D&D 5E Does your concern about adding more classes to 5e D&D stem from multiclassing?

Does your concern about adding more classes stem from multiclassing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 4.9%
  • No

    Votes: 67 54.5%
  • I have no concerns about adding more classes.

    Votes: 50 40.7%


log in or register to remove this ad



Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Nah, my concerns, such as they are, are just about keeping the number of base options to a manageable number of broad archetypes - perhaps a dozen or fewer. Multiclassing is, in theory, a way to allow greater character diversity within a system that has a small number of base archetypal options. Though, I would really prefer more choices within each class, instead of having to mix different classes together to achieve this diversity, which in my opinion defeats the point of having a small number of broad archetypes to begin with.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Multiclassing is an option anyway. It's true that it's rarely straight powers that cause trouble, it's usually combos, but no, it's about the unnecessary complexity of maintaining all these classes. Our players have not problem choosing classes, and even after so many campaigns, there are archetypes that have not been tried.
 

Minigiant

Legend
I have no concerns over adding new classes. And even if I did,mutliclassing would not be a concern for me. During the time of most people's play (level1-10), multiclassing is a nerf or temporary power boost only to be outshone later.

As long as new classes aren't frontloaded and have tier appropriate features, multiclassing is not even an issue in the discussion of new classes.
 


A big aspect of having only a few classes is that it makes it easier for the DM. Jim may be an Arcane Archer, but he's mainly a fighter. His abilities are going to be the same as most other fighters, except for those from a handful of levels. The first of these special levels is going to be the important one to learn, but other than that, the DM just has to know what the fighter can do. Keeping it tight allows the DM to prepare for their abilities without needing their character sheets, and with only 13 classes, it's not unreasonable for a veteran DM to know the base class abilities for the first two tiers. Knowing what they can do allows the DM to design better adventures, making the game better overall.
 

Honestly, multiclassing is pretty uncommon in my playgroup this edition. I think it more comes down to that most of the fertile ground is already covered by existing classes. Artificer worked as an addition in part because it was evocative of a new idea, something that wasn't expressly possible under existing classes. Now, that in part comes from the setting. So if we did get a new class, I would expect it to stem out of a new setting offering.

What are the remaining blank spots? I think a "face" class that is not a caster, akin to the Marshall in previous editions.
 



Hopefully a simple question.
Simple enough :)

No.
Mine stems from my days running and playing Pathfinder 1st edition. The power creep furthered with every single book played a huge part in driving me to 5e.

Current 5e example: game I play in, ran from 1st level (meant as a one-shot, kept on running) to currently 8th. We lost a player, GM brought in a replacement. Old chars: Glamour bard, Thief-rogue, Trickster-cleric. New char: Gloomstalker Ranger/Rogue. The old rogue has practically been made obsolete in one fell swoop, as the GSR can do everything she can, just way better (yes, "optimization" plays into it as well, but class option power creep is a big factor).
 



Minigiant

Legend
I would rather see less classes and more feats and more ASI "slots" in a single class.
5e would need tiered feats and feat trees. That's a dangerous route few companies know how to drive.

That's why I'm confused by the poll question. Multiclassing is a lot easier to balance and design well than feat tree or a new subclass for major character concepts. And a new class is in turn easier to balance than multiclassesing.

Do people want the design philosophy that is more likely to get messed up? Why? Pure Aesthetics of having a low number of classes?
 

Frozen_Heart

Adventurer
Imo multiclassing can never replicate a full class effectively. You end up with half the abilities of two classes, rather than a coherent class. Often things like casting stats don't even function together.

If you multiclass a fighter and cleric 50/50, by level 5 you still only have 1 attack and 2nd level spells if you picked cleric first. Your spells don't mix with your combat abilities effectively, and you essentially end up being half a fighter one turn and half a cleric the next turn.

Meanwhile if you pick paladin on the surface it seems like the same thing. Except you have 2 attacks and 3rd level spells by lvl 5. You're smiting by level 2, using your spell slots when you hit the enemy. It's just a completely different playstyle and experience to that of a fighter/cleric.

Fighter/Cleric can still be a very effective mix, but you will be filling a different role to that of the party paladin. Sitting in the 2nd line, spamming healing word when someone goes down, and if an ally needs backup you wade in and hit like a fighter.
 



Minigiant

Legend
Imo multiclassing can never replicate a full class effectively. You end up with half the abilities of two classes, rather than a coherent class. Often things like casting stats don't even function together.

If you multiclass a fighter and cleric 50/50, by level 5 you still only have 1 attack and 2nd level spells if you picked cleric first. Your spells don't mix with your combat abilities effectively, and you essentially end up being half a fighter one turn and half a cleric the next turn.

Meanwhile if you pick paladin on the surface it seems like the same thing. Except you have 2 attacks and 3rd level spells by lvl 5. You're smiting by level 2, using your spell slots when you hit the enemy. It's just a completely different playstyle and experience to that of a fighter/cleric.

Fighter/Cleric can still be a very effective mix, but you will be filling a different role to that of the party paladin. Sitting in the 2nd line, spamming healing word when someone goes down, and if an ally needs backup you wade in and hit like a fighter.
I'm more concerned about 5E not adding more classes than adding them.

There are really only two classes in 5E that are "problematic" for multiclassing (Warlock and Paladin), and they're both base-game classes. Just don't add any more CHA-based classes.

Exactly why I said most of the time multiclassing is a nerf. If your PC isn't level 13+ warrior, a Paladin (Divine Smite), or a Warlock (Hexblade, Pact Magic) multiclassing makes you weaker.

Assuming a new claass would have its features be self contained and have new mechanics, I don't understand how multiclassing becomes an issue or reason for not creating new classes.
 

Not really. I enjoy the process of making things with the tools available - there is plenty there to stimulate my imagination. I think there comes a point when more choice is an imagination killer. "oh yes, there is a class for that, don't bother being creative".
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top