• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but 40k exp is a 5th level fighter. Splitting that at 2k each, gets you a 5th level fighter and a 4th level magic user.

As for level limits, citation needed. But yeah, throw out level limits and multiclasses are broken. Duh. Throw out called strikes in baseball and hitters are broken.

I guess 2E multiclassing was broken then, where level limits were lv12 and up and optional. I never thought they were broken, even in 2E. I consider AD&D multiclassing to be a good system, unlike 3E's which I consider a travesty.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JRRNeiklot

First Post
I guess 2E multiclassing was broken then, where level limits were lv12 and up and optional. I never thought they were broken, even in 2E. I consider AD&D multiclassing to be a good system, unlike 3E's which I consider a travesty.

I agree with most of this. But I do think 2e multiclassing is broken due to the relaxed level limits. 12 is not a limit in 90% of games. And I don't remember limits being optional. Ifirc, they were the default with an option for not using them.
 


billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Aside from the Player's Option series (mechanical shenanigans), I thought it rocked in lore/campaign settings (the Golden Age).

But I still prefer the 1st Ed PHB (something about that Ranger and Monk).

I agree and that 1e Ranger was awesome. The monk, however, was hard to keep alive. He needed work - fortunately the 1e Oriental Adventures provided it and monks rocked.
 

rounser

First Post
Seriously? You are literally out because other people might get something they enjoy? You are out because they split elves into high and wood elves, and make the High Elves (Eladrin) actually fey? You are out because people can play a humanoid dragon? And you are out because people don't have to be magic to get leadership abilities?
[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], how many examples of people claiming they are dumping D&D Next do you want before you accept that your claim that it was 4e fans who are utterly unwilling to compromise is mostly projection.
I'm out because with core races and classes, as 4E FR proves, the designers feel obliged to retcon and kludge in entire empires of dragon mans, pretend eladrin were always there, pretend "warlords" were always a feature of FR's adventuring companies etc. Retcons due to mistakes made with the core implied setting are ugly, and slaps a "not compatible with D&D worlds" sticker on the whole edition for me.

Bad core material turns up everywhere and gets into everything - ugly dragonborn artwork all through the books, NPC warlords in adventures, PCs designed with rules you don't use etc.

It's not about wanting you to not have fun, it's just that my willingness to "fix" a game calling itself D&D that can't even get the D&D core implied setting right just drops right down to nil. In other words, I don't believe in WOTC's D&D worlds anymore so long as they continue to make this mistake. These additions are not a core part of FR or Greyhawk, nor any homebrew I'd be interested in running, so why bother with a game that insists on imposing it's special needs on established settings through retcons and kludges, and needs extensive "weeding" before being suitable for homebrew play?

I'm not denying you your anthropomorphic dragons. I'm just saying that they belong in a supplement. 4E FR proves what happens when they insist otherwise, and guess what, they're insisting on a "special needs" edition of D&D all over again. Not hanging around for the retcons and weeding. No mechanics will help if I disbelieve in their worlds.
 
Last edited:

You're also below the single class mage. I don't see a problem. You get to be either a weak mage or a weak fighter compared to single classes. You get to choose every round, but you can't be both. You either cast flaming sphere instead of fireball, or wade into combat and hit less often and die quicker.

Reality check.

The difference in to hit for one level of fighter is +1. And unless you are at level 5 (I think - Weapon Mastery) or level 7 you gain no other offence. You really aren't much weaker than a straight fighter at dishing it out. That said, you lose somewhere around a third of your hit points. (You gain an average of 4 rather than 5.5hp per level, and are 5.5 behind). Fighter/wizard simply isn't a tank build. If you want to tank, you want fighter/cleric. Cure X wounds more than makes up for whatever you would lose by gaining 5 rather than 5.5 hit points/level once you're past level 1.

But the weakened wizard idea because they get to chose is simply daft. At low levels a wizard gets to be a wizard, let's see... Three times per day (L3) - and that includes non-combat spells? A fighter wizard with the same XP gets to be a wizard only one time fewer per day, is a fair bit tougher, and are a weapon specialist fighter when not wizarding. This argument would work if the wizard wasn't balanced to moments of awesome and a great vast pool of meh as against the fighter's generally good, as against the multiclass slightly fewer moments of awesome but a generally much higher baseline.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
You're also below the single class mage. I don't see a problem. You get to be either a weak mage or a weak fighter compared to single classes. You get to choose every round, but you can't be both. You either cast flaming sphere instead of fireball, or wade into combat and hit less often and die quicker. Multiclasses are for versatility, not power. Not to mention you'd have to be extremely lucky or be weaker all the way around due to MAD. Want that 15 in dex? Guess you'll have to run with an 11 int. Good luck even learning spells.

Neonchameleon and I may clash on a lot of topics, but for levels under the demi-human cap at least, I agree that multiclassing was pretty potent. Versatility is a form of power in the sense that you are more likely to have something fairly potent to do in a variety of situations. I think you're right in the sense that everything is being filtered through a single character's action economy so it's not as good as having two PCs, but it's certainly better than having one single-class PC.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
text of D&D, the Vancian mechanic is defining. In another rpg, it might not be, but D&D magic generally has a per-day component. Nonmagical things generally do not have daily limitations in D&D
Meh. In classic D&D, /lots/ of things had x/day (or week or month or whatever) limits, not just magical things. Almost anything that had a limit, really. Fighters didn't really get any of those things, because they didn't really get /anything/, sure, but it was a common abstraction for 'this doesn't get used all the time.'

Vancian magic is legitimate, but the key to Vancian isn't so much the per-day aspect as the memorization aspect, which even 4e retained for the wizard (and only the wizard).

(no, hit points and healing are not a daily mechanic)
In what way is a resource that can be renewed on a daily basis not a daily mechanic? Each healing surge can be used once each day.

, which is why the exceptions (i.e. Bo9S, the PHBII knight, or all of 4e) are referred to as spells, again specifically in a D&D context.
Well, it's an understandable shorthand, but a loaded one, since calling a non-magical ability (whether 3.x Barbarian Rage, which was explicitly an extraordinary ability, not a supernatural one, or 4e exploits, which were explicitly /not/ supernatural abilities, even though they could be super-human at higher levels) a 'spell' implies a clear contradiction. One that is being added by the choice of the speaker to use the word 'spell,' not by the system.


It's also worth noting that in the specific case in point, the mechanic doesn't represent any kind of fatigue
It doesn't represent anything specific. Only the wizard, in 4e, has an explanation implied for some of his powers being daily. For everyone else, it's left open.

Lastly, consider why the power system was conceived in the first place: to try to balance characters with spells against characters without spells. The underlying intent was to make martial exploits and spells balanced, and the same supernatural-sounding terminology (powers) is used to describe both.
'Powers' is a general game term, but each source had it's own specific term, as well, that emphasized that they were not all supernatural. 'Power' is not strongly super-natural. Electricity is commonly called 'power,' a physically strong person is called 'powerful,' someone with a good memory is said to have 'remarkable powers of recall,' and so forth.

Maybe having played Hero for a long time de-sensitized me to any connotation of 'powers,' too, because in Hero, you can use a 'power,' like an EB or KA to design anything from a supernatural lightning bolt to a martial arts technique to an ordinary firearm or even just a club.

So this equivalency is not something that some ENWorlders made up out of nowhere; it really derives naturally from what the 4e designers wrote.
The common mechanic of powers is real, enough, but it implies nothing about the nature of powers - powers can be granted by martial skill, by divine dispensation, by arcane magic, by racial talent, by magic items, by boons granted by greater powers, and so forth. Even a simple 'Melee Basic Attack' is a power.

he conclusion that power implies that exploits are supernatural is, indeed, something that exists only in the minds of those groping about for something about 4e to hate. The 4e, PH, itself, explicitly states that exploits are not supernatural.
 

JRRNeiklot

First Post
Reality check.
l 1.

But the weakened wizard idea because they get to chose is simply daft. At low levels a wizard gets to be a wizard, let's see... Three times per day (L3) - and that includes non-combat spells? A fighter wizard with the same XP gets to be a wizard only one time fewer per day, is a fair bit tougher, and are a weapon specialist fighter when not wizarding. This argument would work if the wizard wasn't balanced to moments of awesome and a great vast pool of meh as against the fighter's generally good, as against the multiclass slightly fewer moments of awesome but a generally much higher baseline.

Again, you are not taking into consideration MAD. Unless you're really lucky, your fighter/mu will either have a crappy strength or a crappy int. A crappy int means a horrible chance to learn spells. A crappy strength means you're a crappy fighter. And if you are lucky enough to roll, say, two 17s, and put one in strength and one in int, well, as a single class character, you could have had either +3 to ac or +3 hp per level. Either one is huge. So yeah, I think multiclassing in 1e is balanced. It has a lot of perks, but a lot of drawbacks as well. If you're running around with all 18s in your stats, then yeah, multiclassing may be overpowered, but then, that's not the problem, is it?

I'm playing a cleric/mu in a 1e game and with my 11 int, learning spells is a chore. I almost never get the spell I want - or even my 2nd or 3rd choice at level up.
 

Again, you are not taking into consideration MAD. Unless you're really lucky, your fighter/mu will either have a crappy strength or a crappy int. A crappy int means a horrible chance to learn spells. A crappy strength means you're a crappy fighter. And if you are lucky enough to roll, say, two 17s, and put one in strength and one in int, well, as a single class character, you could have had either +3 to ac or +3 hp per level. Either one is huge. So yeah, I think multiclassing in 1e is balanced. It has a lot of perks, but a lot of drawbacks as well. If you're running around with all 18s in your stats, then yeah, multiclassing may be overpowered, but then, that's not the problem, is it?

I'm playing a cleric/mu in a 1e game and with my 11 int, learning spells is a chore. I almost never get the spell I want - or even my 2nd or 3rd choice at level up.

Strength was a trap in AD&D. Unless it was higher than 18(51) it really didnt do a whole lot. A committed power gamer, when I was given an array of 17/15/x/x/x/x, I built a Fighter with 11 strength and never looked back(17 goes straight into Dex, the god stat, and the 15 went into charisma of all things as I was the party face in every AD&D campaign in which I wasn't the DM). Fighter/Mage I'd go Dex first, then Int. If after that I still had a 15+, Con.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top