D&D (2024) What happened to proficiency bonus times per day?

[payn]

A la carte multiclassing like 3rd and 5th editions, I will definitely agree. I preferred 4e style, with either Hybrid classes or Multiclassing via feats.

This is what bombed out PF2 for me. Doesnt feel like multiclassing at all, just a feat swap. Feels like bowling with bumper rails.

 

[James Gasik]

I look at multiclassing a different way. If the classes were better designed and there were more ways to get the experience you wanted out of single class + subclass, no one would feel the need to multiclass.

But as the game sits, let's say you play a Fighter. You take a subclass, maybe it's Battlemaster. By level 7, you might stop and say, "huh, not much changes in awhile. In 3 levels I get a small damage boost from my superiority dice. In 4 levels I get another attack. That's cool, but four levels?! I'm bored of doing the same thing over and over again. Maybe another class will spice things up- and it won't make me worse than I am now at fighting."

Or how about an Eldritch Knight, who realizes that more spells per day is literally pages away by just taking some Wizard levels- and maybe they'll get a cool new feature in 3 levels instead of a bland one in four?

 

[payn]

I look at multiclassing a different way. If the classes were better designed and there were more ways to get the experience you wanted out of single class + subclass, no one would feel the need to multiclass.

But as the game sits, let's say you play a Fighter. You take a subclass, maybe it's Battlemaster. By level 7, you might stop and say, "huh, not much changes in awhile. In 3 levels I get a small damage boost from my superiority dice. In 4 levels I get another attack. That's cool, but four levels?! I'm bored of doing the same thing over and over again. Maybe another class will spice things up- and it won't make me worse than I am now at fighting."

Or how about an Eldritch Knight, who realizes that more spells per day is literally pages away by just taking some Wizard levels- and maybe they'll get a cool new feature in 3 levels instead of a bland one in four?

Thats an intentional design of 5E. Its supposed to be level up in like 90 seconds. Those are the results so its not hard to imagine folks multiclass to get more out of it. Which is listed as optional, which I guess, is also by design.

 

[Vael]

This is what bombed out PF2 for me. Doesnt feel like multiclassing at all, just a feat swap. Feels like bowling with bumper rails.

I bombed out of PF2 long before that, but I will say that I do believe you need more than one approach. 4e, prior to PH3, you only had feat-based multiclassing and it wasn't great except for that desire to just dip a toe into another class. But also having Hybrid classes allowed more flexibility. I dunno, I'm a fan of gestalt from 3rd UA, so Hybrid was great for me.

But level-based multiclassing systems don't really do it for me. First, there's the issue of "Well, I need 3 levels of X and 4 levels of Y to build the character I want" ... which, that's great, but the campaign only gets to level 6 and then collapses. Second, it does mean that most classes are designed to hide their core competencies so you can't just dip a single level into them. Third ... personal experience as a guy that mainly plays spellcasters (and Sorcerers) and started with 3.5 where the overriding rule was "Thou shalt not lose caster levels", it still feels like a trap even now with 5e.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

It's probably best for species traits and special feats.

 

[payn]

I bombed out of PF2 long before that, but I will say that I do believe you need more than one approach. 4e, prior to PH3, you only had feat-based multiclassing and it wasn't great except for that desire to just dip a toe into another class. But also having Hybrid classes allowed more flexibility. I dunno, I'm a fan of gestalt from 3rd UA, so Hybrid was great for me.

But level-based multiclassing systems don't really do it for me. First, there's the issue of "Well, I need 3 levels of X and 4 levels of Y to build the character I want" ... which, that's great, but the campaign only gets to level 6 and then collapses. Second, it does mean that most classes are designed to hide their core competencies so you can't just dip a single level into them. Third ... personal experience as a guy that mainly plays spellcasters (and Sorcerers) and started with 3.5 where the overriding rule was "Thou shalt not lose caster levels", it still feels like a trap even now with 5e.

I do get the casters shouldn't multiclass from 3E/PF1, but its always sort of made sense to me. Spells allow for such a wide variety of versatility that power needs to be checked. Martial classes cant really say the same. A bonus was the mixture creating some really interesting options along with archetypes. Ala carte and sub classing in 5E seems like a nod in that direction, but a bit muted. Thats 5E in a nut shell though. Take things you liked from every edition and kinda sort squint at them in 5E. Everybody's second favorite edition.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I do get the casters shouldn't multiclass from 3E/PF1, but its always sort of made sense to me. Spells allow for such a wide variety of versatility that power needs to be checked. Martial classes cant really say the same. A bonus was the mixture creating some really interesting options along with archetypes. Ala carte and sub classing in 5E seems like a nod in that direction, but a bit muted. Thats 5E in a nut shell though. Take things you liked from every edition and kinda sort squint at them in 5E. Everybody's second favorite edition.

it'd be really interesting IMO to see a system design experiment with the premise and balance that martials are actually designed with the intent to multiclass within themselves and spellcasters are a monoclass straight-shot, edit: halfcasters exist in the middle where martial characters get their choice of any one of them and casters only multiclass option is their halfcaster counterpart with the matching power source.

 

[payn]

it'd be really interesting IMO to see a system design experiment with the premise and balance that martials are actually designed with the intent to multiclass within themselves and spellcasters are a monoclass straight-shot.

That is basically 3E/PF1. The ivory tower design is meant for you to figure that out, but if it was directly spelled out it would have been better. Though, I prefer a bounded accuracy approach that 5E took with proficiency taking some of the weight off abilities. 5E is pretty good, its just not enough for me.

 

[Horwath]

It was a good idea, but like the rest it was dropped in the infinite wisdom of Crawford.

now we have version where we have to max abilities if we want to have effective characters.

 

[ECMO3]

Unpopular opinion: multiclassing is a curse upon the game. The necessity to balance around it severely constrains game design and not in a good way.

Well I don't think it is possible to balance around it. Given the choice between balance and multiclassing though I would take multiclassing every time.

In 5E it is an optional rule though, so if you don't like it at your table .....