D&D 5E Class bloat without multiclassing?

[FrogReaver]

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.

Do you think as far as multiclass combinations go that it is more or less common than any other combination?

 

[happyhermit]

I don't get it, you make endless assertions with nothing to back them up;

Multiclassing is hard to ignore and achieve a functioning character concept unless you are lucky enough to pick a concept that fits neatly into 1 of the 11ish class boxes already in the game.

As such if you play without multiclassing more classes are really needed. Perhaps make them optional classes?

Because you cannot continue to create unique level 1 and 2 abilities and not expect some combination of them to not be OP

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

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

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?

Then you go on and on demanding some sort of example of an exact multiclass combination at an exact level. Wth would you even consider a "legitimate" example anyways, am I supposed to dig through my player's old character sheets to try to find this combination? I doubt we had a Fighter 4 Wizard 1 in 5e because there are an insane # of combinations at lvl 5 and we rarely multiclass. The probability of that exact combination coming up organically is exceedingly small, and has no bearing on whether on the discussion. If you think players don't multiclass in unoptimized ways, well then you are simply wrong.

Dude, I'm an optimizer. No need to act like I unfavorably view munchkins, I'm probably more of one than most. But that doesn't alleviate the point:

Care to show me that Fighter 4/ Wizard 1? The point is that there isn't 1 because it sucks and thus multiclassing isn't something that happens organically with play but instead a choice that happens and isn't directly informed by anything happening in the game. Sure sometimes someone will multiclass according to something happening in the game if the mechanics fit and it's a good level to do so, but no one does it "organically" as was stated earlier. If they did it wouldn't be such a challenge to find that Fighter 4/ Wizard 1.

It seems like your playstyle is having an effect on your views of the issue. Do you actually not agree that some players consciously make decisions that are sub-optimal? Because if that's the case you are ignoring loads of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Corwin]

In fact, your assertion about that particular class combo leads me to believe *more* strongly in organic progression. Your example brings to mind more so a scenario where a player is handed a 4th level fighter out of the blue and asked of them, "Take a 5th level. What would you like to take?" Are they likely to say, "Wizard 1"? No*. In that case, I totally agree with you. But that proves the *opposite* of you assertion, IMO.

Instead, imagine this scenario proposed to player (rather than the above): "You've been playing a fighter up through 4th level. Along your journeys you have bonded with your wizard friend and expressed an interest in his magic. He has repeatedly encouraged you to pursue your interests and has offered to take you on as his apprentice. It is time to take your 5th level. What do you do?"

I'm betting there are plenty of players that would seriously consider that wizard level. And of them, some would take it.


[*though, even *then*, I'm positive there is some out-of-the-box thinking, contrarian type player who likes quirky characters and would go with wizard anyway...]

 

[Corwin]

Do you think as far as multiclass combinations go that it is more or less common than any other combination?

You never even remotely touched on commonality. You asserted its *never* happened. Which I found preposterous. And now here we are...

 

[FrogReaver]

You never even remotely touched on commonality. You asserted its *never* happened. Which I found preposterous. And now here we are...

So we have common ground on it being very uncommon? Care to theorize on why it's a very uncommon multiclass combination?

 

[happyhermit]

Do you think as far as multiclass combinations go that it is more or less common than any other combination?

Ok, this is in the textbook under "Moving the goalposts" I shouldn't have entered this "discussion".

 

[Corwin]

So we have common ground on it being very uncommon? Care to theorize on why it's a very uncommon multiclass combination?

Sure. Mainly because the fighter needs at least a 13 intelligence to multiclass into wizard.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. Mainly because the fighter needs at least a 13 intelligence to multiclass into wizard.

Fair enough. Then let's look at the subset of fighters with 13 intelligence or more. Is it uncommon for them multiclass to wizard after 4 levels of fighter? If so care to theorize on why?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

If you want to understand this, then you need to accept that the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world. You need to reject the unnecessary abstractions, like saying that the less-skilled fighter is attacking just as quickly, even though observation shows us that there is a definite line of experience where they go from never landing two blows in six second to often landing two blows in six seconds. That was an abstraction which was useful in the days of minute-long rounds, but it detracts from the game as a statistical model. Think of it in terms of firing arrows, if it helps, since we know for a fact that each attack roll corresponds to exactly one arrow in flight.

If you accept the basic premise, that the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, then it is a true fact of their reality that competent warriors can fire arrows twice as quickly as less-skilled warriors, and even more-skilled warriors can fire three or (theoretically) four times as quickly. (It's also true that sometimes, very briefly, trained warriors can act even more quickly than they typically do; but it's not something anyone can keep up for very long, so they need to rest before they can do it again.) We know that this is true, because any test that we run can confirm it; if you put a reasonably-experienced archer against a novice, in a contest of hitting twenty bullseyes or killing twenty kobolds, the experienced archer will reach their goal in about half the time. And given that it is empirically true that their world works that way, then it stands to reason that the characters would know this; after all, they actually live in that world, and we only visit there for a couple of hours per week.

If you instead reject the premise, and say that the rules of the game don't reflect the reality of the game world, then you need to come up with some explanation for why every test we conduct conforms to the rules but not to the reality. In fact, if the rules don't reflect the reality, then we have no clue to what that reality even is. If we don't say that one attack roll corresponds to one meaningful swing of the sword, and that a successful hit for damage means you actually hit and caused damage (because you want to use super-abstract HP for some reason), then we have no idea how many swings you actually made or whether you actually hit or caused damage.

Which goes to the underlying point: If the mechanics of the game don't tell us what's actually happening within the game world, then what good are they to us? If the DM has to make something up anyway, because the rules don't tell us what happens, then why do we need rules at all? Why does it matter what you decide to do, from an RP perspective, if none of your choices correspond to the reality that your character observes? If we want our choices to matter, and for them to be the same choices that our characters face - if we want to actually role-play at all - then we need the rules to reflect the reality.

 

[Corwin]

Fair enough. Then let's look at the subset of fighters with 13 intelligence or more. Is it uncommon for them multiclass to wizard after 4 levels of fighter? If so care to theorize on why?

Maybe not at all, actually. Because, heck, they probably made sure they had a 13+ intelligence *specifically* so they could MC into wizard. I'd say MCing to wizard might even be the *most* common choice for your identified subset of fighter.