Is Multiclassing "ruining" the game?

[PhoenixPhyre]

In the last edition I ever actually seriously tried to use the training rules, AD&D 1e, at a certain point they could self-train.

Of course, using the AD&D 1e rules the way they were apparently intended required wasting a whole lot of XP before you could find the (on average) 3750 GP needed to level up to second level. Pretty sure Gygax dropped in such ridiculous numbers to slow down power-leveling by higher level PCs, and drain even more loot from Pcs to level up their henchmen.

This is the same role (draining cash out of the economy) as is performed in MMOs with cash costs to learn new ranks of skills. It's a pure money/time sink. At low levels, it hampers people since they can't afford the new abilities, and can't go get more money without those abilities (or at least not as well). This encourages grinding on easy mobs. At high levels (and cash stocks), it's usually negligible. I'm not fond of that process. Then again, I don't like anything that requires or encourages grinding the same enemies over and over again mechanically. I play games for the story and the interactions, not the mindless grind. YMMV.

[Tanarii]

Gaining levels at all kinda screws with "story", doesn't it? Sudden powers out of nowhere.
(I really hate that word in relation to TPRGs.)

Anyway, the CRPG grind is based on the idea that the majority of your loot and XP comes from killing things. Some later ones went to a quest model to try and alleviate that. But early D&D wasn't like that ... except when it was, of course.

In relation to the grind, Personally I prefer the BECMI way of doing it, which works well with 5e tiers:
Dungeon --> Wilderness --> Ruling --> Planar

It's just the starting place for your nobody to hero journey.

[Pex]

How is this demeaning tone in anyway helpful to this discussion?

I am not sure if that necessarily "fixes" anything, and sometimes MCing requires that the PC make out-of-character progression choices for the sake of their character, as may be the case with a bard dipping into hexblade warlock. The best advice in this thread has been about open communication between the GM and the player.

There's nothing wrong with out-of-character progression choices. The game mechanics is as much as part of the fun of the game as the roleplay.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Gaining levels at all kinda screws with "story", doesn't it? Sudden powers out of nowhere.
(I really hate that word in relation to TPRGs.)

Not really, at least for me. They've been working on these things (or have powers locked away that they can't yet control reliably) and with practice it suddenly starts working.

Of course, my setting includes "power levels" (not discrete events like class levels, but the concept of training --> increased abilities) explicitly as part of the setting metaphysics. Not everyone can gain levels, and most people have a strong cap (most around T1, a few at T2, a very few at T3, and only rare individuals at T4+). The PCs just happen to be among the rare individuals who can reach those power levels.

PCs are also special in that they can incorporate parts of the souls of enemies defeated into their own souls (basically combat XP = harvesting power from those that are killed/defeated), drastically speeding up their growth. They're not the only ones who can do this anima-mancy, but they can do it naturally.

[Vaz]

That would be fine if there was an actual discussion on the matter in good faith, but it went straight to condescension and assuming the worst about my person.

You're a sensitive little buttercup arent you? And if your personage revolves around how well you can optimize, well I pity your for that more than how highly you rate Grappling rather than actual cheese, of which I gave an example earlier in the thread.

There are capable enough optimisers on the board to understand that you're talking nonsense, given that it part of the basis of your position, is fitting disabuse yourself, and future readers of this thread of the notion that Grappling is anywhere related to cheese, esp given that it's so easy to counter or escape (Teleport, AoE, Freedom of Movement, the chance that you are dependent on multiple rolls (yours vs yoir opponents), you often give up your attack to do so, typically flying or otherwise ensuring that you are out of reach, having multiple opponents, and taking out the other creatures who are going to use that grapple, and the fact that a grappler character is dropping the number of participants by as much as 33%.

In a world of triple advantage Hexblades and Infinite Simulacrum Wizards, that a Barbarian can get a +21 with advantage on Athletics doesn't feel broken to me.

[Theodoxus]

I'm feeling ranty, so I'm just going to say that multi-classing is not "ruining" the game for me, and the only thing about "optimizing" that I dislike is other players hassling to do it (I don't want to play a Wizard dagnabbit!).

What is getting tiresome however is that the game seems to be more and more just a conga-line of combat.

I miss:

"In the dim torchlight you see a 20' wide room with a broken chair, table, a closed chest and cobwebs leading into the darkness...."

instead of just:

"You see a Bugbear, roll initiative.... after a short rest you see a Hobgoblin, roll initiative... after a long rest you see an Ogre, roll iinitiative..."

I'd like to do some (pretend) exploring again.

Please.

IDK, the published modules do this quite well. I'm playing through the start of SKT, and I think we had 3 combats in total, while exploring the town of Nightstone and the surrounding countryside caves. There was a LOT of 'in this house, you see...' and 'the guard tower is dimly lit with a small stair leading up...' Took two sessions to do 5 in game hours of exploration of which probably a total of 45 minutes were spent in combat (I'd hazard 12 rounds total).

I'm running ToA, jumping right into the Forbidden City (because the characters came from LMoP and were 5th level) - and that's ALL exploration. The only combat they've had, has been in direct response to various traps and relic retrieval.

Played OotA last year, and while there was a lot of combat, there was also a lot of travel and exploration. Sure, the DM handwaved most of the time expenditure, just for sake of getting the plot moving, but I suspect that was more table relevant than the module itself.

This is certainly something each table needs to decide for itself - but as an old player myself (who's rosiest of rosy remembrances are RIFTs , with AD&D and 2nd Ed being kinda meh) I've found 5E to be just as accommodating to Social and Exploration pillars as it is to combat... But I can see how many younger players, used to the fast paced 'murderhoboism' of videogames and the like, might push for a conga-line of carnage feel to a particular campaign (not saying one way or the other that that is the issue at your table - just might be...)

[Kobard]

You're a sensitive little buttercup arent you?

What I said did not warrant your inappropriate response, and it still doesn't. Don't be a ****. It's not cool.

And if your personage revolves around how well you can optimize, well I pity your for that more than how highly you rate Grappling rather than actual cheese, of which I gave an example earlier in the thread.

I don't equate cheese with optimization or even broken mechanics, as the definition or sense of the term varies frequently between game modes. Cheese is cheese. It's a broad category that may include optimization or broken mechanics, but also other things, such as one-trick-pony builds, mechanic exploitation (=! broken, but, rather exploitative), or even poor builds. IME, grappling often falls into one or more of these categories.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Cheese is cheese. It's a broad category that may include optimization or broken mechanics, but also other things, such as one-trick-pony builds, mechanic exploitation (=! broken, but, rather exploitative), or even poor builds. IME, grappling often falls into one or more of these categories.

I'm not sure it's a particularly valuable term to use if your definition is that varied.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure it's a particularly valuable term to use if your definition is that varied.

Right. The defining characteristic (for me) of cheese is that it stinks--it's all attempts at finding loopholes, exploits, or otherwise trying to "break" the system. Optimization isn't cheesy unless it requires questionable interpretations of rules text, unintended interactions, or other oddities.

Basically, cheesiness has to do with how likely it is to get banned by a sane table (or the tendency to cause rule books to be propelled at high speed at the proposer).

Grappling isn't cheesy, unless maybe you're building a character relying on turning into a giant octopus on land and relying on a magic item to allow you to breathe. And that's mild cheese (american, maybe). Certainly nothing like 3e's nightstick or planar binding cheese.

[Kobard]

Grappling isn't cheesy, unless maybe you're building a character relying on turning into a giant octopus on land and relying on a magic item to allow you to breathe. And that's mild cheese (american, maybe). Certainly nothing like 3e's nightstick or planar binding cheese.

I find most grappling builds to require a certain amount of cheese, and I find them to more often to be mechanically-driven builds rather than character concept-driven builds, which I find to be something of a red flag. But admittedly cheese is a subjective assessment than a quantitative one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find most grappling builds to require a certain amount of cheese, and I find them to more often to be mechanically-driven builds rather than character concept-driven builds, which I find to be something of a red flag. But admittedly cheese is a subjective assessment than a quantitative one.

The iconic grappling build (Barbarian/rogue) relies on no cheese (rules exploits), only a (very common) variant rule--multiclassing. At least one level of rogue for expertise (Athletics), Barbarian for the rest. Maybe Tavern Brawler or Shield Master to help with knockdowns or Grappler (despite the general uselessness of that feat) for the free grapple attempt, but no cheese. No exploits, no questionable interpretations of rules, no chance of getting rule books thrown at you.

And mechanics-first vs "character concept"-first (whatever that means) is a longstanding discussion where people end up on both sides (often the same person will make some characters one way and others the other, or blend the two). It's certainly not stinky enough to call it cheese.

Edit: and certainly comparing a barb/rogue build to (say) a coffeelock or simulacrum-wish chaining (both of which are, to me, varying levels of cheese with the second being super-stinky limburger) shows that your definition is so broad as to be useless.

[Kobard]

I think part of my issue is that the build relies on grabbing Expertise, which is a legal mechanic that I find questionable, particularly when it comes to multiclassing, at least in terms of multiclassing for Expertise.

[Vaz]

What I said did not warrant your inappropriate response, and it still doesn't. Don't be a ****. It's not cool.

I equated the value of your statement of what is cheesy, by what you consider cheesy. It came up short.

I don't equate cheese with optimization or even broken mechanics, as the definition or sense of the term varies frequently between game modes. Cheese is cheese. It's a broad category that may include optimization or broken mechanics, but also other things, such as one-trick-pony builds, mechanic exploitation (=! broken, but, rather exploitative), or even poor builds. IME, grappling often falls into one or more of these categories.

So, cheese is

Optimization
Broken Mechanics
One trick pony
Mechanical exploitation
Poor builds

So, it is not allowed to be ****, and its not allowed to be good. It can't make use of poor wording it can't have a shtick, it must be multitalented, and it can'tuse an opponents weakness.

If it wasn't clear before, while you hold such an opinion, your statements using that as their core foundation are worthless. It's like actual bartenders discussing cocktails when some barbacker rocks up talking about this time he made a really awesome cocktail with vodka lime and soda.

Do us a favour. (I did preface it by say that i was risking being a gatekeeper, but you're talking ****. Sorry about telling you to let the adults talk though. That was uncalled for. You probably shouldn't go around saying grappling is cheesy tho, it's gibberish)

[jojo]

Meh... I have a hard time accepting the premise that a game mechanic which has existed since before WoTC even owned the property could possibly be ruining the game.

I skipped out on 4th edition but in both 3.5 and Pathfinder multi-classing seemed to become the rule rather than the exception while the expectation of epic level character progression pretty much seemed to remove most of the negative impacts of making the choice to multi-class.
That being said they still managed to make some sort of positive progress by removing racial restrictions, level caps and other 2nd edition... peculiarities.
If anything the way that 5th edition implements multi-classing mechanics is vastly superior any other system I can think of off-hand. Based on my own experiences over the years I'd go as far as to say it definitely implements the mechanic better than any previous edition of DnD.

Complaints about cheese and what not, people who go over-board with optimization and mechanical exploitation are always going to be a part of the game.

To give you an example I know more than a few players from ADnD who rolled demi-humans like elves and half-elves specifically to multi-class, which was a huge deal in ADnD because of all the weirdness that was built into the system. It was entirely possible, for instance, to have a character that was a Cleric 8/Mage 8 by the time the party's tank hit Fighter 8.
Did those PCs end up with lower HP, poor THAC0 and crap AC? Yes. But they could still prepare and cast almost twice as many spells per day as a single-classed Wizard or Cleric could (Level 10 and 9 respectively with the same amount of XP) which is just insane in any system.

There's probably room for mechanical improvement to the multi-classing system even in 5th edition, but cutting it out entirely would ultimately just force groups that have never not had the option to homebrew it for the familiarity or whatever other reason they settle on. Conversely it's clearly stated to be an optional rule, so DMs who don't want it at their tables are free to ignore it without negatively impacting the groups that do want the option.

[Dudewithknives]

Meh... I have a hard time accepting the premise that a game mechanic which has existed since before WoTC even owned the property could possibly be ruining the game.

I skipped out on 4th edition but in both 3.5 and Pathfinder multi-classing seemed to become the rule rather than the exception while the expectation of epic level character progression pretty much seemed to remove most of the negative impacts of making the choice to multi-class.
That being said they still managed to make some sort of positive progress by removing racial restrictions, level caps and other 2nd edition... peculiarities.
If anything the way that 5th edition implements multi-classing mechanics is vastly superior any other system I can think of off-hand. Based on my own experiences over the years I'd go as far as to say it definitely implements the mechanic better than any previous edition of DnD.

Complaints about cheese and what not, people who go over-board with optimization and mechanical exploitation are always going to be a part of the game.

To give you an example I know more than a few players from ADnD who rolled demi-humans like elves and half-elves specifically to multi-class, which was a huge deal in ADnD because of all the weirdness that was built into the system. It was entirely possible, for instance, to have a character that was a Cleric 8/Mage 8 by the time the party's tank hit Fighter 8.
Did those PCs end up with lower HP, poor THAC0 and crap AC? Yes. But they could still prepare and cast almost twice as many spells per day as a single-classed Wizard or Cleric could (Level 10 and 9 respectively with the same amount of XP) which is just insane in any system.

There's probably room for mechanical improvement to the multi-classing system even in 5th edition, but cutting it out entirely would ultimately just force groups that have never not had the option to homebrew it for the familiarity or whatever other reason they settle on. Conversely it's clearly stated to be an optional rule, so DMs who don't want it at their tables are free to ignore it without negatively impacting the groups that do want the option.

I would not say it was a rule in Pathfinder, there were so many archetypes per class you could easily just stick to one class 1 - 20.
3.5 yes, definately, NOBODY single classes something 1 - 20 in that system unless it was a dare or something.

[Tanarii]

Meh... I have a hard time accepting the premise that a game mechanic which has existed since before WoTC even owned the property could possibly be ruining the game.

It didn't. WotC invented its own game mechanic, and stole the name from one that isn't particularly related, except in the broadest strokes.

[ad_hoc]

Meh... I have a hard time accepting the premise that a game mechanic which has existed since before WoTC even owned the property could possibly be ruining the game.

Subclasses are the 5e version of it.

Each game is different. 5e is a different game than other editions. Multiclassing is not a core part of it.

[Vaz]

Subclasses are the 5e version of it.

Each game is different. 5e is a different game than other editions. Multiclassing is not a core part of it.

Apart from the bit in the core players handbook, of course.

[Arkhios]

Apart from the bit in the core players handbook, of course.

It doesn't matter. It's still an optional rule and thus the game doesn't require it to be "complete".

[ad_hoc]

Apart from the bit in the core players handbook, of course.

It is a bit. It is a 2 page optional hack for the game in a 316 page book.

[Nifft]

Multi-classing can't ruin the game, because the game was already ruined by Alignment several pages earlier.


There, thread solved. Now let's talk about how to optimize necromancers.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It is a bit. It is a 2 page optional hack for the game in a 316 page book.

I'm not sure length is relevant. Advantage is, what, one paragraph? Two?

[krugaan]

I'm not sure length is relevant. Advantage is, what, one paragraph? Two?

[insert sexual joke here]

There, thread solved. Now let's talk about how to optimize necromancers.

"Make more skeletons"

[ad_hoc]

I'm not sure length is relevant. Advantage is, what, one paragraph? Two?

I would not make the argument that it is not a core part of the game because it takes up little space. It taking up little space is a counter to the argument that it is core just because it is in the PHB.

It is specifically called out as optional. Any argument needs to overcome that. Just being somewhere in the PHB doesn't cut it.

There is a lot of stuff in the PHB. There is an entry for a Reef Shark. I don't think Reef Sharks are a core part of the game. There are 3 pages devoted to humans but I also don't think the various listed ethnicities are a core part of the game.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I would not make the argument that it is not a core part of the game because it takes up little space. It taking up little space is a counter to the argument that it is core just because it is in the PHB.

It is specifically called out as optional. Any argument needs to overcome that. Just being somewhere in the PHB doesn't cut it.

There is a lot of stuff in the PHB. There is an entry for a Reef Shark. I don't think Reef Sharks are a core part of the game. There are 3 pages devoted to humans but I also don't think the various listed ethnicities are a core part of the game.

You brought length up. If it's not a factor, it's not a factor.

If the point you want to make is that "allowing multiclassing is not mandatory" then sure, fine, I suppose. That's why it's marked as optional. But reef sharks aren't marked like that, but they're not core parts of the game either. Am I intuiting here that "core" and "optional" are not always related?

[Renduaz]

The Wizard in his own right is a Golden God among mortal men, more potent than any MC if you have imagination, intelligence and a diligent knowledge of spell combinations and general creativity.

[ad_hoc]

You brought length up. If it's not a factor, it's not a factor.

If the point you want to make is that "allowing multiclassing is not mandatory" then sure, fine, I suppose. That's why it's marked as optional. But reef sharks aren't marked like that, but they're not core parts of the game either. Am I intuiting here that "core" and "optional" are not always related?

It is a factor.

I don't have the patience to discuss argumentation and burden of proof with you so I'm going to leave it at that.

[Clistenes]

Not really, at least for me. They've been working on these things (or have powers locked away that they can't yet control reliably) and with practice it suddenly starts working.

One of the very few 5th edition characters I have played learned bardic stuff while studing in College. His original aim was to be a Wizard, but when he realized he lacked the talent (his Int score was just average) he resigned himself to study either Law or Ars Notaria and pursue a career as a bureocrat.

However, he discovered he was good at bardic stuff while studing the Seven Liberal Arts (Trivium and Quatrivium); his studies gave him the knowledge represented by Bardic Lore, and he discovered he had talent for bardic chants and magic while studying music; he also learned to use some weapons a member of fencing and shooting clubs.

Later war broke, and a law was passed that no young able man could pass civil service examinations unless they had served in the army first, so he had to join. Luckily for him, his family was a quite devoted one, with connections within the Church (they were members of several religious brotherhoods and charitable organizations), so they could pull some strings and have him serve as squire for a paladin friend who promised to take care of him.

Training under his master refocused his natural talents for fencing, spellcasting and healing, and he became a paladin instead of a bard, but afterwards he studied and trained on his own and slowly learnt how to do bard stuff and took levels as bard...

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It is a factor.

I don't have the patience to discuss argumentation and burden of proof with you so I'm going to leave it at that.

"I'm not going to make the argument that it is a factor because it is when I say it is".

Get outta here. If you have an argument, make it. Otherwise, piss off and stop pretending.

[Glorthindel]

I think part of my issue is that the build relies on grabbing Expertise, which is a legal mechanic that I find questionable, particularly when it comes to multiclassing, at least in terms of multiclassing for Expertise.

As far as I am concerned, it is a mechanic designed to be innately unfun for the person it is used open, however, it somehow gets a pass here because it is traditionally used to ruin the DM's fun rather than the players, and that is apparently deemed ok.

Personally, I always found the way to limit grappling problems is to use it myself. Once a player spends combat after combat on lockdown, they start agreeing to police the rule themselves.