D&D (2024) Wrapping up first 2-20 2024 campaign this week, some of my thoughts

[Bae'zel]

This might work for players who don't have a lot of experience, but as someone who has played a lot I feel like I can figure out what I want for my character better than the DM.

It is not always about optimization though. I play Rangers more than anything else, and the only Ranger subclass I play is a Fey Wanderer. It would be pretty darn hard to build the kind of Fey Wanderer I typically want without the ability to dip into an Arcane Class (typically Warlock, Bard or Sorcerer) or Rogue.

Fair enough, I don't frequently play with more experienced players.

I know that this is a game, and that for some, multiclassing makes character building more fun.

To me, personally, something bothers me about multiclassing, especially "dips". Maybe because I tie Class into character concept and story; the class IS their character and "dipping" takes me out of the emergent story unless it is woven into it somehow.

Like, say, the Fighter who has a spiritual moment in nature, has an encounter that changes their core beliefs, and then decides to become a Druid or Ranger. I can work with that, mentally and story-wise. But to have a player tell me that they insist on taking one or more other classes for specific build requirements or needs, without any in-game world reason? I can't explain why it bothers me so much.

Different playstyles for different tables. Knowing better, I'll make sure to inform potential players during the campaign pitch that multiclassing has to have an in-game reason, not just for "builds" nor for mechanical efficiency. So that they know to bow out before it becomes a bother.

 

[mearls]

Which fights? First combats after a rest? All fights? Published combat encounters? Something else? To really evaluate your point, I think we need to know what’s on the other side of the equation.

I went through the 5.5 PHB and did the following:

• I built out a base level 1 fighter and wizard
• For each, I plotted their at-will damage and stats by level
• I layered on their class features, using the battle master for the fighter
• I used the list of free spells for the wizard, and determined the damage that the best offensive options dealt for each level
• I then built two scenarios, you're seeing the boss scenario, where characters use their best options over the course of three rounds
• That damage is in the right most column. It represents how much damage a party of four kicks out over three rounds assuming 60% accuracy
• CR is the target CR for a hard fight against 4 PCs of the listed level
• CR HP is HP based on Blog of Holding's analysis of the 5.5 MM
• Actual HP is my initial analysis using my 5e tools (which are a rough estimate)

 

[Shardstone]

I really like multiclassing and my character ideas feel restrained if I can't do it.

I think multiclassing is official now and no longer "optional" so to speak.

I also think the mechanics in the 2024 rules encourage a 1-level dip in Paladin or Ranger or Monk for a lot of builds.

Letting half casters round up for spell level took away the biggest negative for a caster grabbing a Ranger or Paladin level.

I feel like the same itch could be scrapped with a Background + Origin Feat that gives a version of that class feature and some profs.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I went through the 5.5 PHB and did the following:

• I built out a base level 1 fighter and wizard
• For each, I plotted their at-will damage and stats by level
• I layered on their class features, using the battle master for the fighter
• I used the list of free spells for the wizard, and determined the damage that the best offensive options dealt for each level
• I then built two scenarios, you're seeing the boss scenario, where characters use their best options over the course of three rounds
• That damage is in the right most column. It represents how much damage a party of four kicks out over three rounds assuming 60% accuracy
• CR is the target CR for a hard fight against 4 PCs of the listed level
• CR HP is HP based on Blog of Holding's analysis of the 5.5 MM
• Actual HP is my initial analysis using my 5e tools (which are a rough estimate)

View attachment 396654

Appreciate you showing your work, Mike. It’s informative. Thank you

 

[GrimCo]

To me, personally, something bothers me about multiclassing, especially "dips". Maybe because I tie Class into character concept and story; the class IS their character and "dipping" takes me out of the emergent story unless it is woven into it somehow.

Same, especially in long campaigns with comprehensive story arcs. In one shots or short h&s beer and pretzel games, not so much, char op to your heart desire. For me, class is your career or calling.

Like, say, the Fighter who has a spiritual moment in nature, has an encounter that changes their core beliefs, and then decides to become a Druid or Ranger. I can work with that, mentally and story-wise. But to have a player tell me that they insist on taking one or more other classes for specific build requirements or needs, without any in-game world reason? I can't explain why it bothers me so much.

Can't explain either. Some combos irk me more than others tho. Warlock/Paladin is on top of that list. In long campaigns that go from level 1 to high tier 3 or tier 4, i want in game reason why and how someone multi classed and it has to be sound by the logic of the game world. Gamist reasons (i need it for my build) don't fly. This is story about life of those characters and it follows their life and career progress (their class).

Different playstyles for different tables. Knowing better, I'll make sure during the campaign pitch inform potential players that multiclassing has to have an in-game reason, not just for "builds" for mechanical efficiency. So that they know to bow out before it becomes a bother.

That's what i do when i'm pitching game. Inform players about all house rules, including restrictions on multiclassing, baned races/classes/feats etc. If they aren't down with it, cool, won't run it. If they are down, we are good to go.

 

[Clint_L]

It’s their character, not mine. I’ll reject stuff that makes me uncomfortable in terms of how I have to DM (no psychopaths, please), but I give a pretty wide latitude to character concepts. I don’t care about multiclassing; we’re very story forward anyway.

 

[Bae'zel]

It’s their character, not mine. I’ll reject stuff that makes me uncomfortable in terms of how I have to DM (no psychopaths, please), but I give a pretty wide latitude to character concepts. I don’t care about multiclassing; we’re very story forward anyway.

For the record, my objection is not about control. It’s based on negative experiences in the past with players who were min-maxing as a sort of way to “beat” the DM. I’m not an antagonist, and that is not my style. So I nip that sort of optimization in the bud and instead urge the player to use Feats and subclasses to try to meet their concept needs. Hell, I’ll even let them take a sub class from a different class if it means keeping them at my table.

But if a player insists, they are not a good match and can leave and play somewhere else.

 

[Clint_L]

For the record, my objection is not about control. It’s based on negative experiences in the past with players who were min-maxing as a sort of way to “beat” the DM. I’m not an antagonist, and that is not my style. So I nip that sort of optimization in the bud and instead urge the player to use Feats and subclasses to try to meet their concept needs. Hell, I’ll even let them take a sub class from a different class if it means keeping them at my table.

But if a player insists, they are not a good match and can leave and play somewhere else.

That kinda does sound like control, though. Why is min-maxing trying to "beat" the DM? I know for a significant subset of players, it's a really fun part of the game, but the DM still sets the challenges. Don't get me wrong; I'll ban rules exploits right quick (i.e. if they pretty clearly go against the design intent). But a player working within the rules to maximize their effectiveness, however they measure that, seems well within their rights.

It's not really my jam - I prefer to play concept first, and so do pretty much all my players in my home game, but many of my younger players are pretty keen to make the best character they can, once they start figuring out the rules, and bless. Anyway, I don't think it's bad for the DM to keep some control. I still control how much gold and magic they have access to, and I create most of the encounters, so it's not hard to keep things in hand. You exert control in different ways - it's all good.

 

[Selas]

That kinda does sound like control, though. Why is min-maxing trying to "beat" the DM? I know for a significant subset of players, it's a really fun part of the game, but the DM still sets the challenges. Don't get me wrong; I'll ban rules exploits right quick (i.e. if they pretty clearly go against the design intent). But a player working within the rules to maximize their effectiveness, however they measure that, seems well within their rights.

It's not really my jam - I prefer to play concept first, and so do pretty much all my players in my home game, but many of my younger players are pretty keen to make the best character they can, once they start figuring out the rules, and bless. Anyway, I don't think it's bad for the DM to keep some control. I still control how much gold and magic they have access to, and I create most of the encounters, so it's not hard to keep things in hand. You exert control in different ways - it's all good.

There are players out there that think that playing the game means absolutely winning against the big "bad" DM by any means. There's one in one of the tables I play, and it's kinda become a running gag at this point seeing him trying to outsmart the DM despite warnings and failing miserably

 

[Maxperson]

I agree, but on the other hand if they are resistance rings they should not have much impact on the encounter being finished in a round or two

The other items, would, though. Magic weapons, wands, etc. If the DM didn't drastically up those encounters and just ran them out of the book, the PCs were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overpowered for those encounters as they don't assume a single magic item in the balance. It's even worse since they can craft items and would be making the best items possible.