D&D 5E D&D Class Design Criticism

[Yunru]

So, given that there are so many things that you already can't play, and which you will never be able to play in a D&D game regardless, what do you really gain by including multi-class characters in the playable pile?

By that logic, what's the point in levels and/or classes? Races? Bah, don't need them, there's already some many other races you can't play after all.

 

[Darkness]

Let's be real: the warlord crowd isn't exactly filled with people who will be happy with anything but a perfect 4e port with the Warlord name. They have a special kind of zeal typically reserved for psychopaths and politicians.

Keep it civil, please. It's not cool to attack (supposed) groups of users who happen not to share your opinion.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By that logic, what's the point in levels and/or classes? Races? Bah, don't need them, there's already some many other races you can't play after all.

If you have enough to play, then adding more stuff doesn't help. Not all games have levels, classes, or races; they give you other stuff to do, where those variables are irrelevant. There are even D&D variants that remove levelling, or where everyone plays as a human, and people still have fun playing those.

The problem is just that "enough" is a subjective concept. Is it enough to have four races and four classes? What about ten races and twelve classes? Do you need a hundred races and a thousand classes before you feel like you have enough to play the game? Where do you draw the line?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, your stance is that, because there are things that you cannot do with D&D, even more should be cut out?

Not using the multi-class option isn't removing anything from the game. The game, itself, presents classes as absolutes. Then, it adds in options where the DM can say that certain classes don't exist in their game world, or that other classes do exist, or that multi-classing is a thing.

The core of my point is, part of the reason I try getting friends to play D&D is "You can do literally whatever you want". I would not enjoy having to add the addendum "As long as you only want to be a backstabber, booky mage, fighting man, or Devout of the Gods". With multiclassing, they can do whatever they want. I don't know what those other classes you listed are, but I am betting they can be added in some way. Then they multiply the possible stories to tell, because you can also multiclass the new class with others, making a GOO Bladelock/ Cosmo Knight, sworn sword of the Ninth Star of Blue Thoughts.

If you add in the multi-class option, that doesn't suddenly make it so that they can do "whatever they want"; it makes it so they can do whatever they want... with the addendum that it's some combination of these twelve rigorously-codified class packages.

You can already tell an infinite number of stories, just with the twelve classes. You could tell an infinite number of stories with just the four classes. And if you add in the multi-class option, then you can tell a larger infinite number of stories, but even that is just a sub-set of the incomprehensibly larger infinite realm of potential stories.

If you were coming at 5E straight from basic, and you had never even thought about the possibility of multi-classing, then not having it wouldn't feel like a constraint in any way, just like it wouldn't feel constraining for the DM to limit Paladins to being Lawful Good and prohibit Dwarves from being arcane spellcasters. It's just the way it is, and you wouldn't even imagine that there were alternatives. If you never heard about Cosmo Knights, then you would never feel like you were missing out by not being able to play one.

Bringing this back on topic, that's the freedom of design philosophy that's afforded to older editions of the game. Since they didn't have to worry about 3E-style multi-classing, they could make classes that gave you all of your abilities up-front, which was definitely a win for anyone who was fine playing in the slightly-smaller infinite realm that didn't include multi-classing.

 

[Volund]

Does anyone else wish more class features came online much earlier, and maybe topped out at level 10? Feats, ABI's, or the DMG boon system could flash out 11-20 range.

The 5e cleric does exactly this, which is why I think it is one of the best classes to play. My cleric just reached level 10 today and I have every class feature I'll ever get, except for my level 17 Stormborn. Cleric is probably the exception that proves your point, since most other classes don't seem to be built this way and have to wait much longer for signature features. For example, I've been able to do max thunder/lightning dmg once per short rest since 2nd level (2x since 6th level), but an evoker wizard has to wait until 14th level for Overchannel (which is admittedly more versatile) which can only be used once per long rest without taking damage.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I just want to play a musical assassin babe...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ony8OIuBVw0

 

[Corwin]

For those who say their campaigns never really go long enough to reach 20th level, and so never see higher level abilities come into play, what about changing advancement? Instead of leveling up one level at a time, why not increments of 2 or 3? So combine discrete levels into packets of 2 or 3 levels worth. So a campaign that might go 10 levels, everyone advances two levels per "level".

One cool side effect, for those who like multiclassing, you'd get a more "dual class" feel since a PC could rise simultaneously in two classes at once.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you think all those people who want Warlords would be happy by multi classing Bards and Fighters?

No, but that's not an argument against MCing nor against designing new classes with MCing in mind.

A player wanting a tougher warrior than a Warlord, but more support capability than a BM could play a Bravura Warlord/BM Fighter, one wanting a bit of magic and emphasizing inspiration more broadly could play a Bard/Warlord w/Inspiring Leader, one wanting a very clever tactician might go Tactical Warlord / Mastermind Rogue. Etc...

The core of my point is, part of the reason I try getting friends to play D&D is "You can do literally whatever you want". I would not enjoy having to add the addendum "As long as you only want to be a backstabber, booky mage, fighting man, or Devout of the Gods". With multiclassing, they can do whatever they want.

Well, they can combine existing classes in various proportions, but that's still a long way from 'whatever they want.' ;( Like feats, it helps with customizeability, though.

Of course, if you're new to RPGing, it may still seem like quite a lot - to the point that the 'big 4' could seem like plenty of choices, even.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you think all those people who want Warlords would be happy by multi classing Bards and Fighters?

No, but that's not an argument against MCing nor against designing new classes with MCing in mind.

A player wanting a tougher warrior than a Warlord, but more support capability than a BM could play a Bravura Warlord/BM Fighter, one wanting a bit of magic and emphasizing inspiration more broadly could play a Bard/Warlord w/Inspiring Leader, one wanting a very clever tactician might go Tactical Warlord / Mastermind Rogue. Etc...

The core of my point is, part of the reason I try getting friends to play D&D is "You can do literally whatever you want". I would not enjoy having to add the addendum "As long as you only want to be a backstabber, booky mage, fighting man, or Devout of the Gods". With multiclassing, they can do whatever they want.

Well, they can combine existing classes in various proportions, but that's still a long way from 'whatever they want.' ;(
Like feats, MCing helps with customizeability, though even with both, if your bar for 'anything you want' is 3.x it's barely in the same ballpark (and if your bar is Hero System, it's not even in the same state as the ballpark).

Of course, if you're new to RPGing, it may still seem like quite a lot - to the point that no feats/MCing could be easier to deal with, or even that the 'big 4' could seem like plenty of choices...

 

[Lanliss]

No, but that's not an argument against MCing nor against designing new classes with MCing in mind.

A player wanting a tougher warrior than a Warlord, but more support capability than a BM could play a Bravura Warlord/BM Fighter, one wanting a bit of magic and emphasizing inspiration more broadly could play a Bard/Warlord w/Inspiring Leader, one wanting a very clever tactician might go Tactical Warlord / Mastermind Rogue. Etc...


Well, they can combine existing classes in various proportions, but that's still a long way from 'whatever they want.' ;(
Like feats, MCing helps with customizeability, though even with both, if your bar for 'anything you want' is 3.x it's barely in the same ballpark (and if your bar is Hero System, it's not even in the same state as the ballpark).

Of course, if you're new to RPGing, it may still seem like quite a lot - to the point that no feats/MCing could be easier to deal with, or even that the 'big 4' could seem like plenty of choices...

I was basically new to RPGing when I started 5E, and it seemed like a good number of options in the PHB. Since then, looking over UA and other peoples debates, I think good additions to the Main Class Roster would be the Artificer, Mystic, and Warlord. After those three, I cannot think of anything more that needs to be added. You would be able to meet just about any idea I can think up with Multiclassing and refluffing in some areas.