D&D General Multiclassing Shouldn't be Treated as the Default

Martials not having any choices after level 3 is completely false. Every round you have a decision to make! Do you attack the goblins or attempts to hide? Or do you try to parlay? etc etc. It's only in the character building phase where this lack of choice exists, not in play. (and even this is not completely true anyway - feats/ASI for example
Nah

5e noncaster Martials are too focused into single modes of operations that they don't have the mechanical power to make choices unless the DM or situation weighs another action heavily.

It's either Attack Attack Attavk or Skill Attack Skill Attack unless someone is dying or the DM telegraphs a new option.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Nah

5e noncaster Martials are too focused into single modes of operations that they don't have the mechanical power to make choices unless the DM or situation weighs another action heavily.

It's either Attack Attack Attavk or Skill Attack Skill Attack unless someone is dying or the DM telegraphs a new option.
Well, it is sort of what they do... They fight with weapons or use skills, depending on the situation. What more do you want?

It is like complaining a spellcaster only cast spells.
 

Well, it is sort of what they do... They fight with weapons or use skills, depending on the situation. What more do you want?

It is like complaining a spellcaster only cast spells.
...more options in how they can attack and affect the battlefield? maneuvres, weapon masteries, sneak attack, fighting styles, even with these there's really only a handful of different ways they can actually influence things.

your comparison fails entirely because a spellcaster 'only being able to cast spells' is like someone saying they 'only have access to the entire library of congress' when the guy next to them complains they can only ever have the selection of a half-dozen books they they can fit in their backpack.
 

Nah

5e noncaster Martials are too focused into single modes of operations that they don't have the mechanical power to make choices unless the DM or situation weighs another action heavily.

It's either Attack Attack Attavk or Skill Attack Skill Attack unless someone is dying or the DM telegraphs a new option.
To be fair there’s not alot of categories of actions even casters can do in combat.

You can control, heal, prevent damage, deal damage, buff, debuff, mobility. Maybe 1 or 2 things I forgot.

Every combat spell is just some situational variant of these things.
 

Can you provide any reasonable source that says that rules bloat is a good thing?

Classes are not bloat in the same way as, say, an entirely new casting system would be. 5e is already a rather lean engine; it can suffer additional classes.

That having more class choices reduces the barrier to entry for new players?

It's almost like a sensible person would have a small cadre of classic classes in core, then add more in what could be called "supplements." I vaguely recall that we had an entire edition of D&D where that was, in fact, the norm.

I especially hate class proliferation when you get 17 ways to build the same archetype, just with different mechanics. "Oh, but this one is a divine warrior that bases using a two handed weapon off of WISDOM."

Incompetently-handled class proliferation is a problem, I agree. It's never hard to do something poorly. But that is not an argument against the thing itself.
 

Well, it is sort of what they do... They fight with weapons or use skills, depending on the situation. What more do you want?

It is like complaining a spellcaster only cast spells.

Without giving martials some greater ability and growth, you end up with "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards", which is not an end-state that I'd want. Been there, done that.
 


...more options in how they can attack and affect the battlefield? maneuvres, weapon masteries, sneak attack, fighting styles, even with these there's really only a handful of different ways they can actually influence things.

your comparison fails entirely because a spellcaster 'only being able to cast spells' is like someone saying they 'only have access to the entire library of congress' when the guy next to them complains they can only ever have the selection of a half-dozen books they they can fit in their backpack.
You're still just attacking--even if in a different way. As you say youself, "even with these there's really only a handful of different ways..."

I disagree. The comparison is about the role in the game. Fighters fighter. Spellcasters cast spells. Outside of combat fighters use skills, as where casters can use skills or continue to cast spells (whichever is more beneficial to the situation... and they don't mind not having them when combat resumes maybe...).

Without giving martials some greater ability and growth, you end up with "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards", which is not an end-state that I'd want. Been there, done that.
The whole LFQW thing was never anything I experienced or felt happened. I am still amused when people bring it up, frankly. Never in any version of D&D did I feel like the Fighters I played were substandard compared to the Wizards I played myself (or others played).

It's a false choice when you have a +2 vs a DC 15 check or a +8 vs an AC 17.
Huh??? I have no clue what you are even talking about...
 

A relatively minor complaint I have about 5th edition is having to wait until third level to get my subslcass. In a few of the D&D campaigns I've run, players have wanted to skip to level three because "that's when it gets fun." One of the reasons we wait until third level to get our subclass is to avoid encouraging players to multiclass by dipping their toes into various classes to get those abilities at level one.

But multiclassing is an optional rule. Why build character generation and progression around an optional rule? Let's just have our subclass at first level and if that makes multiclassing too powerful then don't allow that as an option.
The actual problem here is not multiclassing, though that is a symptom of it.

It is the idea that 1st level (and somewhat 2nd) must be simultaneously:

1. The level at which brand-new players begin the game, and thus have a gentler introduction to mechanics
2. The "hardcore survival" level, where HP are scarce and monster damage is very high
3. A solid but incomplete foundation of what is to come

Being pulled in three different directions causes serious design consequences, one of them being what you speak of here. This is why robust "novice level" rules would be a significantly better approach. They would, I admit, require the design effort to make them in the first place, so that is a non-negligible cost. But once you have done that, all of the downstream problems evaporate. The group served by point 2 now has a near-endless playground, especially if the rules incorporate ideas like 13th Age's "incremental advance" rules, allowing DMs to spool out levelling almost indefinitely. The brand-new players served by point 1 can have tailored structures fit for their needs, given a bigger cushion of HP than currently exists, while still having slimmed-down mechanics so they aren't overwhelmed by choices instantly. And point 3 ceases to be necessary, because now level 1 can be a full and complete foundation.

Everyone wins, except the designers who have to put in the work to make more rules. Admittedly, I'm not a designer here, so I'm asking someone other than me to do work for my benefit....but as a (potential) paying customer, I see that as entirely appropriate.

This is exactly the sort of problem you get when you design based purely on bellyfeel and design-by-committee (or, in this case, design-by-poorly-structured-survey), rather than having a cohesive design goal. I had highlighted this (and given my feedback about it) all the way back in D&D Next; the problem's always been there in 5e.

i dislike multiclassing because it's a hideously clunky implementation and causes class design to need to be far too careful about potentially unexpected combinations, though i'm more than fine with subclasses all being at 3rd,

but if it was removed i would still desire for there to be a better system to combine archetypes, perhaps if subclasses were built to be more interchangeable and feats contained bigger design space to pick up individual pieces from other classes.

so i could build an Oath of Vengance Rogue and pick up Rage as a feat, or a Circle of the Land Sorcerer with a Pact of the Chain familiar.
This is a game design nightmare and essentially guaranteed to result in at least one of two major problems. On the one hand, outright useless or massively OP subclasses because you stapled Circle of the Moon (all about shapeshift) to Monk (a class that can't shapeshift) or Oath of Vengeance (powerhouse Paladin spells) onto Warlock (auto-scaling spell slots) or the like. Features never tested together now intersect, with combinatoric explosion ensuring it isn't remotely feasible for the designers to test everything, and becomes even less so with every published book. The char-op potential skyrockets, generally producing even more incentive to scour the rules and franken-build the best possible result.

On the other hand, perhaps as an effort to avoid the above...mass blandification. Circle of the Moon can't do anything particularly dramatic to Wild Shape, because anyone can take it and only Druids have that feature. Or, you make it so everyone can have every class feature if they invest into it, thus completely eliminating the concept of class fantasy and turning D&D into a full (albeit patchy/chunky) point-buy game. Pretty sure that would go over like a lead balloon, so I think it very unlikely. Either way, you "solve" the problem above by making it so it really doesn't matter very much what class you've picked, which flies in the face of data I've seen indicating that players mostly think of their characters class-first rather than species-first; species is what you visualize, but class is what you do, and the doing is extraordinarily important.

I guess there is a third approach, but it would mean not actually doing the thing you've described here. Instead, you give every subclass restrictions that must be met, so Circle of the Moon can only be taken by Druids. This makes things massively more complicated on the players' end without really changing any of the balance issues, unless the restrictions are coupled with major testing...which I don't think they will be.
 

Remove ads

Top