts here, so you may want to broaden your query to include more than this tiny fraction of the D&D community.


Yet they both result in the *exact* same thing. How is that not so?


Unsupportable conjecture.



You use fighter 4/wizard 1 as the sole benchmark hoping to prove whether *anyone* *ever* multiclasses for in-story, organic reasons. I love it! For whatever reason this reminds me of that ol' classic, where the conman tries to sell his mark a talisman that's supposed to repel rhinos. When the mark asked if it works, the conman says, "Well, do you see any rhinos around?"

 

[Corwin]

So maybe we should approach this from a different place. Do you believe anyone plays any classes like what I'm asking for?

Yes, unequivocally. I have zero doubt there is a fighter 4/wizard 1 being played, or has been played, out there in the world somewhere. Most likely more than one.