Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8993142" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, it really doesn't. No one was discussing the One DnD druid and asking how changing wildshape would cause problems with multi-classing. No one was talking about the Paladin and how their smite changes would cause problems with multi-classing. No one discusses the wizard in the context of multi-classing.So when discussing Fighters, Barbarians and Monks, we don't need to discuss how they might cause problems with mutli-classing and hold off on improving those classes until after we've fixed multiclassing.You can't prevent exploits, because exploits are the point of the rules of the game. Unless you think that combining feats and class features is something that needs to be prevented. This isn't a big deal, it has never been a very big deal, and it isn't worth leaving warriors to languish just to make yourself feel better that someone isn't playing the game wrong.Let us consider the artificer. Can the artificer tank? YesCan the Artificer deal good weapon damage? YesCan the artificer heal? YesCan the artifcer stealth, explore, and deal with traps? YesCan the artificer use spells to control the battlefield? YesCant he artificer use spells for utility? YesSo, here we have a jack of all trades. All ready in the game. So what's the point of a group game with a group of players, if the artificer can already do everything? Whatever answer you come up with, it probably applies to being able to multi-class a rogue and ranger, or a fighter and a druid.The thing is though, I don't like your idea being purely damage-or, because a pure damage-or is going to only be situationally useful. Meanwhile damage-plus will ALWAYS be useful. I talked about this before, but Prone isn't always useful. I play a barbarian in a game right now whose teammates are all ranged characters. Knocking an enemy prone is the single worse thing I could do to help my allies. "Well then don't take that ability" is all well and good to say as a response, but we all know having an ability that is situationally useful makes it less powerful than an ability that is ALWAYS useful.And yet, the vast majority of people have no problem with the paladin design, and actually one of the bigger complaints about paladins is they don't use their spellcasting enough.So, your solution to the problem shown of caster design being such that an all-caster party is viable... is to nerf them. Even though none of those classes are largely seen as being OP.Sounds like someone has never heard of invisibility, find familiar, or dozens of other spells that can handle stealth and scouting.So, add a spellcaster and an all warrior, non-caster party becomes viable. Why, that's brilliant! Who would have thought that the best way to make a party full of non-casters viable is just to add a caster to their line-up.And yet "social mechanics" have been a thing for 23 years or more. Probably more. And people generally like them. So, maybe, just maybe, instead of nerfing other classes to no longer be solid mid-tier choices for the majority of roles... we could buff pure martial characters to be solid mid-tier choices for more roles? Again, you are fighting so hard to nerf instead of buff, because you think that you are fighting power creep, but you aren't. What you are fighting is to keep pure martial characters out in the cold, because as I already demonstrated, they aren't actually needed in a solidly built party. But they are popular, people like the fantasy of them, so why not let them be slightly better at things they currently cannot meaningfully contribute to? Even if we want to continue having Warriors be useless in social situations and exploration situations, and only be good at combat, we can STILL improve that so that they are actually the best combat class by giving them solid battlefield control abilities. Because right now, they can't, battlefield control is essentially solely the realm of casters, except for a single feat combo (sentinel+PAM)</blockquote>

Verification