Quote from: jibbajibba;798568well ...

At this point I am just trolling because 5e is starting to feel more like 3e than 1e or 2e...
Basically people using feats or multiclassing to create builds rather than developing characters though play, people looking to future class power and/or feats as a way of increasing Damage per round or whatever.

I really hated that so much I never moved to 3e. I had hoped we woudl get a 5e that was more about "how does my character develop through time and experience" rather than how can I add more stuff to my character to enable it to do y.
I know multiclassing is optional - so I have already banned it. I am still on the fence with feats. I didn't allow humans to pick feats at first level for sure but I was hoping that I could allow them at 4th as a way to give the party that nice jump to mid level. Maybe I allow at 4th but don't allow another til much later ... we will see.

I am quite worried about the Warlock with EB extra damage, Spell sniper etc who can chuck 2 EBs 600 feet and deal 1d10+3 a round, every round, for ever

ADnD is a great game that I would highly recommend, particularly 1st edition.

For 5e, angst over warlocks and feats or whatever is easily dismissed by simply having a conversation with your group over the type of game y'all want to play.  Hopefully every group has such conversations.

For my group, it seemed a bit cheesy when the ranger started using a magical quarterstaff in one hand as a dual wielder.  We talked about it as a group and decided to allow the cheesiness for this campaign and revisit the issue later for future campaigns.

I think 5e should work fine without multiclassing, and I plan on also not allowing it. There's sufficient flexibility in the game, and I say that as someone who multiclassed a lot in 3e.

I also think 5e could really use a more stripped down, microlite approach. (I might try to tinker out such an idea, myself)

Quote from: jibbajibba;798568well ...

At this point I am just trolling because 5e is starting to feel more like 3e than 1e or 2e...
Basically people using feats or multiclassing to create builds rather than developing characters though play, people looking to future class power and/or feats as a way of increasing Damage per round or whatever.

Yeah, see, you're doing it again.  When someone points out to you that no, it's not working the way you are saying it's working, you're ignoring that and doubling down on your incorrect assumption.

You did it on the other thread when you were bitching about eldritch blast being way too powerful compared to an archer, and kept to that argument when it was pointed out no fewer than three times that you were using the rules wrong, and were forgetting to add DEX mod to the archer's damage.  It was only after the half dozenth time before you finally admitted it.

And here you are again, assuming my character feat choice was based on metagaming instead of gameplay after I already told you it wasn't, and explained why.  Heck, at my table, no one has multiclassed because feats allow us to achieve the same archetypes we've always liked without needing to.  That's a huge plus for us.  Rather than do a fighter/MU or figher/thief in 1e, we have a fighter with magic initiate (or eldritch knight) or a fighter with the urchin background and skulker feat.  none of that even remotely means we're not developing PCs through play.  We absolutely are.

If you don't like 5e, fine.  Everyone has different preferences.  But stop basing it on your mistakes and/or misunderstandings of how it works or the motivations of others.  That's incredibly disingenuous.

Here I agree with Sacrosanct.

Feats in 5e are DRIPPING with characterization and Roleplay, and lack the gatekeeping bullshit of 3e feats.

They are also nicely optional.

Yeah, i dunno why they even bothered with multi-classing rules. You can take feats to effectively dip into others classes. I prefer it that way myself.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798611Yeah, see, you're doing it again.  When someone points out to you that no, it's not working the way you are saying it's working, you're ignoring that and doubling down on your incorrect assumption.

You did it on the other thread when you were bitching about eldritch blast being way too powerful compared to an archer, and kept to that argument when it was pointed out no fewer than three times that you were using the rules wrong, and were forgetting to add DEX mod to the archer's damage.  It was only after the half dozenth time before you finally admitted it.

And here you are again, assuming my character feat choice was based on metagaming instead of gameplay after I already told you it wasn't, and explained why.  Heck, at my table, no one has multiclassed because feats allow us to achieve the same archetypes we've always liked without needing to.  That's a huge plus for us.  Rather than do a fighter/MU or figher/thief in 1e, we have a fighter with magic initiate (or eldritch knight) or a fighter with the urchin background and skulker feat.  none of that even remotely means we're not developing PCs through play.  We absolutely are.

If you don't like 5e, fine.  Everyone has different preferences.  But stop basing it on your mistakes and/or misunderstandings of how it works or the motivations of others.  That's incredibly disingenuous.

Whoa tiger. On the other thread I missed the damage stuff and admitted such as soon as it was pointed out. there may have been a few crossed threads but that is the nature of an asymetrical conversation on a forum board.
I raised the point on post 20 that I didn't see where you were getting dex bonus to damage from and thanked you on post 32 that you had pointed it out. Threads cross so don't think for just one second that I was ignoring you just answering other posts.

The reason I thought your monk had taken the cantrip for meta game reasons was on the other thread when you said " I have a monk with magic initiate with that cantrip, but it's only for a long range attack for emergencies." Post #8. So I assumed you had taken it for meta game reasons. Sorry if that was not the case.

Again I like 5e but I just have problems with the cantrip stuff. I think I am allowed to have an issue with that and still enjoy the rest of the game? Or do I have to become a devotee who must accept all parts of the game to be considered pure enough of heart to comment?
5e has been the first new RPG books I have bought in about 4 years and I am running a campaign of it so that must be saying something.
You are beginning to sound like Abyssal Maw used to when we critiqued parts of the 4e system...

Quote from: One Horse Town;798786Yeah, i dunno why they even bothered with multi-classing rules. You can take feats to effectively dip into others classes. I prefer it that way myself.

Yeah, this is actually one of the things that I really did like from 4e, before they came in with the alternate multiclassing rules because people thought the feat type wasn't good enough.

3.x was all about multiclassing to hit obscure concepts, 5e just... doesn't seem to need it. All the characters we've made for 5e have been single class. At most I was tempted to take one level of fighter with my Archer bard (for the archery combat style), but that still made sense for my characters growth, dude was an archer. In the end I decided against it because it would delay my bard stuff.

That being said, I think there is, as with all versions, a bit of "this works well mechanically" choices that everyone makes, but it is also the kind of thing that I can see being a decision the character in character would choose.

My Archer bard for instance, was a high elf. For his high elf cantrip, I picked up shocking grasp. I had a pretty good int, so it wasn't that much worse for accuracy than a weapon, but it had the advantages of the enemy not getting reactions, which let me move back out of melee range easier, and I wouldn't have to drop my bow to draw a melee weapon.

It works well mechanically, but I could see the character making the same decision: If I learn this spell that allows me to shock people with my bare hand, I can not worry about drawing a melee weapon when I get cornered.

I like the multi-classing pre-reqs and other limitations. Could be tighter, but missing out on upper level goodies tends to be the bigger limiter on players dipping. It's a start at least, and a welcome one to put the kibosh on build shenanigans.

Feats for the most part are interesting, but not chained requirements. That and they're for the most part flavor dipping, not permission taxes. Everyone can attempt just about any mundane thing, if you're willing to accept the penalties.

Yes, your Wizard can start with Chain Mail, Shield, and wield a Battleaxe. Now it has AC 18 and a Battle axe to take advantage of its high STR (your wizard has high STR, right?). That wizard in a tin can also has Disadv on ability checks, saves, attack rolls, no PB on that weapon, and has their Spd reduced by 10', too.

As for my experience with mid-levels, they're good so far. Already I think we have too much stuff too fast, as Starter Set followed by Hoard of the Dragon Queen is like a rocket of power leveling to experienced players. But one of the episodes was put to good use to power level my Adventure League adaption of Michael Jackson (yes, the entertainer) from lvl 1 to lvl 5 in one short episode, so who am I to complain. I'll throw him onto the 5e NPC topic if there's popular demand.

I'm trying to savor my other Adventure League characters before they get too high too fast for my tastes.

I am allowing multiclassing in my new campaign but I'm putting the same requirements on it that already exist for learning a new language or tool.

250 days and 250gp. I'm ruling that the 1st half of those requirements must be with a qualified instructor of whatever the character wants to learn and the balance of time/money can be spent through self practice.

I am also expanding this to regular skills too. So with time and cash, any character can learn another class, skill, language or tool.

I thought it was strange that it took the better part of a year for a character to learn to speak elvish but had no difficulty suddenly learning how to cast spells overnight anf just picking up the wizard class. :rolleyes:

This way, there is sufficient in-game time spent to justify plausibly learning another classes abilities.

@ExploderWizard. I like it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;798797I am allowing multiclassing in my new campaign but I'm putting the same requirements on it that already exist for learning a new language or tool.

250 days and 250gp. I'm ruling that the 1st half of those requirements must be with a qualified instructor of whatever the character wants to learn and the balance of time/money can be spent through self practice.

I am also expanding this to regular skills too. So with time and cash, any character can learn another class, skill, language or tool.

I thought it was strange that it took the better part of a year for a character to learn to speak elvish but had no difficulty suddenly learning how to cast spells overnight anf just picking up the wizard class. :rolleyes:

This way, there is sufficient in-game time spent to justify plausibly learning another classes abilities.

I like that.
How are you handling feats?

I think Multiclassing was a natural idea in 3e, but over time I think many people started seeing the problems.

Pathfinder, for example, made multiclassing a lot less useful/necessary.

Another fun option from 3e is gestalt, where you simply have two classes at a time.

It occurs to me that a version of 5e with more simplified classes might do very well with gestalt. Mmm.

Quote from: Will;798803I think Multiclassing was a natural idea in 3e, but over time I think many people started seeing the problems.

Pathfinder, for example, made multiclassing a lot less useful/necessary.

Another fun option from 3e is gestalt, where you simply have two classes at a time.

It occurs to me that a version of 5e with more simplified classes might do very well with gestalt. Mmm.

Going back to the thread on "are classes better for fantasy" if you make multiclassing trivial then you may as well use a skills paradigm and remove classes all together. It will be a lot less jarring and the "exploits" will be reduced because you can't just pick up a level in something and immediately inherit all the base level special stuff.

One of the biggest things I'd like to see is some kind of Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger subclass for the Wizard (heavier magic less martial). Add that in with some other subclasses like Invoker/Oracle/Mystic for the Cleric some bloodline variety for the Sorcerer, 2-3 colleges for the Bard and I see little need for full multiclassing as it's setup. Given 5e like Pathfinder makes single classing the objectively better choice except in rare cases or if it's for setting or campaign reasons.

Quote from: Will;798803I think Multiclassing was a natural idea in 3e, but over time I think many people started seeing the problems.

Pathfinder, for example, made multiclassing a lot less useful/necessary.

Another fun option from 3e is gestalt, where you simply have two classes at a time.

It occurs to me that a version of 5e with more simplified classes might do very well with gestalt. Mmm.

I am waiting to see their version of gestalt and/or 0-2e multiclassing. I thought they mentioned they were going to give the latter in the DMG but I wouldn't quote that.