Some stuff I would do to fix 5e

[Blatant Beast]

The board games are over there, in that part of the store. ======>

Well Done!

But I don't think your point is a good rebuttal to complaints that the DMG should have better guidance.

It is not meant to be, the DMG could be better.
There are, however, other books than the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
If for example, one feels the 5e DMG has insufficient advice on how to structure a campaign and keep a consistent feel and theme, the Ravenloft Campaign book has more advice on this topic.

No Dungeon Masters Guide, for any Edition of D&D has been perfect, and most advice in a Dungeon Master’s Guides becomes less useful over time, as people’s playstyle evolve and change.

The 2E AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, was a well written and useful book, in my opinion. Yet by the end of 2e, the DMG was not that relevant, because inevitably, the playstyle zeitgeist at the end of an Edition’s lifespan, is different from what the Dungeon Master Guide assumes when it was published.

One has to be willing to adapt, overcome and improvise, because all information has a limited shelf life.

Level-by-level multiclassing boils down to trying to do both of those things at the same time, and not really doing either very well. There's a reason why you only really see it in D&D and D&D heartbreakers — it's way simpler to either have classes with minimal customization or to have a point-buy game where there are pre-made "templates" that you can pick from to make character creation simpler.

I think your post is spot on.
I do think 1e’s AD&D Concurrent style also worked well.

[Kurald Galain]

I do think 1e’s AD&D Concurrent style also worked well.

They were certainly fun, but also heavily imbalanced. Like, for the same XP as a 12th level fighter you could be fighter 11 / cleric 9. Yeah, that's fair

[Blatant Beast]

They were certainly fun, but also heavily imbalanced. Like, for the same XP as a 12th level fighter you could be fighter 11 / cleric 9. Yeah, that's fair

On paper it seems imbalanced, but in actual play it often evened out. The ideal design goal is a multi-classed PC should have approximately 3/4 the levels of a Single Classed character.

If Raistlin is casting 9th level spells, it is ok if Gilthanas, (a gishy type), is casting 7th level spells.

Fun should be a design goal.

[Psyren]

The hate for level-by-level multiclassing ultimately comes from how difficult it is to get right.

Class-based systems tend to work best when they're front-loaded — the whole point of having classes is to make it really easy to play a character who fits into the core archetypes for your game/setting, so you want each class to be able to do the thing ASAP. Having each level of your class be "worth" a different amount is unimportant, because it's about getting everything to feel right. The "Monk" class needs to get Martial Arts, Unarmed Defense, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, and Unarmed Movement at 1st level in order to feel like the "whole package"? Yeah, sure, that's fine!

Point-based systems, on the other hand, work best when everything has balanced pricing — if you have a situation where spending 5 points on A is categorically better than spending 5 points on B, you've probably screwed up! On the flip side, you have way more flexibility in terms of what you can play — you want to make a talk-y character who's a bare-knuckle boxer in fights? Yeah, sure, just spend your points on X, Y, and Z, and you'll theoretically be balanced with the guy who spent the same number of points on being a cool wizard knight or whatever (it very rarely actually works out that way, but hey — the idea's nice).

Level-by-level multiclassing boils down to trying to do both of those things at the same time, and not really doing either very well. There's a reason why you only really see it in D&D and D&D heartbreakers — it's way simpler to either have classes with minimal customization or to have a point-buy game where there are pre-made "templates" that you can pick from to make character creation simpler.

I totally agree with you that point-based build systems allow for more granular and equitable ability costing. But this point in favor of point-based systems doesn't make level-by-level class-based systems bad either, nor does it mean that D&D got it wrong. (Flawed in respects like every other endeavor of human hands, certainly, but not wrong.)

I further agree that landing on a bundle of abilities/features that lets a class feel authentic or representative of its fantasy as soon as possible is a valid goal, and likely the goal that usually leads to D&D's tendency to frontload its classes. But the devil is in the details; I would argue that it takes a much smaller bundle of such abilities to achieve that objective than you might think. Take your example above of the Monk - I'd argue that all you need to feel like a monk at first level is to be reasonably effective while unarmed and unarmored. The other 3 abilities you listed - fast movement, slow fall, and deflect - can all wait; moreover, the unarmed combat part of monks should (and does) scale with monk level, so getting that early isn't necessarily a frontload either because the damage die will stay static if you leave the class behind. You're thus rewarded for staying a monk, and need to weigh the loss of that reward vs whatever you'd get by multiclassing, creating experiential depth.

Those two things combined mean that the class isn't as frontloaded as it might appear; that's exactly how multiclassing should work.

[Dr.Samurai]

It is not meant to be, the DMG could be better.
There are, however, other books than the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
If for example, one feels the 5e DMG has insufficient advice on how to structure a campaign and keep a consistent feel and theme, the Ravenloft Campaign book has more advice on this topic.

But how would someone know this, and should the guidance be spread out like this. As an example, I don't own the Ravenloft Campaign book.

No Dungeon Masters Guide, for any Edition of D&D has been perfect, and most advice in a Dungeon Master’s Guides becomes less useful over time, as people’s playstyle evolve and change.

The 2E AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, was a well written and useful book, in my opinion. Yet by the end of 2e, the DMG was not that relevant, because inevitably, the playstyle zeitgeist at the end of an Edition’s lifespan, is different from what the Dungeon Master Guide assumes when it was published.

This may be true as well, however less useful implies was useful at a time.

One has to be willing to adapt, overcome and improvise, because all information has a limited shelf life.

I agree people should be willing to adapt and improvise.


With regards to Rage and Sneak Attack...

I think the base barbarian feature should be decoupled from "Rage" (in name). Rage can be a subclass feature (like Berserker can be the raging barbarian). Change it to Adrenaline or something for the base class, like others have suggested.

For Sneak Attack, I tend to agree with Witty Username in that it seems more a method of fighting over the types of weapons. My opinion that will never be implemented anywhere is that it should probably be more difficult to use, but open to any weapons, and you're simply taking advantage of the situation. But that's way more involved than the game is built for. Also, it's weird to balance a feature that is supposed to be an opportunistic exploitative attack.

EDIT: Multiclassing

I agree that level by level multiclassing is obnoxious. Part of the reason though is that class features taper off dramatically by end of tier 2. Classes will always be frontloaded, I think, to get characters up and running in the game. But features should stay impactful and interesting all throughout, instead of feeling like the devs are throwing us a bone or reaching to the bottom of the barrel to fill a level in.

[Psyren]

But how would someone know this, and should the guidance be spread out like this. As an example, I don't own the Ravenloft Campaign book.

The advice is in Ravenloft because it was the first nonstandard campaign style they introduced to 5e (Dark Fantasy/Horror). The DMG explicitly advises you to use Ravenloft game products for this type of campaign on pg. 40. And that's how all nonstandard campaign styles, i.e. anything that deviates from Heroic Fantasy (the default for 5e - DMG 38) work; the DMG briefly describes them, but you're expected to use other game products actually set in that campaign style to flesh them out, relying on third party or homebrew if nothing official exists yet.

For Sneak Attack, I tend to agree with Witty Username in that it seems more a method of fighting over the types of weapons.

Some methods of fighting entail or invoke a type of weapon in order to function. Just like Great Weapon Master assumes heavy two-handers that use Strength and Sharpshooter assumes projectile weapons and darts, Sneak Attack assumes finesse and ranged.

I agree that level by level multiclassing is obnoxious. Part of the reason though is that class features taper off dramatically by end of tier 2. Classes will always be frontloaded, I think, to get characters up and running in the game. But features should stay impactful and interesting all throughout, instead of feeling like the devs are throwing us a bone or reaching to the bottom of the barrel to fill a level in.

I'd say that rather than removing level-by-level multiclassing, the better solution is to make Tier 3 and 4 class features more desirable. Multiclassing will still be the ideal choice for many builds, but it wouldn't be as automatic as it is now, and become a true choice. All the martials are getting upgrades along these lines, that make straight-classing much more attractive for them.

[Dr.Samurai]

The advice is in Ravenloft because it was the first nonstandard campaign style they introduced to 5e (Dark Fantasy/Horror). The DMG explicitly advises you to use Ravenloft game products for this type of campaign on pg. 40. And that's how all nonstandard campaign styles, i.e. anything that deviates from Heroic Fantasy (the default for 5e - DMG 38) work; the DMG briefly describes them, but you're expected to use other game products actually set in that campaign style to flesh them out, relying on third party or homebrew if nothing official exists yet.

A couple of points here.

1. I don't agree with what you are saying. The DMG actually says you have plenty of material to work with if you want to run a dark fantasy/horror game. Here is what it says:

If you want to put a horror spin on your campaign, you have plenty of material to work with. The Monster Manual is full of creatures that perfectly suit a storyline of supernatural horror. The most important element of such a campaign, though, isn't covered by the rules. A dark-fantasy setting requires an atmosphere of building dread, created through careful pacing and evocative description. Your players contribute too; they have to be willing to embrace the mood you're trying to evoke.

Whether you want to run a full-fledged dark-fantasy campaign or a single creepy adventure, you should discuss your plans with the players ahead of time to make sure they're on board. Horror can be intense and personal, and not everyone is comfortable with such a game.

It then says: Novels and game products set in Ravenloft, the Demiplane of Dread, explore dark-fantasy elements in a D&D context.

Nowhere does it explicitly tell the reader that they are required or expected to use other game products, or third party/homebrew in order to run these types of games.

2. Stunts, the original point in the post that Blatant Beast was responding to, are far more common in every game, as opposed to only existing in certain types of games, and I would expect the guidance for them in the PHB or DMG.

Some methods of fighting entail or invoke a type of weapon in order to function. Just like Great Weapon Master assumes heavy two-handers that use Strength and Sharpshooter assumes projectile weapons and darts, Sneak Attack assumes finesse and ranged.

Assuming and invoking are two different things. If I swing at someone with a warhammer, they may dodge, block, parry, etc. Either way, they are interfering with my strike and either negating it or reducing its effectiveness.

However, if I attack from hiding, or attack while the enemy is distracted, or from behind, etc. I might just brain them or severely injure them because they don't have the opportunity to fully defend themselves.

The two feats you mention are named after the style of weaponry. Sneak Attack is not, and is just attacking someone when they are more vulnerable to your attacks. You can do that with any weapon.

I'd say that rather than removing level-by-level multiclassing, the better solution is to make Tier 3 and 4 class features more desirable. Multiclassing will still be the ideal choice for many builds, but it wouldn't be as automatic as it is now, and become a true choice. All the martials are getting upgrades along these lines, that make straight-classing much more attractive for them.

I agree that making tiers 3 and 4 more desirable is a good move in the right direction.

[Psyren]

such a game.[/I]

It then says: Novels and game products set in Ravenloft, the Demiplane of Dread, explore dark-fantasy elements in a D&D context.

Nowhere does it explicitly tell the reader that they are required or expected to use other game products, or third party/homebrew in order to run these types of games.

You might view the bolded quote from the book as just an unrelated aside or idle conversation, but it read as DM advice to me.

2. Stunts, the original point in the post that Blatant Beast was responding to, are far more common in every game, as opposed to only existing in certain types of games, and I would expect the guidance for them in the PHB or DMG.

There is. PHB 176: "The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips."

Assuming and invoking are two different things. If I swing at someone with a warhammer, they may dodge, block, parry, etc. Either way, they are interfering with my strike and either negating it or reducing its effectiveness.

However, if I attack from hiding, or attack while the enemy is distracted, or from behind, etc. I might just brain them or severely injure them because they don't have the opportunity to fully defend themselves.

That's what the Advantage represents, which not only increases your chances of landing a telling blow, it increases your chances to crit as well.

The two feats you mention are named after the style of weaponry. Sneak Attack is not, and is just attacking someone when they are more vulnerable to your attacks. You can do that with any weapon.

Reckless Attack then. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with Str-based weapons.
Or Stunning Strike. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with monk weapons.
Or Divine Smite. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with melee weapons (and now unarmed strikes).

The title shouldn't be taken as an overly literal mandate that informs the restriction; the restriction can be justified in the fiction without that.

[Dr.Samurai]

You might view the bolded quote from the book as just an unrelated aside or idle conversation, but it read as DM advice to me.

It reads to me as "Here are some examples of works that are considered dark fantasy/horror, and in a D&D context".

As opposed to the "explicit" instructions that you have to use novels and Ravenloft game products from other editions to play a dark fantasy game, which is how you said it reads to you.

There is. PHB 176: "The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips."

I'm sure you're aware you're just rehashing the debate on guidance for ability checks in the DMG...

That's what the Advantage represents, which not only increases your chances of landing a telling blow, it increases your chances to crit as well.

It's what Sneak Attack represents, hitting a distracted foe.

Reckless Attack then. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with Str-based weapons.
Or Stunning Strike. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with monk weapons.
Or Divine Smite. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with melee weapons (and now unarmed strikes).

The title shouldn't be taken as an overly literal mandate that informs the restriction; the restriction can be justified in the fiction without that.

This is my mistake; I mistook "invoke" to mean "evoke", so I thought you were saying some fighting styles call specific weapons to mind, hence my previous comment.

Be that as it may, you're just repeating the rules at me that I am already familiar with. So when I say that in my opinion SA should apply to all weapons and work a little differently, I say that knowing full well that right now it only applies to finesse and ranged weapons. That's the point of giving my differing opinion.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree that making tiers 3 and 4 more desirable is a good move in the right direction.

Likewise.

It reads to me as "Here are some examples of works that are considered dark fantasy/horror, and in a D&D context".

Yes.

Sneak attack is also about hitting a flanked foe, they just don't call it flanking.

[Psyren]

It reads to me as "Here are some examples of works that are considered dark fantasy/horror, and in a D&D context".

As opposed to the "explicit" instructions that you have to use novels and Ravenloft game products from other editions to play a dark fantasy game, which is how you said it reads to you.

I think it would be pretty silly of them to reference a D&D product they didn't intend for the reader to use, but fine.

It's what Sneak Attack represents, hitting a distracted foe.

The Rogue has the skill to hit a distracted foe in a specifically damaging way, provided they're using certain kinds of weapons.

Be that as it may, you're just repeating the rules at me that I am already familiar with. So when I say that in my opinion SA should apply to all weapons and work a little differently, I say that knowing full well that right now it only applies to finesse and ranged weapons. That's the point of giving my differing opinion.

I know you're giving your opinion and that's fine, I was just defending the current rules in-fiction.

Sneak attack is also about hitting a flanked foe, they just don't call it flanking.

Because it isn't; even if your ally is the only creature adjacent to the enemy (i.e. they're not flanked by anything), and you attack from range, you still get the benefit.

[Blatant Beast]

2. Stunts, the original point in the post that Blatant Beast was responding to, are far more common in every game, as opposed to only existing in certain types of games, and I would expect the guidance for them in the PHB or DMG.

Honestly, the best way is for you to do your own stunts..makes it more authentic ;) Whenever game designers sit down and create a ‘stunt’ system it often just results in an overly complicated mess.

You want to shoot a creature’s eye?
Treat it like half cover or 3/4 cover, let the target be Blinded until the end or start of a turn, and keep notes for future reference.

If you leave it up to WotC to design your stunt system, you are just going to get a random chart you won’t use.

[Darth Credence]

Honestly, the best way is for you to do your own stunts..makes it more authentic ;) Whenever game designers sit down and create a ‘stunt’ system it often just results in an overly complicated mess.

You want to shoot a creature’s eye?
Treat it like half cover or 3/4 cover, let the target be Blinded until the end or start of a turn, and keep notes for future reference.

If you leave it up to WotC to design your stunt system, you are just going to get a random chart you won’t use.

I honestly thought your first sentence was recommending that people literally do their own stunts - like they should be playing in a large space with chandeliers so that when they want to swing from the chandelier, the player actually does it.

I was not sure why, but I know I wanted to be a part of that game to see how that works out.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because it isn't;

Yes it is. Your ally is adjacent to the enemy, your rogue gets the benefit on the attack (regardless of grid position since 5e is TotM based not grid based). What you don't get is advantage on the attack unless some other factor is in play.

[Psyren]

Yes it is. Your ally is adjacent to the enemy, your rogue gets the benefit on the attack (regardless of grid position since 5e is TotM based not grid based). What you don't get is advantage on the attack unless some other factor is in play.

I know the rogue benefits, I'm disagreeing that it's flanking. A single ally can't flank anyone by definition.

[LibraryOgre]

Point-based systems, on the other hand, work best when everything has balanced pricing — if you have a situation where spending 5 points on A is categorically better than spending 5 points on B, you've probably screwed up! On the flip side, you have way more flexibility in terms of what you can play — you want to make a talk-y character who's a bare-knuckle boxer in fights? Yeah, sure, just spend your points on X, Y, and Z, and you'll theoretically be balanced with the guy who spent the same number of points on being a cool wizard knight or whatever (it very rarely actually works out that way, but hey — the idea's nice).

While I didn't get to playteset it much, it actually worked out pretty well in Star Wars Saga Edition, to the point where I'm content with my classless system... feats, talents, and class abilities tended to be relatively equal.

[Theodoxus]

I'd say that rather than removing level-by-level multiclassing, the better solution is to make Tier 3 and 4 class features more desirable. Multiclassing will still be the ideal choice for many builds, but it wouldn't be as automatic as it is now, and become a true choice. All the martials are getting upgrades along these lines, that make straight-classing much more attractive for them.

While that's probably true, given that the vast majority of games don't apparently reach Tier 3, much less 4, putting happy abilities there doesn't alleviate the base issue.

I agree that making tiers 3 and 4 more desirable is a good move in the right direction.

As above.

If I were rewriting classes and MCing from the ground up, I would provide each class with a 'mutliclass' sidebar, where the frontloading of abilities would be stretched out. You start with Wizard, go a couple levels and switch to Fighter, the fighter MC sidebar would be basically the first 10 levels of abilities stretched out over 20 levels. So, a Wizard that would normally dip 2 levels for Action Surge would instead need to sacrifice 4 levels into Fighter for the same. You're still going to get some goodies, but if you started Fighter 2 for Heavy Armor, Con Save Prof and AS like is pretty standard for more gish Wizards, and then go Wizard 18, you're effectively only getting Wiz 9 in the trade off.

Such a heavy ask is exactly the kind of foil I prefer to limit MCing.

As a compromise, I could see using something akin to 1st Ed dual classing, where if the second class has more levels than the first, the MC table flips. The Fighter 2/Wizard X becomes Wizard 3/Fighter 2; whether that means the Fighters abilities get limited back to the MC Fighter table, or remain grandfathered in, would need discussion. [Unlike 1st Ed Dual Classing, I wouldn't block using the first classes abilities. I didn't like it then, and think it's stupid, though I grok the reason behind it.]

[TheHalfAasimar]

I'm just gonna pop back in here and say, what I'd do for multiclassing is not restrict it, but have it become part of the story, so you can still do stuff like that, but you kind of have to work for it. Like let's say you want to multiclass into sorcerer; tell me the level before you plan to do it, and I incorporate it into the story. Obviously, I'm banning stuff like barbarian/druid because I can't see that making sense.

[Skrum]

Obviously, I'm banning stuff like barbarian/druid because I can't see that making sense.

No offense to you, certainly play however you and your table feel comfortable, but this is exactly why I don't like story-based multiclassing. I personally think barb and druid have quite a bit in common and can easily imagine a character that could be expressed through levels in these two classes, and I would get frustrated by a DM making that kind of ruling against me.

[Psyren]

While that's probably true, given that the vast majority of games don't apparently reach Tier 3, much less 4, putting happy abilities there doesn't alleviate the base issue.



As above.

Hence my belief that the "base issue" is overblown.

If I were rewriting classes and MCing from the ground up, I would provide each class with a 'mutliclass' sidebar, where the frontloading of abilities would be stretched out. You start with Wizard, go a couple levels and switch to Fighter, the fighter MC sidebar would be basically the first 10 levels of abilities stretched out over 20 levels. So, a Wizard that would normally dip 2 levels for Action Surge would instead need to sacrifice 4 levels into Fighter for the same. You're still going to get some goodies, but if you started Fighter 2 for Heavy Armor, Con Save Prof and AS like is pretty standard for more gish Wizards, and then go Wizard 18, you're effectively only getting Wiz 9 in the trade off.

Nah - the way you fix Action Surge is by doing exactly what they did, i.e. making it no longer usable as 1/SR Double-Spell. An extra action that can't be used for spellcasting or magic item activation is fine for 2 levels in Fighter.

[TheHalfAasimar]

No offense to you, certainly play however you and your table feel comfortable, but this is exactly why I don't like story-based multiclassing. I personally think barb and druid have quite a bit in common and can easily imagine a character that could be expressed through levels in these two classes, and I would get frustrated by a DM making that kind of ruling against me.

Okay, good point...

[Witty Username]

I'd say that rather than removing level-by-level multiclassing, the better solution is to make Tier 3 and 4 class features more desirable. Multiclassing will still be the ideal choice for many builds, but it wouldn't be as automatic as it is now, and become a true choice. All the martials are getting upgrades along these lines, that make straight-classing much more attractive for them.

We can cite a positive example on this in the current rules:
Wizard,
At nearly every stage of the game the wizard sacrifices something to multiclass, and there are benefits going all the way to 20.
Doesn't that mean people don't multiclass, no. Dips for armor, thematic reasoning, and cross-class synergies all occur. But they created varying playstyles rather than invalidating the base class.

If you want another fair example, that won't ruffle as many feathers. Paladin/Sorcerer is one of the strongest combinations available, but very few argee on when the ideal breakpoint is. Paladin 2, Paladin 6, Paladin 7, 8, 11 and 12 are all things I have seen people swear by. And its not like people have any remorse with paladin 20 or sorcerer 20 (apart from not going warlock, but we aren't savages here).

These classes gain and keep gaining as the level, and lose to gain elsewhere multiclassing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Obviously, I'm banning stuff like barbarian/druid because I can't see that making sense.

It makes complete sense, particularly if the barbarian follows the totem path. Both the druid and the barbarian, as tropes/genre conventions, are from the wilderness/non urban parts of the world. They are a very good fit for a multiclass. (Our Giants campaign (and we are now chasing the Fire Giant king down into the underdark where he is hiding with his Drow allies) has a Totem Barbarian X/ Druid 4 (Moon) whose thematics are solid).

More to the point: it makes more thematic sense than any hexblade dip I've seen to date.

[Ignimortis]

More to the point: it makes more thematic sense than any hexblade dip I've seen to date.

Paladin/Hexblade makes amazing sense. A holy knight and a cursed sword trying to corrupt them/use them for its' own ends. It's basically plot-in-a-can.

[Dr.Samurai]

More to the point: it makes more thematic sense than any hexblade dip I've seen to date.

But there's like... a weapon and, it's alive and stuff. And it let's you use your Charisma to fight people in combat obviously... and it teaches you how to use armor, and the Shield spell. And then it compels you to swear a paladin oath, right before unlocking your sorcerous heritage.

I don't understand what doesn't make sense to you...

[Dalinar]

Chiming in on the multiclassing discussion: I literally named this account after a character from a very famous ongoing series of fantasy novels that is basically about hexadins. (That being Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive. It's not only about that, obviously, but it's remarkable how well it fits. Dalinar in particular is the Oath of Redemption in its purest form.)

Classes are prepackaged sets of game rules that describe player abilities so that they have guidance on how their character works with respect to everything else in the game. Like the other rules, they are the difference between playing D&D and playing the pretend games we came up with as children (y'know, where you got frustrated at your buddy for claiming he had invincible power armor or whatever). Diegetically, classes are shorthand for certain skillsets that can be found in D&D worlds, but those aren't the only skillsets that exist.

Given that, I don't see narrative clashing as a reason to ditch multiclassing--if anything, it's a huge well of creative potential. Druid and artificers, for instance, are seen as opposed in a lot of this fiction, because people like to think of nature and technology as dichotomous. But I would argue it's a very powerful character trope to have someone willing to bridge the gap between those concepts. (I'm reminded of a relative of mine who is heavily involved in agricultural science professionally.) Likewise a later-level sorcerer dip seems kind of weird, because if a character is genetically magical, you'd think that would have manifested at a young age. But plenty of people have had experiences where some genetic issue goes undiscovered until relatively late in their lives, or other facets of themselves that they did not recognize or know. That's not to mention other possible sources of sorcerous power, like the interference of a deity or exposure to some strange magic.

I could go on.

I also happen to enjoy the fiddly character building angle it brings, and I'd be sad to see that go. If dips into classes like Warlock and Fighter seem a bit too ubiquitous, that might be a symptom of the mid- and late-level features of many classes not being compelling enough to commit to. Getting casting-stat weapon attacks in particular is maybe too easy; I'm wondering if ditching those entirely might be called for outside of certain subclass features like Armorer Artificer. Those abilities mostly matter for gish-like playstyles, and I do think it's fair for a character to be a little more MAD if they're trying to bring that sort of versatility to the table. In other words, a lot of the complaints about multiclassing are really complaints about Hexblade and Action Surge IMO. Maybe throw in Aura of Protection, though that's online a little later.

The other common complaint I'm seeing is essentially that some players will bring highly optimized builds to new groups without having a sense for who that character is narratively, to which I'll cite Stormwind Fallacy and leave it at that.

---

One thing that does really bug me about 5e is how small the proficiency bonus is. It comes up constantly that, say, a druid with +5 or more to Survival gets outrolled by some random dude that has 10 WIS, and while that's fun on occasion, it does feel really weird how often it comes up.

To put it another way: a level 17 character with proficiency in a skill and 20 in the relevant stat has the same bonus as a level 8 Bard or Rogue with expertise in that skill and 20 in the stat, and the same level 17 character who has 20 in the stat and no proficiency has the same bonus as a level 1 character who has 16 in the stat and proficiency.

I get that 5e design wants to constrain some of the numbers a bit, but that feels like too much. Add on how quickly saving throw DCs scale from monsters, making saving throw proficiencies very important despite the relatively small bonus until later levels, and it's rough.

Oh, additional thing, and this is way older than 5e: why do we have both a score and a bonus for each stat? If you've been playing for a while it's easy to take for granted, but calculating (stat / 2 - 5) and then using that number for everything (aside from niche rules like "your running long jump is a number of feet equal to your strength score," which is a situation I think a lot of DMs would just assume you're supposed to roll for) just seems weird. There's gotta be a way to ditch scores entirely, right?

[KorvinStarmast]

If dips into classes like Warlock and Fighter seem a bit too ubiquitous, that might be a symptom of the mid- and late-level features of many classes not being compelling enough to commit to.

In some cases, yes, but in other cases it is a symptom of tless front loading of classes. (Twilight Cleric is one of the major offenders). Hexblade was an overcorrection for the underwhelimng blade pact gish.
(As was bladesinger, for that matter).
---

Oh, additional thing, and this is way older than 5e: why do we have both a score and a bonus for each stat?

That is, in my view, one of the single most pointless things to complain about in this game.
A friend of mine DMs quite a bit. He's made this adjustment to ability scores as regards contests: if one character has a 14 STR, for example, and the other has 15, they may both have a plus 2 bonus but he uses the difference as a tie breaker. It doesn't come up all that often, but it has come up.

[Witty Username]

Personally, I have been pondering a formula to adjust bonuses to higher numbers (and penalties lower). The goal being to better line up with AD&D numbers.
And I miss ability damage enough to bring it back for 5e, which gives scores more meaning.
--
I think bladesinger is a testiment to how weird martial design is, as bladesinger gets alot of the benefits of a martial class but is kinda middle of the road as wizard subclasses go.

Hexblade is a way to get armor at level one in a more stat compatable way than cleric, Sadness is icing.

[Amechra]

But there's like... a weapon and, it's alive and stuff. And it let's you use your Charisma to fight people in combat obviously... and it teaches you how to use armor, and the Shield spell. And then it compels you to swear a paladin oath, right before unlocking your sorcerous heritage.

I don't understand what doesn't make sense to you...

Hey, that weapon has a theme song!

[Ignimortis]

I think bladesinger is a testiment to how weird martial design is, as bladesinger gets alot of the benefits of a martial class but is kinda middle of the road as wizard subclasses go.

Because "martial features" are generally encapsulated (in regards to baseline DPR/defenses) in "give them Extra Attack and a damage booster that sort of brings them to 3 basic attacks per turn equivalent DPR, then give them medium/heavy armor proficiency and call it a day". Anything beyond that is highly optional and differs highly class-by-class. Therefore, Bladesinger Wizard with Bladesong up is entirely capable of fulfilling a martial's role, AND their "extra by class goodies" are 9th level spellcasting plus the rest of the Wizard class features.

Martial "basic features" are severely undervalued in 5e class building. Not that they're all that great and exciting, but getting access to Extra Attack and good armor proficiency (AC, really, regardless of how you get there) should not be nearly as easy.