log in or register to remove this ad

 

UA UA feats, are they trying to allow people to not have to multiclass to get class abilities?


log in or register to remove this ad


jsaving

Adventurer
My understanding is that the team is split on whether they want to keep multiclassing at all, so yes they are absolutely wanting to gauge the popularity of various alternatives. (And I say that as someone who personally hopes they do keep multiclassing in the game.)
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
FWIW, feats are more widely used than multiclassing (about 85-90% compared to 50-60%).

I would hate to see MC go, and hope if they decide that route they replace it with "template" subclasses, so each class could subclass into a second class. Think of EK as a Fighter (Wizard) and AT as a Rogue (Wizard). A template could be developed to allow every class the other classes via subclass. A close example would be Cleric (Druid) by adjusting the Nature Domain.
 

TrueBagelMan

Explorer
Would you allow these in your game and multiclassing? I would hate to see multiclassing go since I have never built a PC without it. Am I the only one bothered by Shield Training? Shouldn’t that ability stay to divine casters?
 


Dausuul

Legend
"UA feats, are they trying to allow people to not have to multiclass to get class abilities?"

That is very clearly and explicitly what many of those feats do, so... yes?

Am I missing some implied part of this question?
 

FWIW, feats are more widely used than multiclassing (about 85-90% compared to 50-60%).
Yeah, and it makes sense, because MC'ing always means losing something in 5E, at least in theory, because it's 3E-style MC'ing. It's also not something you can do from the beginning of the game - you can't start MC'd, unlike with Feats, where plenty of people still do stuff like give out a free Feat at L1 or the like (or you could be a Vhuman).

I think we want to see MC'ing stick around longer-term, the only way is with 2E-style re-implemented somehow (I think it's doable), where you pick your classes and are MC'd from the get-go.
 


dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Yeah, and it makes sense, because MC'ing always means losing something in 5E, at least in theory, because it's 3E-style MC'ing. It's also not something you can do from the beginning of the game - you can't start MC'd, unlike with Feats, where plenty of people still do stuff like give out a free Feat at L1 or the like (or you could be a Vhuman).

I think we want to see MC'ing stick around longer-term, the only way is with 2E-style re-implemented somehow (I think it's doable), where you pick your classes and are MC'd from the get-go.
I agree completely. In our main game, we are doing 2e-style MC, so a character level 15 pc is something like 11/11 in class levels. It makes really powerful PCs though, and if I did it again I would make it something like your XP divided by your number of classes +1. But, then it isn't much better than 5E-style MCing as a level 20 PC would be something like 12/12 instead of 10/10 (still better, but nothing like 15/15 if you just divide XP by 2).
 

jmartkdr2

Adventurer
I do think they make it easier to run a game with no multiclassing (and there are pro to that beyond simplicity), but I doubt they try and tell people "NO MORE MULTICLASSING!" They'll never remove it as an option - but pushing it to be more optional is probably a good thing.
 

Kobold Avenger

Adventurer
I'd prefer it if they figured out how to do something like 2e's multiclassing or 4e's Hybrid classes. 3e multiclassing ends enabling cherrypicking for ultimate class combos (when combined with prestige classes), or weak and subpar characters.
 

aco175

Hero
Very few in my games ever MC. I think it is more the way the powers of each class and the ASIs are structured that make it feel like you are more penalized than in other editions. The fighter wants to get to 5th level to get 2 attacks while the mage wants fireball and so on. Do you wait until after 5th level to MC or can you grab a feat that lets you do some things.

I would like to see a better 3rd level path system where you get some powers of other classes. I may have an idea for a thief/wizard and find the thief path limits me to enchantment spells or there is no wizard path that lets me gain a bit fighting or thief stuff. Most of the paths work ok, but could be better.
 

the Jester

Legend
My understanding is that the team is split on whether they want to keep multiclassing at all, so yes they are absolutely wanting to gauge the popularity of various alternatives. (And I say that as someone who personally hopes they do keep multiclassing in the game.)
Where does this understanding come from? Has someone from the design team posted or said something about it somewhere?

Also, how would they not keep multiclassing? It's in the PH and I don't see any sign that we're gonna have a new edition any time soon.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Very few in my games ever MC. I think it is more the way the powers of each class and the ASIs are structured that make it feel like you are more penalized than in other editions. The fighter wants to get to 5th level to get 2 attacks while the mage wants fireball and so on. Do you wait until after 5th level to MC or can you grab a feat that lets you do some things.

I would like to see a better 3rd level path system where you get some powers of other classes. I may have an idea for a thief/wizard and find the thief path limits me to enchantment spells or there is no wizard path that lets me gain a bit fighting or thief stuff. Most of the paths work ok, but could be better.
I've posted on this second part before, but in case you've never seen the idea I'll give you a quick summary (it would have to be fit for some things but could work):

When you would normally get a subclass feature, instead of taking the subclass you gain the features of a level in another class. The next subclass and each thereafter give you two more level worth of features.

Using your example, such a rogue would be:

Rogue 3 (Wizard 1)
Rogue 9 (Wizard 3)
Rogue 13 (Wizard 5)
Rogue 17 (Wizard 7)

So, you have all the class features of a Rogue 17, and all the class features of a Wizard 7, when you reach 17th level in Rogue.

Obviously, some things have to be tweaked, but the idea works generally well.
 

jsaving

Adventurer
I do think they make it easier to run a game with no multiclassing (and there are pro to that beyond simplicity), but I doubt they try and tell people "NO MORE MULTICLASSING!" They'll never remove it as an option
That's what I thought about Pathfinder. :(
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I must have missed an update on the statistics of the player experience.

Can you link the source for those percentages? Last I saw, feats were much lower than 80%.
 

Olrox17

Hero
I like that they’re trying to give us some 4e style multiclassing.
Now, if only they could give us 4e hybrids (or dual classing, I believe 2e called it).
 
Last edited:


Li Shenron

Legend
I don't like multiclassing.

I am ok with the PHB Magic Initiate because it allows non-casters to get a little spells and maybe open up new tactics (if anything, it's a bit weak as it's only a single 1st level spell).

I am more ambivalent on Martial Adept. I think it's important for Battlemasters to have an option for getting more maneuvers, since the default amount is scarce. I don't like diluting the charm of the subclass by making its defining feature available to others, but the single superiority dice granted by the feat is such that you'll never outshine a real Battlemaster even remotely (in fact they could've called it "inferiority dice").

But more multiclassing feats I really don't want. I hate to see that there are 2 well-known classes in the game which many people believe they got the shaft when designed, and instead of beefing them up with options to make them more attractive, they make then even less attractive by taking what good they have and give it to everyone else in the form of feats. I really hope they won't give out Sneak Attack or Rage as feats otherwise it would be the final nail in the coffin to class archetypes. I say, go play Gurps if you want a classless game, at least you get the real deal.

Giving out Fighting Styles as feats is however the worst offender from a balance point of view rather than concept. A Fighting Style is typically really powerful because it gets used potentially every single round in every single combat. Once you choose yours, you're supposed to stick with that weapon configuration as much as possible, that's why a second Style is significantly less valuable than the first. But Styles are one of the most important things to make martial classes still be better in combat than others, especially Fighters.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top