As long as i get to be the frog
Hopefully a simple question.
Simple enoughHopefully a simple question.
5e would need tiered feats and feat trees. That's a dangerous route few companies know how to drive.I would rather see less classes and more feats and more ASI "slots" in a single class.
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.