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

[payn]

True. But someone might actually play it as anything but a drinking game or a rite of passage.

Well one folk’s rite of passage is another’s Saturday night.

The real issue is folks just play not monopoly if they don’t like it. With D&Ds oversized position in the TTRPG market it’s become a fight to turn it into a preferred style instead of pursuing an alternative.

 

[payn]

Your point was that you can redesign a game to be one that is actually good at what it is designed to do--Monopoly designed to be a better-balanced economic simulator (as opposed to an intentional demonstration that monopolies result in financial ruination), D&D designed to actually provide interesting encounter- and daily-based resource-consumption gameplay--but that doing so kills the spirit of the game in question. It ceases to be itself, and becomes some other thing.
Is that not correct?

No, your twisting what I said as if I believe that bad design is the purpose of the design. I dont think Monopoly or D&D are badly designed to do what they do. I think you dont like how they perform, and have deemed them objectively bad as if no one can disagree.

But if so, then that implies that D&D telling us explicitly that it is a game where daily and encounter resources both matter, means that the game is explicitly telling us that it's about something that it's bad at doing. Either it needs to drop one end or the other, or it needs new design to be actually good at the thing it tells us it's good at, but either way, if my understanding of your argument is correct, D&D must cease to be D&D in order to do that. Hence, the essence of D&D is to be bad at what it tells the player it is for.

No, I think in order for D&D to work for you, it has to cease being what it is. You've made that abundantly clear. I used the Monopoly analogy becasue some people think its a bad game, despite many other folks actually enjoying it; just like D&D.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, multiclassing just doesn't mesh well with 5E. Warlock is really the proud nail of multiclassing in that regard. I've personally banned multiclassing in my games for all the headaches it creates.

Overall, classes really are pre-selected advancement packages in what would otherwise be a point-based or free-formed advancement system, like GURPS. If 5E is going to keep the class system, I'd rather see "multiclassing" handled via something akin to feats or specific subclasses where you can silo adding a specific's class ability without having to parse what adding this or that component is too good or underpowered.

Things like magic initiate, fighting initiate and the like are baby steps towards that sort of thing and it is the line I've been pursuing to address "get this thing from another class I want to add to my character".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, your twisting what I said as if I believe that bad design is the purpose of the design. I dont think Monopoly or D&D are badly designed to do what they do. I think you dont like how they perform, and have deemed them objectively bad as if no one can disagree.

No, I think in order for D&D to work for you, it has to cease being what it is. You've made that abundantly clear. I used the Monopoly analogy becasue some people think its a bad game, despite many other folks actually enjoying it; just like D&D.

...do you deny that D&D, as it currently exists, does in fact have both daily and (effectively) encounter(ish) resources?

Are you rescinding your claim that you think it is bad that it has both, and that it should only do one (specifically, only daily)?

 

[payn]

...do you deny that D&D, as it currently exists, does in fact have both daily and (effectively) encounter(ish) resources?

Are you rescinding your claim that you think it is bad that it has both, and that it should only do one (specifically, only daily)?

5E currently has both, yes I agree. Also, my opinion is that the game would be better off with one or the other. Though, I understand that D&D is an evolution of ideas and preferences over decades of play and design. The game isnt going to be perfectly suited to my preferences alone. Im mindful of that and dont trumpet around my preference as if its a fact; just my opinion. Im not one to make perfect the enemy of good; which is what I think 5E is.

 

[Nikosandros]

Well I don't think it is possible to balance around it.

Probably not, but doesn't stop the designers from trying.

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

Yes, but that's not my point. I'm lamenting the design constraints that MC imposes upon the game, not its presence at my table.

 

[Blue]

while i am not a huge fan of multiclassing itself i think it's interaction with PB/LR is actually one of the better things to come from it, letting abilities scale and remain relevant with your growing character even if you never took another level of your dipped class.

edit: just because i only have one level in a specific class that doesn't inherently make my character a level one adventurer, my character's abilities should reflect that even if i only dabbled in something there's still a level of mastery that comes from long experience.

The number of high-level one-shot builds I've seen that cheese out with two levels of Warlock for full EB + Agonizing Blast completely disagree strongly that something you don't ever invest in again should grow just as fast as everything else.

I think the few cases we do see this it in 2014 rules it turns out badly.

 

[Blue]

I played 3E/PF1/5E extensively and its very rare to have multiclass PCs "vastly" superior to straight class. In fact, it was prestige classes in 3E and work around feats in PF1 that led to the worst shenanigans that 5e doesnt have at all. You are correct about high level features being a waste of time from a balancing perspective though.

I'm sorry, what?!

I'm with you on 5e, though at T4 play it breaks down. I don't have enough PF1 experience to speak either way, though having it based off of 3.5 makes me doubt it.

But claiming that in 3e it was very rare to have multiclass characters superior to single class is sheer... folly? ignorance? blinders? Multiclassing first to fulfill requirements and then to get PrCs, even before cherry picking, was a route to heights of power in 3ed and 3.5 that a single classed character couldn't dream of. Let's continue full casting and get other stuff, for instance.

Sorry, it isn't even defendable when it comes to 3.x.

 

[Blue]

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."

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.

This is one of the things I liked about 13th Age - they condensed play from 20 (well 30, it came out before 5e so we were still in 4e range) down to 10. So every level gets lots of juicy stuff.

It also gives out Incremental Advances, which is getting part of your next level during your current level, so there's not a long wait for something new at any time.

 

[ECMO3]

IMO. The issue is that the MAD components for a given class aren’t ever equally weighted or nearly so. There’s nearly always a clear building this way is much better.

I kind of agree with this in most cases, but ironically most players go against the "much better" way

For example Monk and Paladin are more powerful if you focus on Wisdom and Charisma respectively, but most players instead focus on Dexterity and Strength.

The other MAD class, Ranger, is more balanced regardless of whether you focus on Wisdom or Strength/Dexterity