D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Fanaelialae]

Is front-loading a lot less trouble without multi-classing being a thing?

I've wondered about how it would work if there were one or two "apprentice levels" below 1st level that someone would take if multi-classing (maybe you need one of them if in a similar class and two if in a very different class?). Would that would be great for a more realistic skill training system but be so harsh mechanics wise that lots of people wouldn't play them? And then I wonder if that would be an ok thing if you already had lots of classes filling the in-between roles (like Magus and the hybrid classes in PF1e) and lots of archetypes? (I'm assuming those that like finding the most powerful 1 or 2 level dips would really disagree).

I think that's probably a good approach for front loaded classes.

I've dabbled with this myself in class design, where 1st level had a robust kit, but multiclassed characters would have to gain 3 levels to get the same package of abilities (Apprentice > Journeyman > 1st level).

I've seen other approaches. I don't recall the system but there's one with classes designed such that at 1st level you get a core feature that is really good and enhances your other abilities. Multi-classed characters get everything except for that core feature (such that they'll always be a lesser variant compared to someone who started as that class).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really?

In the Monster Manual, zero monsters had class levels. The first time I saw an NPC with actual class levels was in Village of Homlett and it was like one NPC. The only NPC's that had levels were humans and demi-humans. Otherwise, they never had class levels.

I wasn't talking about monsters. I was talking about humans and demihumans.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be perfectly honest, I seem to go through the same pattern every edition.

Start the edition being very conservative with magic, trying to keep the power levels down, strict with character creation choices and the like. Over time become less restrictive until fully embracing the edition and just going with the flow because it makes play SOOOO much easier.

That describes pretty much every edition I've played from 2e going forward. In 5e now? I don't even bother vetting character sheets anymore. You want to play a flumph bard with a home-brew sub-class? Go right ahead. (and this actually describes the newest character in my Candlekeep campaign).

Sometimes the path of least resistance is just a lot easier and more fun than trying to constantly swim upstream. The notion that I'd need a hundred pages of house rules written down to play just sounds SO exhausting.

It is easier. But it will never be more fun for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The nonspellcasters tend to be good and influential at the sweet spot.

It's at the end of the sweet spot, level 9 or so, when casters and spell appear all over both sides of the screen and people start getting sick of It. But people want to play past level 10 and roll up PCs for it.

People also tend to play casters because designers tend to stretch nonspell class features out over many levels to prevent frontloading. So it takes all the way until tier 3 to get everything.

Whereas 90% of spells are designed separated from class, have legacy placements, and are not placed by tier. All those very powerful low level spells should be higher tier. Why is Tiny Hut castable before level 13?. But legacy

Those are good reasons for 6e, not to change the existing game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I actually like frontloading class abilities, and the lack of frontloading is, in a way, my main gripe with modern iterations of D&D.

Yup. Get rid of multiclassing and that problem goes away.

 

[James Gasik]

My question for he ones who don't adventure or fight is why 3.5 gave them HP and BAB improvements.

I imagine a party of 1st level roughnecks trying to rob the bakery, only to find that the staff includes someone with 10d6 HP and +7/+2 BAB to swing that kitchen gear with, not to mention the scattering of others with more than one level. ("But we checked! He was never even in the militia and never went on adventures!!!")

I mean, it's blasphemy to bring up Castle Greyhawk, but there was the time the castle's cooks made an evil gingerbread golem...

 

[James Gasik]

That "law" doesn't apply if the mechanics aren't actually bad.

Oh I thought we were talking about magic being too good? Isn't that a bad thing?

 

[James Gasik]

Really?

In the Monster Manual, zero monsters had class levels. The first time I saw an NPC with actual class levels was in Village of Homlett and it was like one NPC. The only NPC's that had levels were humans and demi-humans. Otherwise, they never had class levels.

What about Liches? They were 18th level magic-users (or magic-user/clerics).

 

[Undrave]

In old school AD&D... a game that was built around resource management and making sure you had the right tool at the right time... playing out those 7 days on the road was part of the game. In fact, oftentimes it WAS the game, because a lot of games back then wouldn't even have a wedding or any kind of event like that on the table. Those 7 days were heading towards a dungeon and that entire package was the "adventure".

You'd probably enjoy Ryutama...

I actually like frontloading class abilities, and the lack of frontloading is, in a way, my main gripe with modern iterations of D&D.

Yeah, same, I like when the core of the class is easily accessible. It's my main gripe with the Monk.

With hacking, yes absolutely. But with magic its not always the case. Fighting street punks and doing street runs isn't the same as doing a run on a major corp or a syndicate outfit with the resources to deal with mages.

But the "doing anything fun" comment sounds just a bit off to me, as I have played shadowrun since 2e (not playing SR currently tho, doing 5e stuff), and have had years of fun, playing street sammy's, mages, and once a hacker (I don't like the hacking system, since it becomes a solo show, no fun for the table). I think there is a lot of potential for fun, just my opinion.

Back to the subject, magic with risks can be a lot of fun for the right table. YMMV.

I did say 'sometimes', in that you always have to ask yourself "Could someone detect this?" I didn't play a lot of Shadowrun though, but I'm sure there's lots of fun to be had, but it's also fun to just get to use your special abilities without worry from time to time.

Is front-loading a lot less trouble without multi-classing being a thing?

3e style multi classing was a mistake.

Personally I'm a bigger fan of the MC-like subclasses to express multi classing concepts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh I thought we were talking about magic being too good? Isn't that a bad thing?

I don't think magic is too good (outside of a few specific spells, like LTH and Goodberry). I think it should be really good with restrictions and dangers in its use.