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

[UngeheuerLich]

I like to have both options.
My favorite however in a possible 6th edition would be having base classes and subclasses more equal and that yoi can forgo your subclass to get a second main class. Both without subclasses then.
And when that is done I would like to have a feat now and then to pick up a few features you have missed.

So you might be a Wizard/Invoker
Or a Fighter/Warlord
Or you migh just be an ordinary Fighter/Wizard.
Then you might pick up a feat that gives the Wizard/Invoker some fighter abilities.
A feat that allows the Fighter Warlord to do some magical tricks. Or a feat, that allows the Fighter/Wizard to have some Invokation or warlordy fighting style... Or pick up the basics of thievery on top.
That would be very flexible.
If you put it on the 5e chassis,
You could have following progression:

1: Class ability
2: Subclass ability/second class
3: feat/ability score increase
4: proficiency bonus increase + learn a noncombat feat
Repeat!

The level 1,5,9,13,17 features are basic class features. Problems may arise with 9 spell levels on 5 increases. A possibility might be the use of feats to increase spell levels at that point. Maybe with a +1 increase in a stat. Probably you might always increase stats by 1 as a general rule. If you take ASI maybe you can increase a single stat by one, second one by 2 points.

 

[Minigiant]

I think there are 3 things working at play.

1. Most groups start at low levels. Multiclassing is bad at low levels. There is a intended jump in power planned in the game at level 5. Casters get 3rd level spells. Warriors get extra attack. MC causes you to miss that bump. Feats do not. The same thing happens at level 11 to a lesser extent.
2. Feats are easier for players and DMs to understand. The interaction of concept, roleplay, and power are written right on the feats. With multiclassing,its not as clear.
3. You can't really do anything else more with multiclassing. There's the rules for it and...that's it.

But I don't think they are discouraging MCing, they're just not doing more with it.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's what I thought about Pathfinder.

PF2 does have multiclassing. It just works differently than PF1 multiclassing,

 

[Weiley31]

Honestly with Capstones and the fact 5E made single class progression more worthwhile, outside of certain combos I really think that MCing like feats are a better route to go.

If ya multi class outside of that, keep it like 2E or introduce five level prestige classes to cap ya off once ya hit the level 15-20 range.

 

[MoonSong]

(or you could be a Vhuman).

Or as I call it just plain human (Seriously, default human is a bland bundle of numbers that just gets in the way of making characters the way I want). When Vhuman is not allowed, I make a half elf and call her a human. It worked for Aragorn, it works for me.

 

[jsaving]

PF2 does have multiclassing. It just works differently than PF1 multiclassing,

PF2 abolishes flexible 3e-style multiclassing and replaces it with 4e-style feats. The ruleset does call those feats "multiclassing" but I don't know many players who would agree it should be considered as such, though that's admittedly a judgment call.

 

[jmartkdr2]

PF2 abolishes flexible 3e-style multiclassing and replaces it with 4e-style feats. The ruleset does call those feats "multiclassing" but I don't know many players who would agree, though that's admittedly a judgment call.

I have a feeling that something closer to PF1 multiclassing will appear in the next couple of books.

It won't work as well as the current system PF2 is using, but it'll be there.

 

[Undrave]

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.

A Fighting style is worth 2 cantrips. That's what Divine Warrior and Druidic Warrior tell us. That means a single Fighting Style is worth less than Magic Initiate.

It's true that few fighting styles stack very well, aside from Defense and the one that gives out Battlemaster Maneuvers, but I still think it's better for the martial classes.

I don't know why adding Fighting Style to a Magic User is any worse than adding Magic Initiate to a Martial class.

I think there are 3 things working at play.

1. Most groups start at low levels. Multiclassing is bad at low levels. There is a intended jump in power planned in the game at level 5. Casters get 3rd level spells. Warriors get extra attack. MC causes you to miss that bump. Feats do not. The same thing happens at level 11 to a lesser extent.
2. Feats are easier for players and DMs to understand. The interaction of concept, roleplay, and power are written right on the feats. With multiclassing,its not as clear.
3. You can't really do anything else more with multiclassing. There's the rules for it and...that's it.

But I don't think they are discouraging MCing, they're just not doing more with it.

MCing is just too risky. If you don't know what you're doing you can cripple your character, but spending a feat to add a dash of flavour from another class is way easier and simple and you know it's about on par with your ASI. You're less likely to mess it up.

PF2 abolishes flexible 3e-style multiclassing and replaces it with 4e-style feats. The ruleset does call those feats "multiclassing" but I don't know many players who would agree it should be considered as such, though that's admittedly a judgment call.

Yeah but everything you can do in PF2 is called 'feat' isn't it? So the multi classing feats are more closer to hybridizing or cherry picking features?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or as I call it just plain human (Seriously, default human is a bland bundle of numbers that just gets in the way of making characters the way I want). When Vhuman is not allowed, I make a half elf and call her a human. It worked for Aragorn, it works for me.

I mean, you do you, I actually feel the same way, but I have a couple of players in my groups who somewhat regularly play non-V Humans, so it's still the exception to me - in fact no-one has played a Vhuman yet in any IRL D&D table I've been at.

I actually spent 5 minutes trying to explain why maybe they should be a Vhuman to one of them, and he was unmoved.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure, they can always remove multiclassing.

But they can never remove feats. No one wants to play a game that is ... defeated.


You're welcome.