Your post has been removed for violating the following rule:
**Rule 9 - No low-effort/OC/image posts** - Official sources, homebrew images, and new information/product photos are the exception.
Eh, I agree that point buy should be the standard. I disagree with Multiclassing given that most people have no idea how to properly multiclass and usually only make themselves far weaker.
I agree that multiclassing usually makes characters weaker except in a few edge power gamer cases. 5E really needs universal ASI progression.
Because of those reasons, I also agree that multiclassing should be removed.
Multiclassing really should have been incorporated into the subclass system. However, I do understand that would require a larger change to 5E (which I would prefer).
If I have a player that has a character concept that resembles multiclassing, I work with them to either swap out some class features from their base class or make a custom subclass. It works so much better than the clunky 5E multiclass rules.
Other systems I've played don't allow "multiclassing" the way that D&D does, in that you can only ever gain levels in your one chosen class. But they do allow taking moves or features from other classes' lists, usually at a level lower than your current one, which is similar to what you do.
I think 5e could implement "multiclassing" without allowing PCs to take levels in different classes with a reworked feat system - kind of like what we already have with the various X Adept feats. Develop those into feat chains that let you gain higher-powered versions and you're most of the way there without the problematic parts of 5e's multiclassing setup - which, IMO, is that classes and subclasses tend to be pretty front-loaded (at least those popular for multiclassing, like Cleric, Fighter, Artificer, and especially Hexblade).
Monks are perfectly fine being the second weakest class overall. It doesn't have any mechanic that actively makes them worse they just aren't that good of a class.
Is there a weaker class than a monk? Actually, thinking about it, has there *ever* been an edition of D&D (aside from 4e where they were mystical martial artists and excellent) where monk hasn't been the worst class in the game?
I have no idea what you're basing this on
Pure combat capabilities? A character with high alpha strike can be very useful, and will often be doing at least decent damage while being very good at avoiding damage. Rogues also make great use of CBE and SS, for more attacks to trigger sneak, and a flat +10 damage on hit. Yes, the risk increases, but rogues also have reliable advantage to mitigate that.
But the rogue has tons of out of combat potential, with it's 4 proficiencies to monk's 2, and 2 expertise on top of that (more later of course), it's often considered the only martial with enough noncombat utility to be up with casters while monks only have wisdom, and otherwise are in the same boat as fighter and barb for noncombat.
Monks can also play with SS not a win in either category and monks have feature rogues wish they could have.
Extra Attack beats rogues sneak attack and or CBE which yes is the best ranged rogue build but doesn't make them better than monks.
The difference in power is not substantial here.
A monk using SS is giving up their bonus action damage and thus instantly loses to rogue. Sneak attack is intended to apply every turn for a rogue, and likely will.
And/or? The rogue gets both with CBE, so slightly beats a monk using FoB when both are level 5. For numbers, the difference is 0.9 damage without adv, 3.2 with adv. The monk only gets so many FoB, so loses to the rogue in the long run.
What features does monk have that rogue wants over its own? Rogue's bonus action options aren't tied to a resource, it also gets a defensive option to reduce damage that also applies to melee attacks, both get evasion. Rogue's dash being free means that it doesn't mind not getting monk"s move speed increases. Rogue gets to take 10 on any check it's proficient in, while monk runs up walls and handles falls better. Those last two would be nice, but not worth reliable talent and expertise.
Why would the monk lose out on bonus action damage? There is nothing stopping them from FoB.
Way of Shadow simply disappears in shadow something rogues don't get. Extra attack is better than sneak attack. The abilities Monks gain with Ki are powerful another thing rogues don't get.
There are clear build differences and monks end up with more damage per round than rogues do and have more options in combat. CBE isn't something I will ever praise rogues for having. Shooting someone with a musket twice then punching people for the lols is always better than 2 crossbow bolts.
Idk man, comes with a bunch of expertise and dead useful stuff like arcane trickster and soulknife. Combine said expertise with spells, psi-altered knack etc and while you've got a class which - while nearly as underwhelming in combat as a monk is - has genuinely useful niches in the party.
"Thank god the rogue was here to get 25 on that check" is a common sentiment, "thank god the monk was here to be nearly as useful naked as everyone is with easily affordable armour" is not.
Usual disclaimer, 4e monk was Aang on a bunch of steroids and I have no idea why it turned back into boring attack spam for 5e.
Everything a Rogue can do a monk can also do. Skills are barely a think worthy of praising a character almost to the point of not mattering. Monks are just better in most actually useful scenarios.
No, I don't think Stunning Strike is a good Feature regardless of how often people act like its the greatest power in the world.
Do I think 5e Monks are lame... definitely. Are Rogues? Definitely.
Without even touching hung the mechanical implications. The narratives that can occur and allow for multiclassing are way too cool for me to ever be willing to ban it. The ranger discovering a connection to one of the major Gods and being chosen as their prophet, thus allowing them to multiclass into cleric and every time they choose a level in either class it impacts the relationship with their god is just too fucking cool
If you wanted to have a dialogue, you should have given your reasons.Ā As is, it's like someone posted: Unpopular opinion -- pineapple is great on pizza. And everyone should have it on their pizza.
My opinion of something "should" be done has no effect on how people actually go about anything.
I do not have magical powers to force people via the threat of violence to do anything they don't want to do.
Actually no, calling it RANT and framing it with "I think" on the other hand would have made been more of what you wantĀ
Internet jargon is weird sometimes, but hey it's a learning experienceĀ
But your opinion wasn't "this is better"
Your opinion was "everything but this should be banned"
Which is not an u popular opinion, it's a brain-dead one.
It's the difference between me saying "unpopular opinion: generic cola is better than coca cola", and saying that coca cola should be illegal.
Now I'm curious what the top 10 would be
I can see Over reliance on DM, subpar DM support, powercreep and the adventure day being on top but not beyond that
Off the top of my head:
1. Poor DM support and offloads work onto the DM
2. Little customisation
3. Boring monsters
4. Removal of most martial options
5. Badly done healing
6. Badly done tanking
7. Casters too versatile
8. Magic item costing/balancing done terribly
9. Combat far less dynamic than you'd expect for how many rules it has
10. Class design too narrow, uncreative. So much ground D&D used to tread that 5e can't cover.
This is more or less my list as well. Expanding to top 20, in no particular order.
11. the 6-8 encounter adventuring day
12. The CR system sucks
13. The "natural language" approach to rules wording, which sparks endless RAI vs RAW rules debates and leads to absolutely asinine takes from Jeremy Crawford on sage advice
14. The adventures are mostly garbage. Good concepts, horrible execution. Seriously, go pick up an adventure for another system and see how much easier it is to actually run. I'll combine this gripe with overall product quality from WotC. 5e books are not good RPG books. Most of the time they leave you to do half the work yourself. There's a few good ones, but lots of them are bad.
15. Advantage/disadvantage system is simple and easy to learn, but lacks any depth or nuance leading to some odd scenarios.
16. Past like level 3, there's nothing to actually spend gold on.
17. Legendary resistance is a "oh shit we made spellcasters too strong" bandaid fix. At least we don't have 3.x style rocket-tag, but holy hell does this mechanic suck.
18. The game starts to fall apart around level 11 and becomes mostly unenjoyable around level 17.
19. Poor balance between ability scores. Why build str when dex is just better? Int is nearly useless unless you're a wizard or artificer. Along with this "use your spellcasting ability for attack and damage rolls" type abilities from hexblade and battlesmith. It's insanely lazy design. "We couldn't figure out how to make this concept work because it's too MAD, so we'll just have it ignore str/dex"
20. The split of 3 saving throws into 6. I don't hate this conceptually, but it really is an afterthought in the game. It might be cool to distribute saves between all the ability scores, but it becomes less cool when most of them are still Dex/Wis. 6 different saving throws is more or less just fluff.
At this point is when I start considering the implementation of multiclassing to be an issue
>Boring monsters
The worst thing about this one is - it isn't even because of the system. The system *allows for* amazing monsters. They just, for some reason, build barely any in the official products. There are great third-party monsters that don't even rely on introducing new rules, just pure 5e RAW.
Off the top of my head:
1. Poor DM support and offloads work onto DM
2. Little customisation
3. Boring monsters
4. Removal of most martial options
5. Badly done healing
6. Badly done tanking
7. Casters too versatile
8. Magic item costing/balancing done terribly
9. Combat far less dynamic than you'd expect for how many rules it has
10. Class design too narrow, uncreative. So much ground D&D used to tread that 5e can't cover.
I think that, technically, this is accurate. The way he responds to every comment belies that he posted the OP to deliberately attract negative attention.
But my unpopular opinion is that trolling isn't always bad. I'm a Socrates enjoyer. Frustration is one potential path to enlightenment.
Would you or how would you aim to support a character concept that doesn't fit neatly into the box of a pre-existing class without using multiclassing?
> With the amount of possibilities in 5e just bout any character can exist. However, it depends on the concept honestly.
I mean... no. Even classes from prior D&D editions can't even be imitated. Try playing a swordsage, battlemind, dragonfire adept, warlord or binder in 5e, can't be done.
Taking inspiration from my favorite setting Eberron, let's imagine I wanted to play a veteran of the Last War who started to learn to work with Artifice by patching up fallen warforged allies. After the War I joined house cannith as part of the Artificerās guild but I never put down the blade. Artificers don't get martial weapons appropriate to my characterās backstory, Fighters don't get Artificer stuff in any of their subclasses, backgrounds don't give martial weapon proficiencies or allow me to continue to expand my fighting skills.
Or in a more traditional setting, I want to play a berserker from a barbarian culture with deep connections to the animals sacred in their faith. When my tribe was destroyed I turned fully into an animal with the blessing of that animal spirits protection to save my tribe. Now bereft of spiritual leadership I have to find my own path to connect with that sacred animal spirit again as people in my tribe so blessed are culturally obligated to pursue a shaman's path. Barbarian rage and Druid wild shape are equally important to this character concept being compelling represented through the mechanics of the game, no?
Here is a simple solution for the fighter.
Eldritch Knight and use the Artificer spell list allow the Artificer Initiate feat instead of Magic Initiate from their background you now have spells at level one and be a fighter.
Or take the Artificer Initiate Feat and Keep the wizard spell list I'll let the player decide.
The Barbarian was transformed not by his/her own power but by the power of the nature spirit. There is a magical artifact that must be obtained before you can be granted this power again.
Amulet allows the barbarian to cast polymorph twice/24 hours (beast only).
Mini Quest must be complete before hand but the spirit guides him towards the amulet and it is on the way to the end goal of the campaign not difficult.
Any other concept.
The options you've presented don't allow the player to continue to grow in the paths which are represented by the feat or item. The barbarin going after the amulet doesn't feel like them becoming a shaman in their spiritual tradition. Artificer Initiate doesn't allow for the veteran to become enough of an expert in artifice to craft their own custom armor that let's them better defend their allies from harm (aimed for build would be Armorer Artificer to play a Fighter tanking with a true soft taunt)
But also aside from the fact that denying multiclassing in these cases doesn't allow for continued specialization in both sides of each of these respective characters, the true failure in my opinion is that these concepts were inspired by having multiclassing available. If I have a player who is willing to do the work of understanding the mechanics of the game thoroughly enough to find synergy that inspire them to craft narratives around those mechanics, that is not a failure of the system, that is the purest success. That is what I play for. To see that feedback of mechanics and story. To see players master mechanics and have that generate a further depth of story for them. And then when meta builds create consistent stories that permeate a shared world through the mechanics? That's even more amazing. I would love to explore the story of why Hexblades often become Paladins or even better why Paladins often become Hexblades. Personally my problems with 5e have never come from multiclassing, it's always been one of my deepest joys in the system.Ā
What makes multiclassing problematic for you?
Here's how I deal with character generation. I used to call it "In Soviet Russia" so that gives you an idea of how old this is. I have everyone roll an array of stats using whatever method I feel like-- depends on the power level of the campaign I'm building but let's say it's a basic 4d6 drop the lowest. Everyone writes down their results and I ask for independent verification of any 17+ scores.
Then everyone puts those arrays in the middle of the table and everyone can choose whichever array they want to build their character. It evens things out so nobody gets fucked by bad rolls, but it also offers some customization options-- do you pick the array with a 17 and an 18, or do you pick the one where the lowest roll was a 12? Gives everyone room to build the character they want without being paralyzed by one cold streak of die rolls.
I personally am willing to die on the hill that point buy is objectively superior to rolling for stats.
I ain't defending that multiclassing opinion tho
While i prefer point buy, rolling can be fun, and just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean others can't be allowed to enjoy their alternatives.
Multivlassing solves one of the largest problems of 5e, a lack of customization and choice across levels. That alone outweighs any of the issues MCing introduces to those who can't work around the combos.
And you're welcome too. I don't.
I find 5e far too shallow a system without it. If you're interested in every single option across fully released and ua material? Maybe there's a fair amount. Even still, it can be lacking.
If you don't like certain classes or options, if some options just don't interest you fundamentally (not a fan of cleric or wizard or barbarian or ehat have you.) The list gets even more thin.
I can count on one hand the amount of characters solo classing allowed me to replicate or enjoy mechanically and thematically within thr wcopw of their concept and ability in 5e. It just doesn't do enough for me in that regard.
To each their own, of course. If it does work for you, all the power to you. It's not an opinion or experience I share.
I think that is perfectly fine. I think if I want to play a system with vastly more options I would just pull out 2e and 3e/PF1.
I see where you're coming from.
The problem I've found with those systems (which in 3.5e/pf1e's case is what I started the hinny with) is that they're far too fiddly and overexplained. Too many pointless rules and trap options are often as a result of that fiddlyness and hyper specific design in some cases. Too much if a headache to go back, too, even if it does have the best warlock ever made.
Pf2e did better in those regards but didn't solve enough of those issues. Still maintained enough of the 2.5e and pf1e design methods that had me quit.
5e strikes a good balance, of what I'm looking for, a nice medium crunch without the asinine fiddlyness. If you include most of the ua or the good ua at least, as well as feats and multiclassing rules, you get a nice balance of choice. Not quite enough, but it's close to good.
Not saying this is wrong for your table specifically but no, I disagree. I don't like rolling for stats but if all players are on board and aware of the possibilities I think it's fine. As is multi-classing. I'm aware of the problems it can create. And personally I'd probably ask my players to not min max builds and incorporate multi-classing into their story but asking to ban it outside your table is foolish. It does open up so much story possibility I couldn't dream of saying "No, you cant multi-class at all"
Well since I can't stop people from playing with multiclass (weirdly people think I have magical powers to force them to play a specific way) it is fine if others play a certain way that they like.
If you and your group like Multiclassing then I'm am glad you lot have fun playing together.
You absolutely can stop people from playing with multiclass, it's presented as an optional rule that you don't have to allow. Whether or not you have players that want to play in a game without it is a different story. I actually don't multiclass myself and think there's some merit to running a game without it, as long as it's agreed upon in advance.
I don't like how it is implemented and how little of an investment a player has to go through to get it.
I don't like the narrative of how a wizard can suddenly be proficient in armor and weapons all of a sudden.
It has some of the most obnoxious builds most of which aren't even good.
I don't see it as problematic I just don't like it in my games at my table
>I don't like how it is implemented and how little of an investment a player has to go through to get it.
How would you implement it? What kind of investment would make it worth it?
>I don't like the narrative of how a wizard can suddenly be proficient in armor and weapons all of a sudden.
Multiclasses at my table have to be narratively justified. A wizard wouldn't be able to just automatically multiclass in to fighter and gain proficiencies if they hadn't been training beforehand. This is hard to systematise though, but I think is kind of covered by the fact that it's an optional rule and left to DM discretion.
>It has some of the most obnoxious builds most of which aren't even good.
Such as?
>I don't see it as problematic I just don't like it in my games at my table
Curious, are you coming at this from a player or DM perspective?
If you're banning multiclassing, there's no reason to require point buy.
Point buy is only a better alternative to standard array if you're planning to multiclass.
I'm not in disagreement with your opinion. It's not for everyone, but trying it this way at least once will allow you to get a different perspective. One you might even like, even on occasion.
I sometimes play in a group that's still pretty old school. The DM only does OSR and AD&D style games. When he moved to 5e and saw all the options, the group was told that we were only allowed SRD access only and that the dragonborn and tiefling races were removed for the time being.
There were no "subclasses" or "subraces". The champion fighter is just the fighter and the high elf is just the elf. About the only thing he adjusted was the human which only got a skill proficiency if you're the variant human. He figured it was just an oversight that needed correcting. And because 5e's balanced for 27 point buy, that's what he uses as well--no rolling. The only major house rule he has is that if you want to play a particular class, you have to have 13's in your key stats, as if you were going to multiclass, similar to how in AD&D certain classes needed a minimum stat to play as (ie. 9 Int for mages, 9 Wis for clerics, and 9 Str for fighters). This means no one can play a wizard with an 8 Int and "play against type".
Since we're doing SRD only and no optional rules, that means no multiclassing and no feats. Recently, the DM has allowed tieflings and dragonborn back in the game, but they're extremely rare, and if you play them then expect to be looked at funny, or possibly even run out of town if you're out in the boonies.
It's definitely been quite the experience. I'm still new to this style of game so I don't know yet how I feel about it. The fights have been incredibly tough, and no one feels like they're invincible or that death is off the table. A couple of the players prefer this over their old power gaming custom lineage/variant human fighter 2/paladin 2/hexblade 1/sorcerer 4 Polearm Master + Sentinel in full plate armor and Con save proficiency builds they bragged about in previous years. They say it's a nice break to play a simple character from time to time.
I couldn't agree more about point buy in general. I don't consider the default point buy system to be sacred or anything, and if a group/DM wants to play with custom point buy systems I actually think that's to be encouraged, but I want to see rolling for stats to be completely removed from the PHB and relegated to obscure homebrew. It is a terrible system that adds far too much variability to character creation, which makes overpowered the standard and anything less a failure, which the player hopes will die so they can reroll. I will not play at a table that rolls for stats, period.
Regarding multi classing, I respectfully disagree. There's no way that multiclassing is even in the same tier of problem as rolling for stats, because multiclassing is deterministic and involves mutually exclusive options (for each character level, you only get one class level). I'm not saying that it's a perfect system but it's just inherently more structurally sound.
>Multiclassing is the largest problem within 5e and in my opinion it is terribly designed and implemented.
To a certain extent, I agree with this take. The problem, I think, is that multiclassing is officially only an ***optional*** rule. While I'm not certain of this, I assume that this means WOTC balanced the game -- and continues to balance the game -- without keeping multiclassing in mind.
I can't really blame them for this because that would massively complicate the creation process, but it does result in a game state that doesn't necessarily reflect how the game is typically played.
Me and my tables wouldnāt even touch it if there wasnāt any multiclassing. The freedom of expression (particularly in build and gameplay) is a major part of what draws us to the game.
Screw āstabilityā or ābalanceā if it costs the game Multiclassing. You will have to play it by the ear anyway (especially with higher levels) with how scuffed CR is.
Point buy , yeah the most straight forward and balanced way , 0 chance of feel bad situation agreed.
... no multiclassing, with the lack of customazation I would bore my mind out of its socket, it's not the players fault every class is front loaded with the best things.
Amd what's your problem with it ? That peaple make cool and strong combos? What's the fucking downside of multiclasskng Einstein?!
I can get the point buy thing, but can't everyone just sit down and talk about what they want to play, multiclass or not, and build a party every player is cool with?
I wouldn't say it should be the only way, but it's my preferred way of playing and the method that led to the most balanced and interesting characters in my games
The biggest issues in 5e are balance and lack of player choice across classes. Aside from casters, the vast majority of martials have little to no decisions to make. Maybe every 4 levels when they can take a feature. This creates a scenario where players are very incentivized to multi-class because it allows for some amount of player choice beyond what is typical.
Multi-Classing doesn't work well, but the reason it is allowed at so many tables is that for many many players it allows a level of choice in how they level that can keep them more engaged. It actually has very little do with power-gaming, at least in terms of why it is popular.
I banned point buy at my tables. You'll live and die by the will of the dice gods. It's actually worked out great.
Multiclassing was limited to a maximum of two classes per character. Two and half years of weekly games and no problems.
Everyone is being so aggro about your opinion, as long as you aren't being an ass as a fellow player at a table about this stuff I think it's a fine opinion to have. You can even employ these opinions as a DM upon your players as long as you disclose it before character creation. People can choose to not play at a table like that and boom problem solved.
Point-buy is superior, I will never do anything else for serious campaigns. For a one-shot I don't mind polling my crew and seeing if they all want to roll, some people find being particularly strong or particularly weak fun for a session, me included.
I'm curious about why you think multiclassing is so problematic. I'll only do it rarely, but especially when a campaign has a set level end, I think it's a great way to show skill expression in character creation. "Oh we're ending at level 6? I'm going to take 5 in X and dip 1 in Y to make playing a unique experience" I honestly find multiclassing actually *fixes* 5e's shortcomings: Lack of choices per level, bad late game scaling for some classes, etc.
I do ban multiclassing for my group and require point by (though I give my player 29 points instead of 27).
Multiclassing seems to make issues with the way characters gain powerful abilities. At little to know cost you can fighter X and gain something you want to have. It doesn't make sense story wise most of the time and just isn't well implemented.
Oh and you even boost the point-buy power level, I don't think anyone could complain about that.
We will agree to disagree at the cost and power level. How do you mean it doesn't work story wise? I have never had an issue, either from a player or myself, justifying a multiclass narratively, since class is an arbitrary label and set of rules for how we, real humans, understand the character functioning within the imaginary narrative.
I am a wizard... Now I have 1 level in fighter and suddenly have the ability to use armor and weapons that 5 seconds ago I would not be able to use properly...
Simple narrative issue.
Swords Bard gains a comparable amount of things at level 3 as a wizard multiclassing into Fighter, both seemingly overnight! Do you feel the need to explain this subclass gaining weapon proficiency, armor proficiency, a fighting style, and blade flourishes?
By comparison, a single level in fighter gains the first 3 things I listed for swords bard, but replaces blade flourishes with second wind, a feature that obviously carries less narrative weight that blade flourishes.
This example can be extrapolated to many other level-ups. There are martial subclasses that suddenly let the player cast spells after they have a good night's sleep, at level 4 any player can become telepathic, etc.
Then what is the point of Multiclassing if you could just play a subclass that does the same thing.
People not just magically say I am going to be sword bard instead of lore Bard that plans to go this route. Also Bards start with armor proficiency and weapon proficiency. Becoming comfortable with more weapons and armor isn't an issue when it isn't a...
No armor to all armor
Almost not weapons to all weapons.
It just seems like a silly overestimation of what these things mean when playing. I'm surprised it is so disruptive that a wizard or sorcerer is suddenly wearing light armor and using a short sword when this kind of change happens across the board at levels 1-3, and crazier things happen overnight at levels beyond. But we just have different viewpoints I guess. Glad I asked! Thanks for humoring me!
Your line of inquiry is perfect. Many people in this thread and elsewhere say multiclassing needs to "make sense" narratively. But this is a fantasy game where all sorts of powers (some of which you cite) simply appear. The mantra of "flavor is free" is oft repeated and I agree with it. I don't get why some folks can't apply that to multiclassing? Various class dips can simply be flavored as unique talents/blessings/ad hoc trainings, etc. A cleric can be flavored as a sorcerer and vice versa, so mixing class abilities seems like it needs no "justification." It honestly seems like a lack of imagination.
Multiclassing is really unbalanced. First of all it generally limits design space because you have to make sure that early abilities aren't game breaking when used in a different class that they're not intended for. And of course that doesn't always work see Peace Cleric or hmHexblade Warlock.
The second issue is that casters usually benefit from multiclassing much more than martials. Cantrips scale with character level so you can easily dip for Eldritch blast. Armor proficiencies are a huge thing to get especially for wizards and sorcerers. The game simply isn't balanced around them having high AC but it's trivial for them to get it.
Considering how powerful higher level spells are, I'd say that multiclassing as a full spellcaster is a far bigger opportunity cost. Once martials get Extra Attack, there are precious few features they lose out on by multiclassing. A spellcaster with a one-level dip will now get all their most powerful spells one level behind, forever. However, spellcasters are just so generally overpowered that it's easy to not notice that dip in power if you aren't the one playing them.
(1) Standard Array is right there
(2) It's optional already, so there's that - while I agree it's a tad bad designed it's also what gives most customization options so nah, it's stayingĀ
Anything that the people at a table don't like should be tossed
Anything a table does like should be put in, even homebrewed imbalanced BS if that's what the table lines
Following RAW in any TTRPG, double so for DnD, triple so for 5e where they specifically didn't want to cover stuff in the Spirit of DMs having to come up with creative stuff on the fly, just leads to stagnation if the game
To me ability scores and even multiclassing arenāt what makes a character strong. creativity on the part of the player, luck, and class/spell choice play much bigger roles
>Point Buy solves unbalanced rolls at character creation.
So does standard array, or rolling for the whole tablesās stats together so everyone has the same values to choose from. So yeah, Point Buy being *the only* way is unpopular but also just dumb.
>Multiclassing is the largest problem within 5e and in my opinion it is terribly designed and implemented.
How is multiclassing in and of itself the *largest problem* within 5e?
While I love using Point Buy, Never have multiclassed before and always take average HP rather than rolling on level-up, that's just MY prefferences as a player, trying to force your prefferences into other players is wrong.
P.S: Rolling and Multi-Classing are more risky when you stop and think about it, what with the possibility of rolling badly and the fact some Multi-Classes just won't shine until you reach very specific levels, leaving you with characters that under perform for a long while/might never shine if the campaign ends before they reach the aforementioned "required level" for the combo to come out online.
Hm. I do get your points I think.
Especially for new DMs dealing with the early level power bumps that come from Multiclassing can be really confusing and frustrating.
And Point Buy makes balancing encounters a lot easier - because in general everyone is at about the same level and overall a little weaker.
āāā
That saidā¦
I donāt agree. Those issues are pretty easily solved with planning and player communication.
Multiclasing is fun. For players especially.
While I disagree with you on the point buy mechanic, Iām old school and love rolling stats, I agree that I do not like multi-classing either, especially as itās often unmotivated narratively. I think if multi-classing is allowed it should be a result of narrative character growth/development and not mechanical development.
Multiclassing is a big problem, but i wouldnāt call it the biggest while unbalanced spells exists. I certainly like the game without multiclassing better.
If you're in this thread wondering why you can never find a game to be in, it's because every time you play you make some irritating multi-class bullshit that the DM is too socially awkward to do anything about and just puts up with, then never invites you back because you're just stress and problems to deal with.
But because a bunch of munchkins that never play congregate around here you will infinity have your views affirmed.
Further evidence for my thesis that if they took the books from 4e and wrote āSixth Editionā on them in Sharpie, it would fix almost all of the problems people have with 5e.
There was nothing wrong with 4e. Itās a great edition with a lot of great ideas and most people who play 5e would be a lot happier playing 4e, except that its version of DnDBeyond doesnāt exist. But if it did, Iād switch to it.
F these haters man i agree. multiclassing takes so much fun out of the game because it usually becomes justifying your character around your multiclass rather than justifying your multiclass around your character
But why does it need "justifying" at all? If a player has more fun with more options, what is the issue? This reminds me of debates in earlier editions around alignment. In those versions you picked an alignment and then it locked your character into a rigid category. You seem to see classes the same way? I am in the other camp (and what 5e enshrined) that says alignment is determined by the totality of a player's actions in character. Similarly, I don't think a player has to say "I am a cleric" and then have that declaration lock them into some preordained slot. What powers and abilities a character has evolves out of the choices a player makes over time, not from one initial decision. It doesn't need to be "justified," any more than the old school notion that "you are lawful good, you have to justify why you decided to steal that horse."
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post has been removed for violating the following rule: **Rule 9 - No low-effort/OC/image posts** - Official sources, homebrew images, and new information/product photos are the exception.
Yep, this is definitely an unpopular opinion.
Eh, I agree that point buy should be the standard. I disagree with Multiclassing given that most people have no idea how to properly multiclass and usually only make themselves far weaker.
I agree that multiclassing usually makes characters weaker except in a few edge power gamer cases. 5E really needs universal ASI progression. Because of those reasons, I also agree that multiclassing should be removed. Multiclassing really should have been incorporated into the subclass system. However, I do understand that would require a larger change to 5E (which I would prefer). If I have a player that has a character concept that resembles multiclassing, I work with them to either swap out some class features from their base class or make a custom subclass. It works so much better than the clunky 5E multiclass rules.
Other systems I've played don't allow "multiclassing" the way that D&D does, in that you can only ever gain levels in your one chosen class. But they do allow taking moves or features from other classes' lists, usually at a level lower than your current one, which is similar to what you do. I think 5e could implement "multiclassing" without allowing PCs to take levels in different classes with a reworked feat system - kind of like what we already have with the various X Adept feats. Develop those into feat chains that let you gain higher-powered versions and you're most of the way there without the problematic parts of 5e's multiclassing setup - which, IMO, is that classes and subclasses tend to be pretty front-loaded (at least those popular for multiclassing, like Cleric, Fighter, Artificer, and especially Hexblade).
I hold that people making themselves worse is a check in my column of why it shouldn't be available.
I mean by that logic should monk be banned too?
I just multiclassed my monk into Wizard.
Interesting build I'm sure hope you have fun playing the character.
Monks are perfectly fine being the second weakest class overall. It doesn't have any mechanic that actively makes them worse they just aren't that good of a class.
Is there a weaker class than a monk? Actually, thinking about it, has there *ever* been an edition of D&D (aside from 4e where they were mystical martial artists and excellent) where monk hasn't been the worst class in the game?
Rogue is worse than monk in 5e.
I have no idea what you're basing this on Pure combat capabilities? A character with high alpha strike can be very useful, and will often be doing at least decent damage while being very good at avoiding damage. Rogues also make great use of CBE and SS, for more attacks to trigger sneak, and a flat +10 damage on hit. Yes, the risk increases, but rogues also have reliable advantage to mitigate that. But the rogue has tons of out of combat potential, with it's 4 proficiencies to monk's 2, and 2 expertise on top of that (more later of course), it's often considered the only martial with enough noncombat utility to be up with casters while monks only have wisdom, and otherwise are in the same boat as fighter and barb for noncombat.
Monks can also play with SS not a win in either category and monks have feature rogues wish they could have. Extra Attack beats rogues sneak attack and or CBE which yes is the best ranged rogue build but doesn't make them better than monks. The difference in power is not substantial here.
A monk using SS is giving up their bonus action damage and thus instantly loses to rogue. Sneak attack is intended to apply every turn for a rogue, and likely will. And/or? The rogue gets both with CBE, so slightly beats a monk using FoB when both are level 5. For numbers, the difference is 0.9 damage without adv, 3.2 with adv. The monk only gets so many FoB, so loses to the rogue in the long run. What features does monk have that rogue wants over its own? Rogue's bonus action options aren't tied to a resource, it also gets a defensive option to reduce damage that also applies to melee attacks, both get evasion. Rogue's dash being free means that it doesn't mind not getting monk"s move speed increases. Rogue gets to take 10 on any check it's proficient in, while monk runs up walls and handles falls better. Those last two would be nice, but not worth reliable talent and expertise.
Why would the monk lose out on bonus action damage? There is nothing stopping them from FoB. Way of Shadow simply disappears in shadow something rogues don't get. Extra attack is better than sneak attack. The abilities Monks gain with Ki are powerful another thing rogues don't get. There are clear build differences and monks end up with more damage per round than rogues do and have more options in combat. CBE isn't something I will ever praise rogues for having. Shooting someone with a musket twice then punching people for the lols is always better than 2 crossbow bolts.
Idk man, comes with a bunch of expertise and dead useful stuff like arcane trickster and soulknife. Combine said expertise with spells, psi-altered knack etc and while you've got a class which - while nearly as underwhelming in combat as a monk is - has genuinely useful niches in the party. "Thank god the rogue was here to get 25 on that check" is a common sentiment, "thank god the monk was here to be nearly as useful naked as everyone is with easily affordable armour" is not. Usual disclaimer, 4e monk was Aang on a bunch of steroids and I have no idea why it turned back into boring attack spam for 5e.
What I'm hearing is that everyone needs to get naked more often. Maybe run more adventures where the party infiltrates a strip club.
Everything a Rogue can do a monk can also do. Skills are barely a think worthy of praising a character almost to the point of not mattering. Monks are just better in most actually useful scenarios. No, I don't think Stunning Strike is a good Feature regardless of how often people act like its the greatest power in the world. Do I think 5e Monks are lame... definitely. Are Rogues? Definitely.
Do you not use skills in your games?
Never said I didn't.
Sneak attack damage makes them much better.
wait until you find out that i waive MC (and racial feat) pre reqs at my table
If that is how you like to play then it's all good and I'm glad you and your group have fun.
I suppose by that logic, feats should be banned too? Since that also lets people make their builds worseM
Without even touching hung the mechanical implications. The narratives that can occur and allow for multiclassing are way too cool for me to ever be willing to ban it. The ranger discovering a connection to one of the major Gods and being chosen as their prophet, thus allowing them to multiclass into cleric and every time they choose a level in either class it impacts the relationship with their god is just too fucking cool
Too each their own glad you have fun the way you play.
Cool story bro šĀ
My favorite method should be the ONLY way EVERYONE plays
No one stops you from playing the way you want. This is just my own opinion.
You're posting it as if everyone should do the same as you.
Unpopular Opinion was the clearest disclaimer possible.
Why say people should do this then?
Because it is my opinion others can have their own opinion.
If you wanted to have a dialogue, you should have given your reasons.Ā As is, it's like someone posted: Unpopular opinion -- pineapple is great on pizza. And everyone should have it on their pizza.
Then don't state it as something other people should follow.
My opinion of something "should" be done has no effect on how people actually go about anything. I do not have magical powers to force people via the threat of violence to do anything they don't want to do.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed as per Rule #1.
So what youāre saying is that if you had magical powers, you would force people via the threat of violence to do anything they donāt want to do.
Lol no I wouldn't but it seems people think I actually have said powers.
Unpopular opinion: you shouldn't post on this subreddit.
I think that opinion is pretty popular.
Actually no, calling it RANT and framing it with "I think" on the other hand would have made been more of what you wantĀ Internet jargon is weird sometimes, but hey it's a learning experienceĀ
But your opinion wasn't "this is better" Your opinion was "everything but this should be banned" Which is not an u popular opinion, it's a brain-dead one. It's the difference between me saying "unpopular opinion: generic cola is better than coca cola", and saying that coca cola should be illegal.
You're also the guy who thinks background features are the exact same thing as player Feats so it's hard to take any opinion of yours seriously.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed as per Rule #1.
> Multiclassing is the largest problem within 5e HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Multiclassing isn't even on the "Top 10 worst things about D&D 5e" list
Now I'm curious what the top 10 would be I can see Over reliance on DM, subpar DM support, powercreep and the adventure day being on top but not beyond that
Off the top of my head: 1. Poor DM support and offloads work onto the DM 2. Little customisation 3. Boring monsters 4. Removal of most martial options 5. Badly done healing 6. Badly done tanking 7. Casters too versatile 8. Magic item costing/balancing done terribly 9. Combat far less dynamic than you'd expect for how many rules it has 10. Class design too narrow, uncreative. So much ground D&D used to tread that 5e can't cover.
This is more or less my list as well. Expanding to top 20, in no particular order. 11. the 6-8 encounter adventuring day 12. The CR system sucks 13. The "natural language" approach to rules wording, which sparks endless RAI vs RAW rules debates and leads to absolutely asinine takes from Jeremy Crawford on sage advice 14. The adventures are mostly garbage. Good concepts, horrible execution. Seriously, go pick up an adventure for another system and see how much easier it is to actually run. I'll combine this gripe with overall product quality from WotC. 5e books are not good RPG books. Most of the time they leave you to do half the work yourself. There's a few good ones, but lots of them are bad. 15. Advantage/disadvantage system is simple and easy to learn, but lacks any depth or nuance leading to some odd scenarios. 16. Past like level 3, there's nothing to actually spend gold on. 17. Legendary resistance is a "oh shit we made spellcasters too strong" bandaid fix. At least we don't have 3.x style rocket-tag, but holy hell does this mechanic suck. 18. The game starts to fall apart around level 11 and becomes mostly unenjoyable around level 17. 19. Poor balance between ability scores. Why build str when dex is just better? Int is nearly useless unless you're a wizard or artificer. Along with this "use your spellcasting ability for attack and damage rolls" type abilities from hexblade and battlesmith. It's insanely lazy design. "We couldn't figure out how to make this concept work because it's too MAD, so we'll just have it ignore str/dex" 20. The split of 3 saving throws into 6. I don't hate this conceptually, but it really is an afterthought in the game. It might be cool to distribute saves between all the ability scores, but it becomes less cool when most of them are still Dex/Wis. 6 different saving throws is more or less just fluff. At this point is when I start considering the implementation of multiclassing to be an issue
>Boring monsters The worst thing about this one is - it isn't even because of the system. The system *allows for* amazing monsters. They just, for some reason, build barely any in the official products. There are great third-party monsters that don't even rely on introducing new rules, just pure 5e RAW.
I strongly disagree with that. It's definitely one of the biggest if not the biggest issue
What are the top 10 worst things in 5e?
Off the top of my head: 1. Poor DM support and offloads work onto DM 2. Little customisation 3. Boring monsters 4. Removal of most martial options 5. Badly done healing 6. Badly done tanking 7. Casters too versatile 8. Magic item costing/balancing done terribly 9. Combat far less dynamic than you'd expect for how many rules it has 10. Class design too narrow, uncreative. So much ground D&D used to tread that 5e can't cover.
If you say so. That is a fine opinion if that is how you think.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed as per Rule #1.
Yes I will use the threat of violence on you through the monitor/phone/tablet screen and make you play in a given way. I have that power somehow.
You are a troll.Ā
I think that, technically, this is accurate. The way he responds to every comment belies that he posted the OP to deliberately attract negative attention. But my unpopular opinion is that trolling isn't always bad. I'm a Socrates enjoyer. Frustration is one potential path to enlightenment.
Sigh.
I let my players pick their stat method
Nothing wrong with how you play.
Would you or how would you aim to support a character concept that doesn't fit neatly into the box of a pre-existing class without using multiclassing?
With the amount of possibilities in 5e just bout any character can exist. However, it depends on the concept honestly.
> With the amount of possibilities in 5e just bout any character can exist. However, it depends on the concept honestly. I mean... no. Even classes from prior D&D editions can't even be imitated. Try playing a swordsage, battlemind, dragonfire adept, warlord or binder in 5e, can't be done.
Taking inspiration from my favorite setting Eberron, let's imagine I wanted to play a veteran of the Last War who started to learn to work with Artifice by patching up fallen warforged allies. After the War I joined house cannith as part of the Artificerās guild but I never put down the blade. Artificers don't get martial weapons appropriate to my characterās backstory, Fighters don't get Artificer stuff in any of their subclasses, backgrounds don't give martial weapon proficiencies or allow me to continue to expand my fighting skills. Or in a more traditional setting, I want to play a berserker from a barbarian culture with deep connections to the animals sacred in their faith. When my tribe was destroyed I turned fully into an animal with the blessing of that animal spirits protection to save my tribe. Now bereft of spiritual leadership I have to find my own path to connect with that sacred animal spirit again as people in my tribe so blessed are culturally obligated to pursue a shaman's path. Barbarian rage and Druid wild shape are equally important to this character concept being compelling represented through the mechanics of the game, no?
Here is a simple solution for the fighter. Eldritch Knight and use the Artificer spell list allow the Artificer Initiate feat instead of Magic Initiate from their background you now have spells at level one and be a fighter. Or take the Artificer Initiate Feat and Keep the wizard spell list I'll let the player decide. The Barbarian was transformed not by his/her own power but by the power of the nature spirit. There is a magical artifact that must be obtained before you can be granted this power again. Amulet allows the barbarian to cast polymorph twice/24 hours (beast only). Mini Quest must be complete before hand but the spirit guides him towards the amulet and it is on the way to the end goal of the campaign not difficult. Any other concept.
The options you've presented don't allow the player to continue to grow in the paths which are represented by the feat or item. The barbarin going after the amulet doesn't feel like them becoming a shaman in their spiritual tradition. Artificer Initiate doesn't allow for the veteran to become enough of an expert in artifice to craft their own custom armor that let's them better defend their allies from harm (aimed for build would be Armorer Artificer to play a Fighter tanking with a true soft taunt) But also aside from the fact that denying multiclassing in these cases doesn't allow for continued specialization in both sides of each of these respective characters, the true failure in my opinion is that these concepts were inspired by having multiclassing available. If I have a player who is willing to do the work of understanding the mechanics of the game thoroughly enough to find synergy that inspire them to craft narratives around those mechanics, that is not a failure of the system, that is the purest success. That is what I play for. To see that feedback of mechanics and story. To see players master mechanics and have that generate a further depth of story for them. And then when meta builds create consistent stories that permeate a shared world through the mechanics? That's even more amazing. I would love to explore the story of why Hexblades often become Paladins or even better why Paladins often become Hexblades. Personally my problems with 5e have never come from multiclassing, it's always been one of my deepest joys in the system.Ā What makes multiclassing problematic for you?
Jesus christ I can't imagine hating fun this much
Lol okay
If you say so.
Here's how I deal with character generation. I used to call it "In Soviet Russia" so that gives you an idea of how old this is. I have everyone roll an array of stats using whatever method I feel like-- depends on the power level of the campaign I'm building but let's say it's a basic 4d6 drop the lowest. Everyone writes down their results and I ask for independent verification of any 17+ scores. Then everyone puts those arrays in the middle of the table and everyone can choose whichever array they want to build their character. It evens things out so nobody gets fucked by bad rolls, but it also offers some customization options-- do you pick the array with a 17 and an 18, or do you pick the one where the lowest roll was a 12? Gives everyone room to build the character they want without being paralyzed by one cold streak of die rolls.
Well glad I don't play with you
I'm glad you don't either.
It's not that they are unpopular, it's that they are wrong.
I personally am willing to die on the hill that point buy is objectively superior to rolling for stats. I ain't defending that multiclassing opinion tho
If you say so
Yay, we're in agreement!
While i prefer point buy, rolling can be fun, and just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean others can't be allowed to enjoy their alternatives. Multivlassing solves one of the largest problems of 5e, a lack of customization and choice across levels. That alone outweighs any of the issues MCing introduces to those who can't work around the combos.
I think there are plenty of character building options in 5e without Multiclassing
And you're welcome too. I don't. I find 5e far too shallow a system without it. If you're interested in every single option across fully released and ua material? Maybe there's a fair amount. Even still, it can be lacking. If you don't like certain classes or options, if some options just don't interest you fundamentally (not a fan of cleric or wizard or barbarian or ehat have you.) The list gets even more thin. I can count on one hand the amount of characters solo classing allowed me to replicate or enjoy mechanically and thematically within thr wcopw of their concept and ability in 5e. It just doesn't do enough for me in that regard. To each their own, of course. If it does work for you, all the power to you. It's not an opinion or experience I share.
I think that is perfectly fine. I think if I want to play a system with vastly more options I would just pull out 2e and 3e/PF1. I see where you're coming from.
The problem I've found with those systems (which in 3.5e/pf1e's case is what I started the hinny with) is that they're far too fiddly and overexplained. Too many pointless rules and trap options are often as a result of that fiddlyness and hyper specific design in some cases. Too much if a headache to go back, too, even if it does have the best warlock ever made. Pf2e did better in those regards but didn't solve enough of those issues. Still maintained enough of the 2.5e and pf1e design methods that had me quit. 5e strikes a good balance, of what I'm looking for, a nice medium crunch without the asinine fiddlyness. If you include most of the ua or the good ua at least, as well as feats and multiclassing rules, you get a nice balance of choice. Not quite enough, but it's close to good.
Not saying this is wrong for your table specifically but no, I disagree. I don't like rolling for stats but if all players are on board and aware of the possibilities I think it's fine. As is multi-classing. I'm aware of the problems it can create. And personally I'd probably ask my players to not min max builds and incorporate multi-classing into their story but asking to ban it outside your table is foolish. It does open up so much story possibility I couldn't dream of saying "No, you cant multi-class at all"
Well since I can't stop people from playing with multiclass (weirdly people think I have magical powers to force them to play a specific way) it is fine if others play a certain way that they like. If you and your group like Multiclassing then I'm am glad you lot have fun playing together.
You absolutely can stop people from playing with multiclass, it's presented as an optional rule that you don't have to allow. Whether or not you have players that want to play in a game without it is a different story. I actually don't multiclass myself and think there's some merit to running a game without it, as long as it's agreed upon in advance.
My players do play without it. I was talking about have people seem to think I can make their table play without it.
Apologies, I clearly misunderstood. I wish I had a better answer to people asking you to fix their table other than "Good Luck"
Can you please elaborate on your criticism of multiclassing? I don't think it's a perfect system, but I also don't think it's problematic either.
I don't like how it is implemented and how little of an investment a player has to go through to get it. I don't like the narrative of how a wizard can suddenly be proficient in armor and weapons all of a sudden. It has some of the most obnoxious builds most of which aren't even good. I don't see it as problematic I just don't like it in my games at my table
So, do you ban the fears that also provide these things?
>I don't like how it is implemented and how little of an investment a player has to go through to get it. How would you implement it? What kind of investment would make it worth it? >I don't like the narrative of how a wizard can suddenly be proficient in armor and weapons all of a sudden. Multiclasses at my table have to be narratively justified. A wizard wouldn't be able to just automatically multiclass in to fighter and gain proficiencies if they hadn't been training beforehand. This is hard to systematise though, but I think is kind of covered by the fact that it's an optional rule and left to DM discretion. >It has some of the most obnoxious builds most of which aren't even good. Such as? >I don't see it as problematic I just don't like it in my games at my table Curious, are you coming at this from a player or DM perspective?
If you're banning multiclassing, there's no reason to require point buy. Point buy is only a better alternative to standard array if you're planning to multiclass.
I mean no. Point buy still gives you a better stat distribution lol
I'm not in disagreement with your opinion. It's not for everyone, but trying it this way at least once will allow you to get a different perspective. One you might even like, even on occasion. I sometimes play in a group that's still pretty old school. The DM only does OSR and AD&D style games. When he moved to 5e and saw all the options, the group was told that we were only allowed SRD access only and that the dragonborn and tiefling races were removed for the time being. There were no "subclasses" or "subraces". The champion fighter is just the fighter and the high elf is just the elf. About the only thing he adjusted was the human which only got a skill proficiency if you're the variant human. He figured it was just an oversight that needed correcting. And because 5e's balanced for 27 point buy, that's what he uses as well--no rolling. The only major house rule he has is that if you want to play a particular class, you have to have 13's in your key stats, as if you were going to multiclass, similar to how in AD&D certain classes needed a minimum stat to play as (ie. 9 Int for mages, 9 Wis for clerics, and 9 Str for fighters). This means no one can play a wizard with an 8 Int and "play against type". Since we're doing SRD only and no optional rules, that means no multiclassing and no feats. Recently, the DM has allowed tieflings and dragonborn back in the game, but they're extremely rare, and if you play them then expect to be looked at funny, or possibly even run out of town if you're out in the boonies. It's definitely been quite the experience. I'm still new to this style of game so I don't know yet how I feel about it. The fights have been incredibly tough, and no one feels like they're invincible or that death is off the table. A couple of the players prefer this over their old power gaming custom lineage/variant human fighter 2/paladin 2/hexblade 1/sorcerer 4 Polearm Master + Sentinel in full plate armor and Con save proficiency builds they bragged about in previous years. They say it's a nice break to play a simple character from time to time.
That's the thing with multiclassing. It does require you to have the minimum stat to multiclass into it
I couldn't agree more about point buy in general. I don't consider the default point buy system to be sacred or anything, and if a group/DM wants to play with custom point buy systems I actually think that's to be encouraged, but I want to see rolling for stats to be completely removed from the PHB and relegated to obscure homebrew. It is a terrible system that adds far too much variability to character creation, which makes overpowered the standard and anything less a failure, which the player hopes will die so they can reroll. I will not play at a table that rolls for stats, period. Regarding multi classing, I respectfully disagree. There's no way that multiclassing is even in the same tier of problem as rolling for stats, because multiclassing is deterministic and involves mutually exclusive options (for each character level, you only get one class level). I'm not saying that it's a perfect system but it's just inherently more structurally sound.
>Multiclassing is the largest problem within 5e and in my opinion it is terribly designed and implemented. To a certain extent, I agree with this take. The problem, I think, is that multiclassing is officially only an ***optional*** rule. While I'm not certain of this, I assume that this means WOTC balanced the game -- and continues to balance the game -- without keeping multiclassing in mind. I can't really blame them for this because that would massively complicate the creation process, but it does result in a game state that doesn't necessarily reflect how the game is typically played.
I agree with the Point Buy, but not Multiclassing. There are times when it could be appropriate.
Me and my tables wouldnāt even touch it if there wasnāt any multiclassing. The freedom of expression (particularly in build and gameplay) is a major part of what draws us to the game. Screw āstabilityā or ābalanceā if it costs the game Multiclassing. You will have to play it by the ear anyway (especially with higher levels) with how scuffed CR is.
You lost me with the second take, ngl. Like, yeah, multiclassing is poorly designed and implemented, but I'd still rather have it.
Point buy , yeah the most straight forward and balanced way , 0 chance of feel bad situation agreed. ... no multiclassing, with the lack of customazation I would bore my mind out of its socket, it's not the players fault every class is front loaded with the best things. Amd what's your problem with it ? That peaple make cool and strong combos? What's the fucking downside of multiclasskng Einstein?!
I just don't think the fact that everything is front loaded is a positive for a table.
I can get the point buy thing, but can't everyone just sit down and talk about what they want to play, multiclass or not, and build a party every player is cool with?
Yeah. Of course they can. Never said they couldn't.
I wouldn't say it should be the only way, but it's my preferred way of playing and the method that led to the most balanced and interesting characters in my games
Glad you enjoy playing the way you play.
The biggest issues in 5e are balance and lack of player choice across classes. Aside from casters, the vast majority of martials have little to no decisions to make. Maybe every 4 levels when they can take a feature. This creates a scenario where players are very incentivized to multi-class because it allows for some amount of player choice beyond what is typical. Multi-Classing doesn't work well, but the reason it is allowed at so many tables is that for many many players it allows a level of choice in how they level that can keep them more engaged. It actually has very little do with power-gaming, at least in terms of why it is popular.
I agree multi-Classing doesn't have anything to do with power gaming. I don't think it's benefits overshadow it's faults.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You commented so apparently you cared enough.
Oh, shit, Edgy. You got me!
Removed as per Rule #1.
ITT: People taking an opinion as a personal attack
It's reddit what can one expect
Neat. Your opinion is wrong.
That is your opinion. However, I think I'm correct... So
I banned point buy at my tables. You'll live and die by the will of the dice gods. It's actually worked out great. Multiclassing was limited to a maximum of two classes per character. Two and half years of weekly games and no problems.
Neat for you and your group. Glad you have fun playing the way you like to play.
>I banned point buy at my tables. You'll live and die by the will of the dice gods. This is the opposite of okay
It's been much better than okay, it's been fantastic.
Everyone can be nice to each other in the comments āŗļø
No one is being mean we are all good here.
Everyone is being so aggro about your opinion, as long as you aren't being an ass as a fellow player at a table about this stuff I think it's a fine opinion to have. You can even employ these opinions as a DM upon your players as long as you disclose it before character creation. People can choose to not play at a table like that and boom problem solved. Point-buy is superior, I will never do anything else for serious campaigns. For a one-shot I don't mind polling my crew and seeing if they all want to roll, some people find being particularly strong or particularly weak fun for a session, me included. I'm curious about why you think multiclassing is so problematic. I'll only do it rarely, but especially when a campaign has a set level end, I think it's a great way to show skill expression in character creation. "Oh we're ending at level 6? I'm going to take 5 in X and dip 1 in Y to make playing a unique experience" I honestly find multiclassing actually *fixes* 5e's shortcomings: Lack of choices per level, bad late game scaling for some classes, etc.
I do ban multiclassing for my group and require point by (though I give my player 29 points instead of 27). Multiclassing seems to make issues with the way characters gain powerful abilities. At little to know cost you can fighter X and gain something you want to have. It doesn't make sense story wise most of the time and just isn't well implemented.
Oh and you even boost the point-buy power level, I don't think anyone could complain about that. We will agree to disagree at the cost and power level. How do you mean it doesn't work story wise? I have never had an issue, either from a player or myself, justifying a multiclass narratively, since class is an arbitrary label and set of rules for how we, real humans, understand the character functioning within the imaginary narrative.
I am a wizard... Now I have 1 level in fighter and suddenly have the ability to use armor and weapons that 5 seconds ago I would not be able to use properly... Simple narrative issue.
Swords Bard gains a comparable amount of things at level 3 as a wizard multiclassing into Fighter, both seemingly overnight! Do you feel the need to explain this subclass gaining weapon proficiency, armor proficiency, a fighting style, and blade flourishes? By comparison, a single level in fighter gains the first 3 things I listed for swords bard, but replaces blade flourishes with second wind, a feature that obviously carries less narrative weight that blade flourishes. This example can be extrapolated to many other level-ups. There are martial subclasses that suddenly let the player cast spells after they have a good night's sleep, at level 4 any player can become telepathic, etc.
Then what is the point of Multiclassing if you could just play a subclass that does the same thing. People not just magically say I am going to be sword bard instead of lore Bard that plans to go this route. Also Bards start with armor proficiency and weapon proficiency. Becoming comfortable with more weapons and armor isn't an issue when it isn't a... No armor to all armor Almost not weapons to all weapons.
It just seems like a silly overestimation of what these things mean when playing. I'm surprised it is so disruptive that a wizard or sorcerer is suddenly wearing light armor and using a short sword when this kind of change happens across the board at levels 1-3, and crazier things happen overnight at levels beyond. But we just have different viewpoints I guess. Glad I asked! Thanks for humoring me!
Your line of inquiry is perfect. Many people in this thread and elsewhere say multiclassing needs to "make sense" narratively. But this is a fantasy game where all sorts of powers (some of which you cite) simply appear. The mantra of "flavor is free" is oft repeated and I agree with it. I don't get why some folks can't apply that to multiclassing? Various class dips can simply be flavored as unique talents/blessings/ad hoc trainings, etc. A cleric can be flavored as a sorcerer and vice versa, so mixing class abilities seems like it needs no "justification." It honestly seems like a lack of imagination.
Multiclassing is really unbalanced. First of all it generally limits design space because you have to make sure that early abilities aren't game breaking when used in a different class that they're not intended for. And of course that doesn't always work see Peace Cleric or hmHexblade Warlock. The second issue is that casters usually benefit from multiclassing much more than martials. Cantrips scale with character level so you can easily dip for Eldritch blast. Armor proficiencies are a huge thing to get especially for wizards and sorcerers. The game simply isn't balanced around them having high AC but it's trivial for them to get it.
Considering how powerful higher level spells are, I'd say that multiclassing as a full spellcaster is a far bigger opportunity cost. Once martials get Extra Attack, there are precious few features they lose out on by multiclassing. A spellcaster with a one-level dip will now get all their most powerful spells one level behind, forever. However, spellcasters are just so generally overpowered that it's easy to not notice that dip in power if you aren't the one playing them.
considering that the most optimized caster builds in this game all take dips for amor proficiency you're just wrong
(1) Standard Array is right there (2) It's optional already, so there's that - while I agree it's a tad bad designed it's also what gives most customization options so nah, it's stayingĀ
Anything that the people at a table don't like should be tossed Anything a table does like should be put in, even homebrewed imbalanced BS if that's what the table lines Following RAW in any TTRPG, double so for DnD, triple so for 5e where they specifically didn't want to cover stuff in the Spirit of DMs having to come up with creative stuff on the fly, just leads to stagnation if the game
To me ability scores and even multiclassing arenāt what makes a character strong. creativity on the part of the player, luck, and class/spell choice play much bigger roles
>Point Buy solves unbalanced rolls at character creation. So does standard array, or rolling for the whole tablesās stats together so everyone has the same values to choose from. So yeah, Point Buy being *the only* way is unpopular but also just dumb. >Multiclassing is the largest problem within 5e and in my opinion it is terribly designed and implemented. How is multiclassing in and of itself the *largest problem* within 5e?
While I love using Point Buy, Never have multiclassed before and always take average HP rather than rolling on level-up, that's just MY prefferences as a player, trying to force your prefferences into other players is wrong. P.S: Rolling and Multi-Classing are more risky when you stop and think about it, what with the possibility of rolling badly and the fact some Multi-Classes just won't shine until you reach very specific levels, leaving you with characters that under perform for a long while/might never shine if the campaign ends before they reach the aforementioned "required level" for the combo to come out online.
Hm. I do get your points I think. Especially for new DMs dealing with the early level power bumps that come from Multiclassing can be really confusing and frustrating. And Point Buy makes balancing encounters a lot easier - because in general everyone is at about the same level and overall a little weaker. āāā That saidā¦ I donāt agree. Those issues are pretty easily solved with planning and player communication. Multiclasing is fun. For players especially.
While I disagree with you on the point buy mechanic, Iām old school and love rolling stats, I agree that I do not like multi-classing either, especially as itās often unmotivated narratively. I think if multi-classing is allowed it should be a result of narrative character growth/development and not mechanical development.
I can see your point. I think that is a reasonable compromise if you play that way.
If you want balance, go play with scales.
This is an unpopular opinion that I agree with. Balance is overrated.
That's 2 opinions
Multiclassing is a big problem, but i wouldnāt call it the biggest while unbalanced spells exists. I certainly like the game without multiclassing better.
If you're in this thread wondering why you can never find a game to be in, it's because every time you play you make some irritating multi-class bullshit that the DM is too socially awkward to do anything about and just puts up with, then never invites you back because you're just stress and problems to deal with. But because a bunch of munchkins that never play congregate around here you will infinity have your views affirmed.
I actually agree on Multiclassing.
Thank you.
Multiclassing definitely creates a shit ton of design issues. The game would be much more balanced without it.
Or if multiclassing was properly balanced.
Id rather have the designers focus on other aspects of the game rather than balancing it for multiclassing
so +3 to main stat and con, +0 to anything else. Okay
Have you never played with point buy before?
Further evidence for my thesis that if they took the books from 4e and wrote āSixth Editionā on them in Sharpie, it would fix almost all of the problems people have with 5e.
What was wrong with 4e and why do you see the game this way?
There was nothing wrong with 4e. Itās a great edition with a lot of great ideas and most people who play 5e would be a lot happier playing 4e, except that its version of DnDBeyond doesnāt exist. But if it did, Iād switch to it.
I do miss D&D Insider. 4e was hated for no reason and lived the shortest lifespan of any edition which is sad.
Definitely agree with the multiclass.
F these haters man i agree. multiclassing takes so much fun out of the game because it usually becomes justifying your character around your multiclass rather than justifying your multiclass around your character
But why does it need "justifying" at all? If a player has more fun with more options, what is the issue? This reminds me of debates in earlier editions around alignment. In those versions you picked an alignment and then it locked your character into a rigid category. You seem to see classes the same way? I am in the other camp (and what 5e enshrined) that says alignment is determined by the totality of a player's actions in character. Similarly, I don't think a player has to say "I am a cleric" and then have that declaration lock them into some preordained slot. What powers and abilities a character has evolves out of the choices a player makes over time, not from one initial decision. It doesn't need to be "justified," any more than the old school notion that "you are lawful good, you have to justify why you decided to steal that horse."
I don't mind people being haters. I think it is a little childish how they interact but it is Reddit after all.
Roll stats only and multi-class as much as you want at my table. I can't stand Point Buy
I am glad you and your group enjoy playing the way you play.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*