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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 7114003" data-attributes="member: 1560">Define "underperforming". And while you are at it, if you could please explain its practical impact to play, if any.Or, there is no spoon. This is the kind of claims made by folks who go around warning of "traps" hidden in 5e. You know what I mean, terrible choices you can make that ruin your character because they make you suck. Just another spoon, IYAM.Again, you seem to be using a very specific, and narrow, definition of "lagging behind". Because, to me at least, its an exchange. You are trading increased effectiveness with a narrow skillset for flexibility. You clearly look down on that transaction. That doesn't make it objectively weaker. Just seeking something different than what you value.No. It doesn't. Not really. Look, I get what you are thinking is a thing. The obvious bump provided by the ASI/feat. But lets say a 3rd level BM fighter has two choices: Take a 4th level in fighter for that ASI/feat. Or he can take a level in rogue. You contend that it "really hurts" not to take the ASI. For what? Are you one of those folks who insist you need to raise your stat to 20 before considering anything else? Cuz that's been shown to be untrue, thanks to bounded accuracy. Are you saying the opportunity to take a feat is a "must"? Well, the way I see it, the fighter who takes that rogue level effectively took a "feat" that gave him expertise in two skills, 1d6 sneak attack, and a secret language. Sounds like a pretty decent feat comparable to any other on the feat list. Is it postponing his 5th level fighter level for the extra attack? Of course. And that *is* a thing, I give you that. But its a conscious decision to delay that future increase in combat effectiveness for flexibility. You discount that, I get it. But many don't. And evidently neither do the devs. And, experience playing 5e has shown me, neither does practical play at the table.I for one love that 5e multiclassing is actually interesting and full of hard choices. That's what informs me that is is a good subsystem. Every time you consider doing so, you know you are giving up something to get something else. Without that exchange, it would be, as you point out, a "path of power" akin to those other editions/systems. Which it clearly isn't. And since MC characters continue to contribute to play just fine every day across thousands of tables, you contention that it is "weak" is lacking practical evidence.And what are you claiming will happen if they don't take your advice? Is the character leading the party to a TPK because they missed the boat on the power bump? Is that your contention? Because I've played in plenty of games where a PC's MC path postponed those "power bumps" for multiple levels. Game played fine. More unprovable personal opinion disguised as objective fact. Wow, but is that untrue.I already covered this above. The things you get for one are comparable to, sometimes greater than, what you can get from a single ASI/feat.I will defend that Rogue 3/Fighter 2 is "withing the curve of classes". As long as, what you are trying for consists of things you get for taking those levels. I get that your infatuation with narrow power curves, within tightly defined categories, are paramount to you. But I don't think you are writing a book on what constitutes playing 5e as intended*.(*something not only self-evident by the rules as they are written to work as they do, but that they can be played that way and the game continues to achieve its stated goal.)</blockquote>

Verification