D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Remathilis]

Why dont you want us to have treats?

The problem with treats is complexity and balance, as the more you stack on to a class, the more you end up having to keep track of. If you're the kind of player who can keep all those options open and be aware of your abilities, that's great, but if you're not then it can be overwhelming.

Personally, I would like something between the 5e era "a new toy every level" and AD&D barren wilderness of class abilities. But I don't know what that exactly looks like and the only way it works is if open multiclassing dies.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Personally, I would like something between the 5e era "a new toy every level" and AD&D barren wilderness of class abilities.

I agree this would be the "sweet spot" IMO, too.

Frankly, I like the "every other level" approach where one level you get features, the next level you get number improvement.

the only way it works is if open multiclassing dies.

Dies or is restricted?

Or do you consider any restriction as the end of "open multiclassing"?

 

[Zardnaar]

The back and forth here isn't working because we're mixing and matching TSR editions in attempts to gotcha each other. I'm not interested in that.

My point was that the idea that players would be happy with getting just some hit points and a +1 approvement to attack rolls died circa 2000. I'm not saying that's good or bad thing, but like downward AC or race/class restrictions, the smoke is out of the bottle. The only way you could remove much of feature bloat is to stone dead kill multiclassing so that people have no choice but to be happy with having six abilities that only improve periodically. Your fighter could look forward to 10 levels of lowering Thac0 and d10 HP because he didn't have a choice. Once he can branch into other classes, there is no reason to stay.

Again, my point wasn't to besmirch older D&D (despite the fact you were absolutely ready to defend it's honor at the perceived slight). Merely that you could get away with huge stretches of getting nothing but number go higher because players didn't have a choice. That kind of design no longer works in a game where you can freely multiclass and cherry pick.

Need a fancy title. But as DM B/X is great. As player probably 5.5. 3E and 4E are to far down complexity road.

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem with treats is complexity and balance, as the more you stack on to a class, the more you end up having to keep track of. If you're the kind of player who can keep all those options open and be aware of your abilities, that's great, but if you're not then it can be overwhelming.

Personally, I would like something between the 5e era "a new toy every level" and AD&D barren wilderness of class abilities. But I don't know what that exactly looks like and the only way it works is if open multiclassing dies.

If I was a designer in charge I would at least consider killing off open multiclassing.

I would survey it at least though. Have a survey at end of article laying it pros and cons. As a player it's great. As a designer it's making my job harder.

 

[Remathilis]

Or do you consider any restriction as the end of "open multiclassing"?

Depends on what you mean by restricted, but my point is that 3e/5e style multiclassing (stacking levels of multiple classes and gain the features of said class) does not allow for dead levels in design because any class with large amounts of dead levels will be seen as a signpost to drop the class a go on to another. For example, the 3.0 ranger has four dead levels between level 1 (which has a major drop of features) and level 5 (where spellcasting and second favored enemy goes live). Those four dead levels do give you stuff (BAB, HP, skill points) but you can get most or all that stuff by being a barbarian and fighter AND get the abilities of both of those classes (rage, bonus feats) rather than those dead levels. 5e tries to solve this by forcing you to give up far more stuff than those for dead levels. The cost is that you have more stuff to worry about. But as long as you stack that ranger and fighter (or barbarian, or both), you will always encourage people to jump classes.

You can put all manner of barriers in the way, but I tend to find that as long as there is a viable path, someone is going to take it. No amount of time, training, XP penalty, or other restriction will dissuade it unless it is so character crushing it is a trap build (and then, that's the same as banning it but with extra work). So the only way is to handle multi-classing differently than 3e/5e currently does. You could go with a 4e or pathfinder system where you could use a feat to poach a specific or limited class feature or something to that nature, or even a gestalt/AD&D style advance in two classes system (though that has its own issues).

 

[payn]

The problem with treats is complexity and balance, as the more you stack on to a class, the more you end up having to keep track of. If you're the kind of player who can keep all those options open and be aware of your abilities, that's great, but if you're not then it can be overwhelming.

Personally, I would like something between the 5e era "a new toy every level" and AD&D barren wilderness of class abilities. But I don't know what that exactly looks like and the only way it works is if open multiclassing dies.

I think key is going modular. Are feats optional anymore? Dial up from a few HPs and better offense/defense every level, to a feat every level is what I say.

 

[TiQuinn]

The back and forth here isn't working because we're mixing and matching TSR editions in attempts to gotcha each other. I'm not interested in that.

My point was that the idea that players would be happy with getting just some hit points and a +1 approvement to attack rolls died circa 2000. I'm not saying that's good or bad thing, but like downward AC or race/class restrictions, the smoke is out of the bottle. The only way you could remove much of feature bloat is to stone dead kill multiclassing so that people have no choice but to be happy with having six abilities that only improve periodically. Your fighter could look forward to 10 levels of lowering Thac0 and d10 HP because he didn't have a choice. Once he can branch into other classes, there is no reason to stay.

Again, my point wasn't to besmirch older D&D (despite the fact you were absolutely ready to defend it's honor at the perceived slight). Merely that you could get away with huge stretches of getting nothing but number go higher because players didn't have a choice. That kind of design no longer works in a game where you can freely multiclass and cherry pick.

IMO, this is the space that magic items fill. A fighter is a fighter is a fighter in these editions. THAC0 improved, AC went down but the differentiators were the magic items, which coincidentally was the reason you went into dungeons.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Honestly, all the planning happens at level 1. Admittedly its a bit of planning. Though, once you are off to the races, there is no further planning. Leveling up is basically pick 1 of a list of like 3-5 feats and add 1 to everything.

It’s a pretty meaningless statement to say that if you preplan everything, the mechanical act of updating your character sheet is quick, especially if you exclude the time necessary at level 1 to create your character.

Meanwhile, I gave up creating my level 1 Mastermind Rogue after 1 hour and I still hadn’t chosen equipment.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Depends on what you mean by restricted, but my point is that 3e/5e style multiclassing (stacking levels of multiple classes and gain the features of said class) does not allow for dead levels in design because any class with large amounts of dead levels will be seen as a signpost to drop the class a go on to another. For example, the 3.0 ranger has four dead levels between level 1 (which has a major drop of features) and level 5 (where spellcasting and second favored enemy goes live). Those four dead levels do give you stuff (BAB, HP, skill points) but you can get most or all that stuff by being a barbarian and fighter AND get the abilities of both of those classes (rage, bonus feats) rather than those dead levels. 5e tries to solve this by forcing you to give up far more stuff than those for dead levels. The cost is that you have more stuff to worry about. But as long as you stack that ranger and fighter (or barbarian, or both), you will always encourage people to jump classes.

You can put all manner of barriers in the way, but I tend to find that as long as there is a viable path, someone is going to take it. No amount of time, training, XP penalty, or other restriction will dissuade it unless it is so character crushing it is a trap build (and then, that's the same as banning it but with extra work). So the only way is to handle multi-classing differently than 3e/5e currently does. You could go with a 4e or pathfinder system where you could use a feat to poach a specific or limited class feature or something to that nature, or even a gestalt/AD&D style advance in two classes system (though that has its own issues).

I would say the easiest is to have the structure I just suggested:

Level 1: Class features, background and race, base numbers (HD, proficiency, etc.)
Level 2: Subclass feature (new class feature).
Level 3: extra HD, improve attack, saves, other numbers
Level 4: ASI/feat
Level 5: as level 3
Level 6: class or subclass feature
Level 7: as level 3
Level 8: ASI/feat
etc.

Class/subclass features at 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.
ASI/feats at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 (or 19 if you want the 5E-thing)
Improved numbers at 1 (base), 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 (and spellcasting levels)

(NOTE: how you want to spread out the numbers depends on the scale of the game systems. Off-hand I would suggest HD at every level, attack and saves together, and then skills and maybe additional feature uses together.

The compliation of "improved numbers" on the odd levels is strong incentive to reach those levels. On the even levels you gain a feature of some sort (or feat/ASI).

Like current multiclassing in 5E you only get a subset of the features available at level 1 (no base numbers). And you could get a 2nd level of another class to pick up the subclass, but now you'll miss number improvements until another level.

 

[CreamCloud0]

remove all multiclassing, after the first few levels of new toys start alternating between [numerical increases(extra bonuses to HP, saves, skills)/more of things they already have(uses of channel divinity or extra fighting styles)] and [new class/subclass abilities] every other level, and a feat say, every third level, if that was unclear, here's a table.

Level	gain	gain
1	class ability, background, species.	feat
2	class ability
3	subclass ability
4	numerical increase/more of the same	feat, ASI
5	class ability
6	numerical increase/more of the same
7	subclass ability	feat
8	numerical increase/more of the same	ASI
9	class ability
10	numerical increase/more of the same	feat