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

[DND_Reborn]

If D&D has unlimited settings, it has unlimited ideas for classes and subclasses.

What!? Ug... more settings... more ideas now, too?

Madness, I tell you, utter and complete MADNESS!!!

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

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).

 

[Leatherhead]

No.

Mine stems from a phenomenon I like to call "Fighter Erosion." Which is the tendency for any cool Warrior Thing to be splintered off away from the Fighter and turned into it's own class to the detriment of both.

 

[Horwath]

I would rather see less classes and more feats and more ASI "slots" in a single class.

 

[Minigiant]

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]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

 

[Mind of tempest]

my concerns about adding new classes have nothing to do with multiclassing.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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".