log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Really concerned about class design

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
So one last try. What's wrong with multi classing in 5E? Without resorting to analogies of "fish swim in water so therefore mint chocolate ice cream gives you cancer."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aebir-Toril

Creator of the Elfgrinder Mech
So one last try. What's wrong with multi classing in 5E? Without resorting to analogies of "fish swim in water so therefore mint chocolate ice cream gives you cancer."
I personally don't have a problem with multiclassing, I was just trying to support a certain facet of the point made by others, that your argument was weak in this case.

So, because I actually like multiclassing, I can't tell you. :)

I guess we agree on something for once.
 

Eric V

Adventurer
Losing access to higher-level abilities and higher-level spells doesn't seem balanced by access to lower level abilities.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I personally don't have a problem with multiclassing, I was just trying to support a certain facet of the point made by others, that your argument was weak in this case.

So, because I actually like multiclassing, I can't tell you. :)

I guess we agree on something for once.
I agree with a wide variety of people occasionally. :)

As far as multi classing being a trap option I've just never heard the complaint from a real person so I was curious.
 

I see why the designers focused this way. In a practical sense, it is easier to make a sub-class than to make a class with two or more sub-class options. That said IMHO quality of play is not served by forcing every concept to be done this way. I could much more easily see the Artificer being a sub-class of Wizard for example that wrap my brain around Psion doing that. In this example it binds the Psion to class mechanics that weren't made for the concept. Sure many Wizard spells could be given a Psion flavor, Telekinesis, Detect Thoughts, but others like the summoning spells are less Psion in flavor to my own personal taste. The players complaining that MC is a trap, to me are separate question, but MC was never meant to mechanically be 'better' necessarily but to be fun. i.e. giving a character an unusual combo of abilities, like a warlock that can call a steed or a fighter that can do flurry of blows and go without armor.
 

So one last try. What's wrong with multi classing in 5E?
Short answer (brace yourself, you'll like this one): Nothing.

Long answer: Multi-classing a level at a time, as if each class/level were a module you could just plug into your character is a brilliant, simple, even elegant mechanic. With just 12, minor, problems - the classes. They just aren't designed to work with it. They're kludged, in some cases, and in others left problematic. Combining full-caster classes, for instance, is functional* in 5e, while it wasn't in 3e. Conversely, in 3e combining full-BAB classes was perfectly functional, while in 5e, combining classes with the corresponding Extra Attack is not.












* sub-optimal, perhaps, but, that's not on MCing, nor on the classes, but on up-casting as a mechanic. So there's that, too.
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Legend
Why are we discussing trap multiclassing?

Obviously it can be considered a trap for newbies since it enables a lot of suboptimal builds.

But it is not a trap altogether. Most martial classes multiclass well. In particular, taking a couple of Fighter levels gains you more than the mid- to high-level abilities you give up in your original class. And I don't have to bring up the Sorlock, do I?

Since a competent minmaxer does not do multiclassing when it doesn't benefit her character, multiclassing isn't a trap to her.

Really, there's no reason to keep arguing whether it's a trap or not.

It can be. It isn't always. Let's move on.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Losing access to higher-level abilities and higher-level spells doesn't seem balanced by access to lower level abilities.
Thanks for the response (and have some xp). I disagree though. Multi classing is a trade-off of what you want when. For it to be a trap, there would have to be some hidden cost that I just don't see. When I did my chamption fighter/rogue I knew full well that my back stab would suffer a bit. But I felt compensated by getting more critical hit, having two weapon fighting and the dual weapon feat all while in heavy (mithral) armor.

Then again it probably wasn't an optimal build. I had the minimum dex required to multi class and focused on strength because it fit my character. But I knew that going in so it wasn't a trap, just a decision.
 

Warpiglet

Adventurer
Thanks for the response (and have some xp). I disagree though. Multi classing is a trade-off of what you want when. For it to be a trap, there would have to be some hidden cost that I just don't see. When I did my chamption fighter/rogue I knew full well that my back stab would suffer a bit. But I felt compensated by getting more critical hit, having two weapon fighting and the dual weapon feat all while in heavy (mithral) armor.

Then again it probably wasn't an optimal build. I had the minimum dex required to multi class and focused on strength because it fit my character. But I knew that going in so it wasn't a trap, just a decision.
It wasn't optimal for what?

I have come to see the goal of the game is to foster the imagery and story I want to experience.

I used to say survival was the goal. Advancement. But some people play one shots or only for a few levels. Some play altruistic characters that would lay their life down for others (and so in game!):

For me there has to be some level of effectiveness (I don't like imagining ineffectual characters that only fail, but damn.

If I want to play a warrior with a little bit of magical tutelage, a few levels of wizard aren't going to ruin squat.

The only "trap" is playing a variant human lore bard because "optimal." And I don't like imagining lore bards so that is far from optimal for me.

"Trap" means mechanically inferior to the "optimal" build. If it's not a misnomer, it often ignores the actual goal of many players. The term gets used too frequently to have much meaning to me.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
It wasn't optimal for what?

I have come to see the goal of the game is to foster the imagery and story I want to experience.

I used to say survival was the goal. Advancement. But some people play one shots or only for a few levels. Some play altruistic characters that would lay their life down for others (and so in game!):

For me there has to be some level of effectiveness (I don't like imagining ineffectual characters that only fail, but damn.

If I want to play a warrior with a little bit of magical tutelage, a few levels of wizard aren't going to ruin squat.

The only "trap" is playing a variant human lore bard because "optimal." And I don't like imagining lore bards so that is far from optimal for me.

"Trap" means mechanically inferior to the "optimal" build. If it's not a misnomer, it often ignores the actual goal of many players. The term gets used too frequently to have much meaning to me.
Same here. I don't build or play characters because of some in depth analysis on a spreadsheet somewhere. First of all the "massive" differences tend to be a couple of points per round at higher levels. Second my fighter/rogue scratched an itch (an homage to one of my first PCs). Last, but not least, the spreadsheets never take into account utility and simple fun to play.

But according to some people, my PC would have been more "optimal" if I had been a different race, focused on dex and so on. They even have a spreadsheet to prove it. Then again, it seems to me that they are the same ones that complain about cookie cutter PCs and there not being enough options in 5E. :unsure:
 

Warpiglet

Adventurer
Same here. I don't build or play characters because of some in depth analysis on a spreadsheet somewhere. First of all the "massive" differences tend to be a couple of points per round at higher levels. Second my fighter/rogue scratched an itch (an homage to one of my first PCs). Last, but not least, the spreadsheets never take into account utility and simple fun to play.

But according to some people, my PC would have been more "optimal" if I had been a different race, focused on dex and so on. They even have a spreadsheet to prove it. Then again, it seems to me that they are the same ones that complain about cookie cutter PCs and there not being enough options in 5E. :unsure:
Bingo. A hearty hell yes to all of that.

It's often a few points that we are talking about...sometimes I wonder how much playing the person who yells about suboptimal builds has actually done!
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Bingo. A hearty hell yes to all of that.

It's often a few points that we are talking about...sometimes I wonder how much playing the person who yells about suboptimal builds has actually done!
I made this comment yesterday, but can't recall which thread it was in, and it bears repeating:

There is no such thing as a trap option unless your focus is on min/maxing (because math is impartial). for any group that isn't focused on that, there is no such thing as a trap option because none of us know what the priorities are for that gaming group or player. For example, taking the actor feat is not a trap option or "suboptimal" over sharpshooter if that group is very heavy in to role play and light on combat, or more importantly, the player likes to have their PC be like that.
 

There is no such thing as a trap option unless your focus is on min/maxing (because math is impartial).
Funny, I see it the opposite way: once you have sunk system mastery investment from all at the table, there's no trap options, because nobody falls into them, anymore - you've resolved balance issues by reducing the subset of the game you play to the 'optimal' (for your group's notions, anyway), only.

Traps, are for the unwary.

And, of course, openly labeling traps as such is kinda giving away hard-won system mastery to the masses, so....
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I made this comment yesterday, but can't recall which thread it was in, and it bears repeating:

There is no such thing as a trap option unless your focus is on min/maxing (because math is impartial). for any group that isn't focused on that, there is no such thing as a trap option because none of us know what the priorities are for that gaming group or player. For example, taking the actor feat is not a trap option or "suboptimal" over sharpshooter if that group is very heavy in to role play and light on combat, or more importantly, the player likes to have their PC be like that.
Well, that kind of glosses over the fact that some designer decided that in order to gain the actor benefits, you need to give up the Greatweapon Fighter feat (or somesuch).

In other words, you can think Actor to be a trap without devaluing its benefits or be a mere minmaxer.

You're paying a very steep price for Actor. I believe that to be a trap for everyone.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Well, that kind of glosses over the fact that some designer decided that in order to gain the actor benefits, you need to give up the Greatweapon Fighter feat (or somesuch).

In other words, you can think Actor to be a trap without devaluing its benefits or be a mere minmaxer.

You're paying a very steep price for Actor. I believe that to be a trap for everyone.
Unless of course you have a very RP heavy campaign where actor comes into play more often than GWM feat ever would.

It depends on the game. In addition, it's not a "trap". It's a choice to not optimize for combat.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Unless of course you have a very RP heavy campaign where actor comes into play more often than GWM feat ever would.

It depends on the game. In addition, it's not a "trap". It's a choice to not optimize for combat.
Indeed. Optimization isn't the one true way to play the game. Ironically, it seems many of the folks who complain that WotC isn't a big enough tent for their style are the same ones who infer or imply that other playstyles are wrong (using terms to describe people who make those choices as "traps"--an inherently negative descriptor, or are "wrong" choices to make).

So for playstyles that find more value in feats like actor, they have that option to choose that. And it wouldn't be a trap. it would be a way to facilitate their preferred style.
 

Well, that kind of glosses over the fact that some designer decided that in order to gain the actor benefits, you need to give up the Greatweapon Fighter feat (or somesuch).
Well, that the two were equivalent alternatives as a build resource, even though each was confined to a specific 'pillar' so their relative value would be heavily dependent on the scope and focus of the campaign.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Well, that the two were equivalent alternatives as a build resource, even though each was confined to a specific 'pillar' so their relative value would be heavily dependent on the scope and focus of the campaign.
I wanted more of that than in 4e too. Split up more explicitly the resources spent for different arenas of use, Linguistics I am thinking of you.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Short answer (brace yourself, you'll like this one): Nothing.

Long answer: Multi-classing a level at a time, as if each class/level were a module you could just plug into your character is a brilliant, simple, even elegant mechanic. With just 12, minor, problems - the classes. They just aren't designed to work with it. They're kludged, in some cases, and in others left problematic. Combining full-caster classes, for instance, is functional* in 5e, while it wasn't in 3e. Conversely, in 3e combining full-BAB classes was perfectly functional, while in 5e, combining classes with the corresponding Extra Attack is not.
I am pretty sure level gating in general is done for a reason (potency and impact is the normal assumption - but only if those are done carefully there are low level abilities you get in 5e which are high impact and high level ones which are more ribbon like - in the same arena, pretending this is about cross pillar emphasis of character is I think called a red herring)
 


Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top