Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 6169412" data-attributes="member: 1457">Wow, you win the award for brevity. Thanks for writing that; it's a much more concise expression of my view, as well. I like your style, the Jester. Totally disagree with you though. While stated design goals are to honor previous editions, 5e is a "completely new game." The simple test of this is that when it comes out, you will buy it--because you do not yet own it. Because it's completely new.I see your point in your phrase about not allowing 3e players to recreate their PCs. A stated design goal for 5e is for whatever edition you love the most, you can feel at home in the new edition. Another goal is optional modules. So sure, include an optional rule for 3e-style multiclassing for players of 5e who want a multiclass experience that's very close to 3e. My suggestion regards core/default rules; to identify the issue (that some players want to flavor their characters with elements from other classes), and to offer a less intrusive core/default solution to that issue (beef up backgrounds and feats).  I have no more evidence than you have. Anecdotal evidence from conversations with industry folk (primarily designers and marketers); observations, intuition. There's no independent 3rd party certified research source, and I suspect the sort of person who spends time online on message boards and responds to surveys would impose a terrible selection bias anyway. So if you think there are more power gamers than roleplayers, that's fine--we can reasonably disagree.And of course most players are a mix. However, that mix is almost certainly not 50/50; people will lean one way or another. But I don't want to spend time on this tangent; I included those terms as a reference to Robin's widely-recognized player styles as a useful shorthand for my actual point, which is player motivation. My suggestion is for 5Es designers to think long and hard about why a person would want to multiclass, and to build a default/core solution that best meets that want. As opposed to a solution that best fits mechanics or previous editions. In other words, have the customer drive the game instead of having the game drive the customer.A quick sidebar on what I mean by that. 3e-style multiclassing is an example of game driving the customer because it simply takes two distinct game frameworks--class levels and character levels--and mashes them together: "when you advance a character level, add a new class level." This is a simple solution, but it's not necessarily the best solution. As we saw with 3E, it runs into problems because many classes are front-loaded with powers and abilities. There's a good reason why those problems exist: a 1st level character should be effective and enjoyable right from the start. So to "solve" the self-imposed problem of 3E-style multiclassing, the game has to twist over itself and make that 1st level less than complete. And the overall game is weakened by attempting to address self-inflicted issues. And there's no reason for it. Few players multiclass (again, no hard evidence, just experience and what folks in RPGA, design, and marketing tell me). It's silly to contort the game with 3e's simple and inelegant solution.So again: I suggest to focus on motivation, instead. Explore if a dash of flavor and minor (but relevant) abilities will suffice. Players enjoy Backgrounds (again: anecdotes and experience), so let's see if we can lean on this new core/default mechanic. Yes, I'm essentially advocating for multiclassing to be optional. And that option being accomplished via (also optional) feats. I don't want to see it either. But come on: you've got a join date of 2002 and 20,000 posts. You're an experienced game consumer. Surely you recognize that WotC will be required to produce supplemental rulebooks. Those are coming. They're an integral part of the business model.So since we're going to get them, I'd rather they feature classic hybrid classes like ftr/wiz and wiz/clr, instead of weirdo fringe classes. That said, I acknowledge that this is a matter of taste. I have said why it's bad. I'll say it again: what's bad about fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is that it's essentially a custom class, and D&D is fundamentally a class-based game. When 5e was introduced they talked a lot about identifying what's D&D, and what's not D&D. fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is "not D&D." It's bad because due to necessary front-loading of 1st level abilities, it results in a character with abilities outside the game design's base assumptions. Which is bad because such characters combine abilities thoughtlessly, rather than thoughtfully--instead of an experienced designer carefully constructing a ftr/wiz archetype that fits within the game's ecosystem, you get a gross mash of abilities. Which is bad because adventure designers will be caught between designing for single-class characters (which dipped classes will run riot over), or for multiclassed characters (which single-classed characters will be slaughtered by). You can attempt to solve the problem by spreading core abilities over multiple levels, but then you're worsening the default single-class experience for the majority of players in an attempt to cure a problem introduced by a minority of tinker players, and you have to take such "dip" considerations into account for each and every new class you introduce for the entire lifetime of the product. Which is bad because it imposing unneeded design constraints.  I'm not saying tinkering is bad. I'm a tinkerer. I enjoy optimizing. But address that customer desire separately, through other mechanics within single classes. Or through a non-core, limited and truly optional module for 3e-style multiclassing.Easy, cowboy. You're veering into hyperbole here, and injecting emotion into a design discussion.  Whoa, take it easy. I said ignore powergamers when designing for a solution to the customer want of multiclassing. D&D has plenty of other systems and mechanics to address the needs of powergamers, and as a powergamer I heartily hope that the designers fully explore those systems. And yes, plenty of people liked 3E multiclassing. 5e is not 3e. It's an opportunity to do something different, and address the customer desire motivating multiclassing in a new way.Yes, that's totally what I'm saying. I think Wizards of the Coast should launch a branding campaign "D&D Next: screw you!"I'm liking your style less now. Come on. You're better than that.And yes, inclusion. I'm all about inclusion. Why not include 3e-style multiclassing, perhaps as a web supplement or other optional rule module? Makes sense. But the core product? I'd prefer something more considered, something that doesn't impose unnecessary design constraints on every other class for the lifetime of the edition.I haven't forgotten about you! Your example is totally not served by what I advocated. Very good point. I think such a major change is very rare--so rare that it shouldn't impose changes on the core system. That said, such an occurrence could be served via a respec, via the optional 3e-style multiclassing module mentioned above, or via a custom solution worked out between DM and player.</blockquote>

Verification