CreamCloud0
Hero
suppose it depends on if you're trying to encourage or limit 'multiclassing' in that kind of design structure.
Last edited:
D&D General Should you Multiclass?
- Thread starter Nerdette
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
This is the thing that makes me hate multiclassing as it currently exists in 5e.
It is a tool for people who have system mastery to "generally be better in terms of power," while people who are just noodling with the system or trying to realize a character concept usually fall into the "detriment" trap because they're not actively looking for synergies and trying to maximize their power.
I don't love D&D as a game of finding CharOp cheese, of seeking synergies, of tactical character building. Some folx absolutely play for that, and I'm glad the option is there for those folks, but I find that the existence of multiclassing really distorts the design environment. New material must be designed very carefully to avoid giving people who multiclass a remarkable edge. Whenever someone in my games wants to realize a unique character concept, I would MUCH RATHER they bring me a 3rd party subclass or work with me to make a new one than try and cobble together Frankenstein's Multiclass. Either they know the system really well and will end up generally more effective, or they don't know the system very well and will end up generally less effective, and either way, it impacts the group dynamics ("Why is your warlock/fighter more effective in melee in this moment than my character who is Just A Barbarian?")
Last edited:
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Limit? No! Just not eliminate single class character concepts.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
IMO The game isn’t fun if all choices have the same overall effect. They should mostly all be viable but there will always be some better than others unless we go completely symmetric design.
CreamCloud0
Hero
Okay, some clarification please, I feel like at least one of us must be misunderstanding the other here, you don’t want single class characters eliminated in a system that allows point buy feature multiclassing right? If this is so then i must ask why you turned around my proposal of characters getting discounts on new abilities that stay in the role category of their existing abilities(ie: like martial, expert, mage and priest to use 24’s categories as example)? As that I thought would be a balancing incentive to remain ‘monoclassed’ against the versatility incentive provided by multiclassing your character.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yeah, some choices will always be optimal.
The issue is that the entire multiclassing system is either a trap for folks who are using it for expression, or a way to eke out an extra bit of oomph for those who are primarily interested in optimizing. Hugely binary, and serving very different masters.
But that exists whether or not you multiclass. Multiclassing just puts more options on the table.
Also though if you notice I said "with planning" it can be "generally better in terms of power." Without planning it won't be generally better and will often be much worse.
I find that many people who multiclass are "noodling with the system" to achieve a specific character concept and they often do build an inferior character, but should those people be told they are not allowed to multiclass because they "don't know how to do it right"?
You use an example -why is the Warlock/Fighter better than my Barbarian at melee? It isn't because the Warlock/Fighter multiclassed, it is because that player know the rules better and they would still be better than your Barbarian at melee if they were building for melee and playing a single class Fighter, or a single class Warlock, or even a single class Wizard for that matter. If the roles were reversed and the inexperienced player was playing the Warlock/Fighter then the single classed Barbarian would be better.
Last edited:
Tessarael
Adventurer
It depends on your DM. A generous DM that has a strong understanding of the mech can help weak characters, either by providing magical treasure that helps boost their intended build, or otherwise giving them spotlight opportunity regardless of somewhat suboptimal build choice.
As a player, I do actively give some constructive feedback on other players' builds. An example from our current campaign, a Fighter that hangs back to fire missile weapons should have high Dexterity not high Strength, and select combat powers more focused on ranged weapons. As in this example, it can be the case that even a strong single-classed build is much less effective in practice, due to tactical choices that don't make the most of a character's strengths. In which case, it is best to help either the player improve their tactics, or redo the build to match their play style.
As a player, I do actively give some constructive feedback on other players' builds. An example from our current campaign, a Fighter that hangs back to fire missile weapons should have high Dexterity not high Strength, and select combat powers more focused on ranged weapons. As in this example, it can be the case that even a strong single-classed build is much less effective in practice, due to tactical choices that don't make the most of a character's strengths. In which case, it is best to help either the player improve their tactics, or redo the build to match their play style.
There needs to be a method for a full caster to get extra attack on a nearly equal basis with non-casters. Bladelocks, Valor Bards and Bladesingers are extremely popular.
Horwath
Legend
full casters could spend feats to gain extra attack(s), fighting styles and masteries.
