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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silam" data-source="post: 9889402" data-attributes="member: 7055898">MC in 5e is very oddly designed. A few examples:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Feats are gotten from class levels, not character levels, meaning that a MC build which doesn’t stick to multiples of 4 for each class "loses out" on feats compare to a pure class build. On the other hand, a MC build which does stick to multiples of 4 can get two Epic Boons by level 20, which a pure class build cannot.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-is-the-multi-classing-spell-slot-math-so-weird.717780/" target="_blank">MC spell slot math has weird rounding artifacts.</a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">All of the power spike stuff discussed above.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Cantrips and Proficiency Bonus are based on character levels, which is fine in isolation, but clashes with the rest of the mechanics. For example, consider that a Warlock 1 / Fighter 16 can throw 4 times as many Eldritch Blasts as a Warlock 4, even though they have 1/4 of the Warlock levels, essentially displaying a 16x delta between actual power and expected power. Granted, I am comparing a level 17 character to a level 4, but that is just 4.25x the experience, not 16x…</li> </ol>So anyway, it’s clear that MC in 5e is at best an afterthought and at worst a minefield.That said, I struggle to understand why there is such a push in favor of the subclass design, which incentivizes multiclassing.If feats were more interesting, it may be possible to have more builds which are single class + the right feats rather than multiclass, or at least MC with fewer number of classes in them. Why is it so frowned upon to have options for "lightweight multiclassing via feats"?Having more interesting feat options could also lead to more players choosing them over ASIs, and accepting that they won’t have any stat at 20 by 20th level.With current 5e rules, it’s almost guaranteed that any moderately optimized character has 20 in at least one stat, and maybe even two, by 20th level. Why is such sameness and homogeneity considered ideal? In the name of simplicity? Maybe it’s too complex if builds aren’t all mostly the same? But I thought the big fear of having more feat options was that it inevitably led to sameness <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤔" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" title="Thinking face    :thinking:" data-shortname=":thinking:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> … well, if sameness is already what we have anyway, then why does it matter?</blockquote>

Verification