Some stuff I would do to fix 5e

[Kurald Galain]

"Tactics" is not a tradeoff, it's a thing you'd be doing anyway

If it doesn't give a noticeable bonus, then no, it is not a thing you'd be doing anyway.

I agree that the "conga line" is silly, but removing flanking from the game is far from the only way of dealing with that. I note there's several games on the market that do have flanking and do not have the conga line problem.

[Ignimortis]

A regular fighter can swing across the ballroom on a chandelier and attack the bad guy at the other side. A paladin can jump off a bridge onto knight on horseback, knock him off his saddle and take over his mount. A rogue can jump off a roof with rope in hand, swing down through a window and deliver a sneak attack on the guy in the room. A ranger can run across the river by jumping from crocodile to crocodile to reach the lizardfolk shaman at the back.
Any one of these may require an ability check, not to succeed, but to gain a benefit for doing something cool.

I suspect trying to codify these would be very difficult and not give enough, what we need is to teach DMs to create cool and fun scenarios, teach them to encourage and reward players for being creative, and teach players to be creative and fun.

And nothing about their character sheets makes me think they can do that, because their numbers, aside from HP, do not indicate that they're particularly, notably, ahead of regular people in the setting. After all, their checks are only a few points ahead of those same regular people, most of the time, and 80% of their checks will land in the same 1-20 range that an untrained peasant could reach with some luck. Especially if we're not talking level 15-20, where perhaps the sheer level might serve as an indication, but something like level 6, where those cinematic actions might actually be highly appropriate to the scene but the PC's numbers are scarcely higher than any NPC they face?

Is is because they're trained in Athletics or Acrobatics? Can a STR 8, DEX 10 wizard do those things, if he's trained in Athletics or Acrobatics? Is it because they have a STR or DEX score of 18? Can a STR or DEX 18 NPC do that, also? Or is is something you simply cannot track, something that is only a property of a PC that makes all of their ability checks not follow the rules for normal people - and if so, 1) where are the rules? 2) how do you sell your game to people who still insist on their Fighters and Rogues being the normalest of normals, the regularest of Joes?

To avoid shifting into yet another "5e skills suck! - No they don't!", I'll concur - this is hard to codify...unless you break with 5e's intention of trying to be both rules-reliant and rules-light, to let the GM decide what the numbers on people's sheets mean, to try and fit everyone's tastes at once by being amorphous.

I really hate to bring up PF2, because I do not like PF2, but they have this part down pat, and all it costs is having a proper level progression and a less bounded accuracy (which, frankly, does not need to carry in full from PF2 for these things to work). I can easily believe that a Master in Athletics or Acrobatics can do these things, especially if that's untied from the horrendous level scaling that makes a level 15 NPC automatically better at everything than the level 7 hero. It doesn't even need to be a "button", you can just list those things as examples of what an Expert in a skill can do with some difficulty (but can still do) and a Master can do easily and also look cool while doing it. Them having this skill rank already sets a precedent that not everyone can do it, but they can.

[Psyren]

If it doesn't give a noticeable bonus, then no, it is not a thing you'd be doing anyway.

Melee up front is indeed a thing you'd be doing anyway. Moving one of those melee to be opposite the enemy from another melee costs next to nothing (it certainly doesn't provoke.)

I agree that the "conga line" is silly, but removing flanking from the game is far from the only way of dealing with that. I note there's several games on the market that do have flanking and do not have the conga line problem.

Probably because those games aren't granting a +3 bonus or advantage in a bounded accuracy system for their flanking.

No thoughts on the compromise I suggested?

[Mastikator]

And nothing about their character sheets makes me think they can do that, because their numbers, aside from HP, do not indicate that they're particularly, notably, ahead of regular people in the setting. After all, their checks are only a few points ahead of those same regular people, most of the time, and 80% of their checks will land in the same 1-20 range that an untrained peasant could reach with some luck. Especially if we're not talking level 15-20, where perhaps the sheer level might serve as an indication, but something like level 6, where those cinematic actions might actually be highly appropriate to the scene but the PC's numbers are scarcely higher than any NPC they face?

Is is because they're trained in Athletics or Acrobatics? Can a STR 8, DEX 10 wizard do those things, if he's trained in Athletics or Acrobatics? Is it because they have a STR or DEX score of 18? Can a STR or DEX 18 NPC do that, also? Or is is something you simply cannot track, something that is only a property of a PC that makes all of their ability checks not follow the rules for normal people - and if so, 1) where are the rules? 2) how do you sell your game to people who still insist on their Fighters and Rogues being the normalest of normals, the regularest of Joes?

To avoid shifting into yet another "5e skills suck! - No they don't!", I'll concur - this is hard to codify...unless you break with 5e's intention of trying to be both rules-reliant and rules-light, to let the GM decide what the numbers on people's sheets mean, to try and fit everyone's tastes at once by being amorphous.

I really hate to bring up PF2, because I do not like PF2, but they have this part down pat, and all it costs is having a proper level progression and a less bounded accuracy (which, frankly, does not need to carry in full from PF2 for these things to work). I can easily believe that a Master in Athletics or Acrobatics can do these things, especially if that's untied from the horrendous level scaling that makes a level 15 NPC automatically better at everything than the level 7 hero. It doesn't even need to be a "button", you can just list those things as examples of what an Expert in a skill can do with some difficulty (but can still do) and a Master can do easily and also look cool while doing it. Them having this skill rank already sets a precedent that not everyone can do it, but they can.

You don't need to codify it, give examples of stunts in the player handbook and examples of what is an appropriate skill and bonus for succeeding. I don't want a long list of stunts, I want to encourage players to invent it during play, and DMs to award the players for it.

Edit-
The player character is in a jungle, there is a spitting spider in the tree, they climb the tree to reach the spider. Then an ankheg bursts through the ground and tries to grab the wizard. The player character doesn't need a feature to cut a vine and make a swing-by attack, they need to think "how can I get back to the ground fast enough to attack/grab the monster all the way from up here? Wait.. this is a jungle, I'll Tarzan it!"

[Ignimortis]

You don't need to codify it, give examples of stunts in the player handbook and examples of what is an appropriate skill and bonus for succeeding. I don't want a long list of stunts, I want to encourage players to invent it during play, and DMs to award the players for it.

Edit-
The player character is in a jungle, there is a spitting spider in the tree, they climb the tree to reach the spider. Then an ankheg bursts through the ground and tries to grab the wizard. The player character doesn't need a feature to cut a vine and make a swing-by attack, they need to think "how can I get back to the ground fast enough to attack/grab the monster all the way from up here? Wait.. this is a jungle, I'll Tarzan it!"

And then the GM sets a DC of 18 to do it, because they reckon that it's not something a regular person can easily do, but could still perhaps succeed at with some luck. And our intrepid hero, with their +7 or so Athletics, fails that check half the time. And that's perfectly reasonable by how 5e does such things.

Like I said, the numbers don't work out. It's not even about codifying those stunts into buttons, I don't want that either. But the sheer structure isn't there. There's no verisimilitude to it, because nothing in the game implies you're playing the kind of character who can do those things automatically or whose rolls are worth more than normal and therefore they should get like a DC10 and not fail and fall face-first if it still fails. Those stunts, if bolted onto 5e as it is right now, would be pulled out the arse, pardon my language.

[Mastikator]

And then the GM sets a DC of 18 to do it, because they reckon that it's not something a regular person can easily do, but could still perhaps succeed at with some luck. And our intrepid hero, with their +7 or so Athletics, fails that check half the time.

Like I said, the numbers don't work out. It's not even about codifying those stunts into buttons, I don't want that either. But the sheer structure isn't there. There's no verisimilitude to it, because nothing in the game implies you're playing the kind of character who can do those things automatically or whose rolls are worth more.

The DMG needs to tell them to not do that. Set the DC between 10-15, if they fail they merely perform the action as told with no mechanical benefit "you swing across the room on the chandelier and attack the orc, make an attack roll". If they succeed they get some added benefit. (like extra damage, advantage on attack roll, rider if hit, etc) "you swing across the room on the chandelier and attack the orc, make and attack roll with advantage, if you hit the orc is pushed off the table and lands prone on the ground"

If the player wants to do something truly extravagant then maybe set the DC higher, but the benefit should then also scale.

Again, the DMs need to reward, not punish- players for being creative, and players need to be creative. Attack the problem from multiple angles, surround it, leave no place for it to escape.

[Skrum]

You don't need to codify it, give examples of stunts in the player handbook and examples of what is an appropriate skill and bonus for succeeding. I don't want a long list of stunts, I want to encourage players to invent it during play, and DMs to award the players for it.

Edit-
The player character is in a jungle, there is a spitting spider in the tree, they climb the tree to reach the spider. Then an ankheg bursts through the ground and tries to grab the wizard. The player character doesn't need a feature to cut a vine and make a swing-by attack, they need to think "how can I get back to the ground fast enough to attack/grab the monster all the way from up here? Wait.. this is a jungle, I'll Tarzan it!"

It seems like you two are basically saying the same thing - the game ought to give examples of what characters can actually do with skills, along with some DC's for those various actions. This is all related to 5e skills being very underdeveloped.

Personally, I am wary/mildly negative on these kind of invented actions. Too often, I see it getting used as a way to circumvent mechanics. Like, something bad happens to a character, and the player is like "well can I use this cantrip/skill check to undo it/counter it/get myself out of this situation." No man! Characters are practically invincible already, and you want to just negate the tiny, momentary success an enemy is having?!

Not saying every possible action needs to be codified, but guidance on what's generally possible at a given character level/skill would be really nice.

[Psyren]

And then the GM sets a DC of 18 to do it, because they reckon that it's not something a regular person can easily do, but could still perhaps succeed at with some luck. And our intrepid hero, with their +7 or so Athletics, fails that check half the time.

(Yay, we're back on my favorite subtopic!)

Failing a check does not have to mean "no progress" or "slapstick." It can mean "progress combined with a setback" as explicitly stated on PHB 174. So your intrepid hero, even if they fail that check, can still Tarzan down to save the wizard, but you can apply a setback to them like damage, a condition, dropping an item, the ankheg grabs them instead etc.

Like I said, the numbers don't work out. It's not even about codifying those stunts into buttons, I don't want that either. But the sheer structure isn't there. There's no verisimilitude to it, because nothing in the game implies you're playing the kind of character who can do those things automatically or whose rolls are worth more. Those stunts, if bolted onto 5e as it is right now, would be pulled out the arse, pardon my language.

5e is not a game where the numbers are codified to the degree that the DM can disengage their gray matter and rely on printed tables to describe every result of every roll. A DM who wants that should switch to PF2.

[Ignimortis]

It seems like you two are basically saying the same thing - the game ought to give examples of what characters can actually do with skills, along with some DC's for those various actions. This is all related to 5e skills being very underdeveloped.

Personally, I am wary/mildly negative on these kind of invented actions. Too often, I see it getting used as a way to circumvent mechanics. Like, something bad happens to a character, and the player is like "well can I use this cantrip/skill check to undo it/counter it/get myself out of this situation." No man! Characters are practically invincible already, and you want to just negate the tiny, momentary success an enemy is having?!

Not saying every possible action needs to be codified, but guidance on what's generally possible at a given character level/skill would be really nice.

Thank you for illustrating the response I'd usually get when trying to do such things. And, to wit, it is not a bad response. It is fully within the system's bounds and, honestly, fits a lot better with how the numbers work out.

Also seconding that last part. There is by far not enough guidance (and something even resembling RAW) on the topic.

Failing a check does not have to mean "no progress" or "slapstick." It can mean "progress combined with a setback" as explicitly stated on PHB 174. So your intrepid hero, even if they fail that check, can still Tarzan down to save the wizard, but you can apply a setback to them like damage, a condition, dropping an item, the ankheg grabs them instead etc.

I'd count falling face-first and taking damage or landing prone to be a good reason to not try something audacious unless I'm sure that it's not significant enough to make winning less likely. In fact, those results are likely to convince me to try and climb down normally, I'll even double move to get there faster but avoid unnecessary risk.

5e is not a game where the numbers are codified to the degree that the DM can disengage their gray matter and rely on printed tables to describe every result of every roll. A DM who wants that should switch to PF2.

This is not a binary switch to be flipped. Also, printed tables are not even being suggested.

[Psyren]

I'd count falling face-first and taking damage or landing prone to be a good reason to not try something audacious unless I'm sure that it's not significant enough to make winning less likely.

"Falling face-first" is exactly the kind of slapstick result I'm recommending that you avoid.

This is not a binary switch to be flipped. Also, printed tables are not even being suggested.

I know. What I'm recommending is that DMs adjudicate results, rather than wanting a book to do their job for them.

[Blatant Beast]

Thank you for illustrating the response I'd usually get when trying to do such things. And, to wit, it is not a bad response. It is fully within the system's bounds and, honestly, fits a lot better with how the numbers work out.

Also seconding that last part. There is by far not enough guidance (and something even resembling RAW) on the topic.

With all sincere politeness and respect, but it seems that Skrum and yourself might possibly play in games that may not exactly grok the 5e rules ecosystem.

In regards to the part of your quotation that I placed in bold text, it is a statement that truly frustrates me.

We have had a 20+ page thread on the Playground regarding Ability Check DCs. Mike Mearls, the 5e Project Lead during the development of 5e, whom after being exiled to the Magic the Gathering side of WotC, and now freed from Hasbro’s yoke entirely, has stated that DC 10 is too high for an easy task.

This is not new knowledge. Official Modules, and plenty of DMs had already figured that out, and shared this observation.

The guidance is out there.

What seems to happen, is the advice is ignored, denied, or just flat rejected, ad nauseum.

The obsession with RAW, is a problem, (societally, not just in D&D).

[Psyren]

We have had a 20+ page thread on the Playground regarding Ability Check DCs. Mike Mearls, the 5e Project Lead during the development of 5e, whom after being exiled to the Magic the Gathering side of WotC, and now freed from Hasbro’s yoke entirely, has stated that DC 10 is too high for an easy task.

This is not new knowledge. Official Modules, and plenty of DMs had already figured that out, and shared this observation.

The guidance is out there.

What seems to happen, is the advice is ignored, denied, or just flat rejected, ad nauseum.

The obsession with RAW, is a problem, (societally, not just in D&D).

Indeed, and Larian figured it out too, to overwhelming success.

They couldn't code in the nuance that "progress + setback" requires, so they lowered DCs instead, as well as granting ad-hoc advantage (something else 5e tells you to do - DMG 239), allowed the party to pool their inspiration, and even granted automatic success for certain characters. These are all straightforward tools in the DM toolbelt.

[Blatant Beast]

Not surprising, give that Mike Mearls was also the WotC liaison to Larian.

[Mastikator]

It seems like you two are basically saying the same thing - the game ought to give examples of what characters can actually do with skills, along with some DC's for those various actions. This is all related to 5e skills being very underdeveloped.

Personally, I am wary/mildly negative on these kind of invented actions. Too often, I see it getting used as a way to circumvent mechanics. Like, something bad happens to a character, and the player is like "well can I use this cantrip/skill check to undo it/counter it/get myself out of this situation." No man! Characters are practically invincible already, and you want to just negate the tiny, momentary success an enemy is having?!

Not saying every possible action needs to be codified, but guidance on what's generally possible at a given character level/skill would be really nice.

They're adjacent. I think the problem stems from bad DM attitude and weak player creativity/cowardice. He thinks (AFAIK) that classes lack features that enable stunts.

[Dr.Samurai]

[/B]With all sincere politeness and respect, but it seems that Skrum and yourself might possibly play in games that may not exactly grok the 5e rules ecosystem.

In regards to the part of your quotation that I placed in bold text, it is a statement that truly frustrates me.

We have had a 20+ page thread on the Playground regarding Ability Check DCs. Mike Mearls, the 5e Project Lead during the development of 5e, whom after being exiled to the Magic the Gathering side of WotC, and now freed from Hasbro’s yoke entirely, has stated that DC 10 is too high for an easy task.

This is not new knowledge. Official Modules, and plenty of DMs had already figured that out, and shared this observation.

The guidance is out there.

What seems to happen, is the advice is ignored, denied, or just flat rejected, ad nauseum.

The obsession with RAW, is a problem, (societally, not just in D&D).

I think on the one hand your point is a good reminder that there's other guidance out there that can be of use to people.

But I don't think your point is a good rebuttal to complaints that the DMG should have better guidance. Especially when, despite all the other guidance out there saying the DCs are too high, it appears 1D&D was or is moving to a standard DC 15 for skill checks. So... it seems WotC disagrees with all of us and is moving in a different direction. (And Mearls' tweet is relatively recent in the history of 5E, and I don't know that GitP is a good metric for what the greater D&D community knows.)

[Theodoxus]

Given that a number of systems, AGE probably being the best known, have actual Stunt systems built in - if D&D doesn't expressly have them, then the assumption by the majority of players is that they don't exist, and then you run into the 'Mother May I' problem that Pex loves to expound on.

It's the opposite of the problem where if something is codified, than only those that have that ability coded to them, can use it. See: Monk's Movement. Since Monk's can run on water and up walls at 9th level, no one else can, regardless of acrobatic ability or level, without magic.

You let Rogue's swing on chandeliers, then you need to decide if that's a Rogue ability or a Dex ability or whatever. If a Rogue player is the first to ask, and is granted by the DM, odds are, that table will forever consider it just a Rogue ability. That's how things enter the zeitgeist in gaming. (Look at ALL those named Wizard spells if you don't believe me.)

Best bet would be to have a third party come up with stunts, I don't see WotC going down that rabbit hole.

[Sorinth]

There's no doubt the guidance could be better but given how many times we see that the existing guidance is ignored even after it's pointed out to people it's pretty clear better guidance wouldn't fix anything for many because for many people they don't want guidance on how to handle a situation they want to be told exactly how to handle the situation.

[Dr.Samurai]

There's no doubt the guidance could be better but given how many times we see that the existing guidance is ignored even after it's pointed out to people it's pretty clear better guidance wouldn't fix anything for many because for many people they don't want guidance on how to handle a situation they want to be told exactly how to handle the situation.

Part of this though could simply be the difficulty in admitting that you've missed something, and that your point hinges on the fact that you overlooked something.

I don't think everyone, or even most, of the people complaining about the guidance want to be handheld through the game.

[LibraryOgre]

I don't know about this one; scaling spells known/prepared with PB means they get full progression even if they multiclass. An EK 3 / Wiz 17 with this rule would get an extra 8 spells known; even if those follow the EK school limitations of abjuration/evocation only, that frees up their wizard side to focus on the other 6 schools.

Good point; I'd also get rid of pick-a-class multiclassing, because that is 90% of CharOp shenanigans.

[Kurald Galain]

LOL, it's been a decade and 5E discussions still end up at "the skill system sucks!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-uh!"

[Theodoxus]

Good point; I'd also get rid of pick-a-class multiclassing, because that is 90% of CharOp shenanigans.

A-freaking-man, brother!

Oh how I wish multiclassing was truly optional, like in the DMG optional, with maybe three or four different options for doing it. We know the classes and spells were built up without the premise of multiclassing being part of their makeup. Either design the game to use without abuse, multiclassing; or don't offer it on a silver platter for players to beg their DMs to let their characters grab options that multiply their power.

[Sindeloke]

I know. What I'm recommending is that DMs adjudicate results, rather than wanting a book to do their job for them.

And all we're recommending is that designers make a game, rather than wanting a DM to do their job for them.

And so it goes.

Good point; I'd also get rid of pick-a-class multiclassing, because that is 90% of CharOp shenanigans.

Yeah, I didn't like the way that "multiclassing" worked in 4E at the time. And I still don't really like it. But the longer I spend with 5e, the more I don't like its system even more. You kind of have to pick between free, arbitrary multiclassing and diverse class design, and 5e chose diverse class design. The best way in 5e to get a multiclass flavor is just to design an absolute ton of subclasses and let players poke around at all the similar ones until they find the variation that feels closest to what they want.

[Psyren]

LOL, it's been a decade and 5E discussions still end up at "the skill system sucks!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-uh!"

Yep

Good point; I'd also get rid of pick-a-class multiclassing, because that is 90% of CharOp shenanigans.

I mean, you don't seem to have a for-profit motive so sure

Given that a number of systems, AGE probably being the best known, have actual Stunt systems built in - if D&D doesn't expressly have them, then the assumption by the majority of players is that they don't exist, and then you run into the 'Mother May I' problem that Pex loves to expound on.

I highly doubt the majority of 5e's playerbase also play AGE and FATE and whatever else though. Those are niche systems even in a tabletop-focused forum like this, never mind to a general audience that thinks of TTRPGs and D&D as synonymous. Whatever decisions WotC ends up making regarding the skill system, they shouldn't be based of the fringe who bring over their expectations from AGE, particularly given the structural differences between the two like 3d6 vs d20 etc.

It's the opposite of the problem where if something is codified, than only those that have that ability coded to them, can use it. See: Monk's Movement. Since Monk's can run on water and up walls at 9th level, no one else can, regardless of acrobatic ability or level, without magic.

I'm honestly fine with this - running on water and up walls should require magic in a Heroic Fantasy game, which is what printed/default 5e is. If instead the DM wants very high skill checks to do such overtly magical things (e.g. they're running a Wuxia campaign), that's totally fine, but that modification should be established during session zero for that campaign rather than being baseline to the system as a whole.

You let Rogue's swing on chandeliers, then you need to decide if that's a Rogue ability or a Dex ability or whatever. If a Rogue player is the first to ask, and is granted by the DM, odds are, that table will forever consider it just a Rogue ability. That's how things enter the zeitgeist in gaming. (Look at ALL those named Wizard spells if you don't believe me.)

Best bet would be to have a third party come up with stunts, I don't see WotC going down that rabbit hole.

I'm fine with this too, but you said it best - whatever "stunt" features that third party codifies will likely be seen by that table as coupons to do things they can't do via the skill system. "Swing on chandelier" should not be such a stunt, unless the stunt's purpose is to grant some additional benefit to doing such a basic (by heroic fantasy standards) maneuver.

And all we're recommending is that designers make a game, rather than wanting a DM to do their job for them.

And so it goes.

Adjudicating rolls, especially ability checks, is the DM's job. The more DMs realize that the better.

[KorvinStarmast]

And all we're recommending is that designers make a game, rather than wanting a DM to do their job for them.

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

But the longer I spend with 5e, the more I don't like its system even more. You kind of have to pick between free, arbitrary multiclassing and diverse class design, and 5e chose diverse class design.
The best way in 5e to get a multiclass flavor is just to design an absolute ton of subclasses and let players poke around at all the similar ones until they find the variation that feels closest to what they want.

That's how they started out in the PHB, yes, with MC as a variant/optional rule.

[Sorinth]

Part of this though could simply be the difficulty in admitting that you've missed something, and that your point hinges on the fact that you overlooked something.

I don't think everyone, or even most, of the people complaining about the guidance want to be handheld through the game.

I wouldn't really use the term handheld because it invokes/implies childish imagery which isn't fair to them or as even true. And yeah my comment wasn't directed for all or most people playing, but there's no doubt some self-selection bias at play when talking about the game on an internet forum. But there is for sure a subset of people who want the books to be direct for everything rather then a more laissez faire to do what works for your table approach that 5e has taken.

[LibraryOgre]

Oh how I wish multiclassing was truly optional, like in the DMG optional, with maybe three or four different options for doing it. We know the classes and spells were built up without the premise of multiclassing being part of their makeup. Either design the game to use without abuse, multiclassing; or don't offer it on a silver platter for players to beg their DMs to let their characters grab options that multiply their power.

Yeah, I didn't like the way that "multiclassing" worked in 4E at the time. And I still don't really like it. But the longer I spend with 5e, the more I don't like its system even more. You kind of have to pick between free, arbitrary multiclassing and diverse class design, and 5e chose diverse class design. The best way in 5e to get a multiclass flavor is just to design an absolute ton of subclasses and let players poke around at all the similar ones until they find the variation that feels closest to what they want.

I've said it before, but 5e has 3 kinds of multiclassing, and I like two of them.

1) 4e style, take-a-feat-to-get-a-little. I think more abilities could be put into this, but you can pick up a bit of spellcasting or a bit of battlemastery with a feat, and I'm here for it.

2) Subclasses. Want to be a wizardy fighter? Take Eldritch Knight. A fightery Bard? Would you rather Valor or Swords?

3) Pick-a-class, which is where most of the bull**** comes in.

[Psyren]

I think the hate for level-by-level multiclassing is really overblown. Level-by-level multiclassing really isn't a big deal when people are actually multiclassing with it, i.e. taking a minimum of 4 levels or more in each given class in the build. The bigger issue I think people are envisioning when they say they dislike level-by-level multiclassing is dipping, which comes about because 5e classes tend to be frontloaded (especially the ones that get their subclass before 3rd level) and so bypass a big part of their class' design limitations for not much cost. But a big part of that is going away when they push all subclasses back to 3rd level for everyone, which for most builds is actually going to be 4th because delaying or outright giving up that first ASI is going to be a hard sell for a lot of builds.

Can you do stuff with Class1 4/Class2 8 that you couldn't do with Class2 12? Sure - but they can do stuff you can't either. Those are the differences in kind that ultimately lead to depth.

[LibraryOgre]

I think the hate for level-by-level multiclassing is really overblown. Level-by-level multiclassing really isn't a big deal when people are actually multiclassing with it, i.e. taking a minimum of 4 levels or more in each given class in the build. The bigger issue I think people are envisioning when they say they dislike level-by-level multiclassing is dipping, which comes about because 5e classes tend to be frontloaded (especially the ones that get their subclass before 3rd level) and so bypass a big part of their class' design limitations for not much cost.

I think this is a false distinction, really. "The problem isn't multiclassing the way *I* like, it's using the exact same mechanics to do something else!" Both are multiclassing exactly within the rules, and I don't even know of any caveat of how you're supposed to "actually multiclass"... the PH even suggests dipping as a strategy ("As you advance in levels, you might primarily remain a member of your original class with just a few levels in another class, or you might change course entirely, never looking back at the class you left behind.")

You could avoid most of it by just writing subclasses that mix concepts. A fighter who can wildshape. A Wizard who dabbles in pact magic. A Bard who has domain abilities like a cleric.

[Psyren]

I think this is a false distinction, really. "The problem isn't multiclassing the way *I* like, it's using the exact same mechanics to do something else!" Both are multiclassing exactly within the rules, and I don't even know of any caveat of how you're supposed to "actually multiclass"... the PH even suggests dipping as a strategy ("As you advance in levels, you might primarily remain a member of your original class with just a few levels in another class, or you might change course entirely, never looking back at the class you left behind.")

To be clear, I'm not trying to create a distinction between "level-by-level multiclassing I dislike" (dipping) vs. "level-by-level multiclassing I like" (more amalgamated builds) . The truth is that I happen to love every kind of multiclassing, and that includes both of these as well as the non-level-based ones you listed like dabbler feats and hybrid subclasses like EK/AT. I think all of them belong in the game, all of them led to 5e having much-needed depth (especially pre-Xanathar's and pre-Tasha's when straight-classed build options were quite thin on the ground), and removing any of them would have made the game as a whole worse. Hell, I'd even be happy if they got around to printing an official gestalt variant (whether full-on class gestalts, or a gestalt of subclasses within a class) aimed at very high-powered campaigns one day.

But I do think that where ire exists towards level-by-level multiclassing among the fanbase - not saying this is yours specifically - it's primarily because it makes dipping possible, and for some even preferable to every other kind; in particular with 2014's more frontloaded class design where the most important things a class gets are early on, and the higher level features - capstones especially in most cases - are just not worth it. It's made dipping among the optimization subculture especially become somewhat eyerollingly commonplace.

So I get the aversion. But for me, the solution isn't to advocate for the removal of level-by-level multiclassing, it's to smooth out level progression so there's as much to look forward to at the back of a class as there is at the front.

You could avoid most of it by just writing subclasses that mix concepts. A fighter who can wildshape. A Wizard who dabbles in pact magic. A Bard who has domain abilities like a cleric.

I mean, they're doing that I'd say. Divine Soul took notes from Cleric, Beast Barbarian took notes from (Moon) Druid, Battlesmith Artificer borrowed from (Beastmaster) Ranger, Whispers Bard borrowed from Rogue... I agree there could be more, but subclass design takes time.

[Amechra]

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.