|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jul 2023
|
I imagine a suggestion that deviates from 5e is going to fall on deaf ears, but I really hate the way multiclassing works. The way class features are handled is fine, but the way proficiencies are done is just stupid. It's basically this table I hate:
Multiclassing Proficiencies Class Proficiencies Gained Barbarian Shields, simple weapons, martial weapons Bard Light armor, one skill of your choice, one musical instrument of your choice Cleric Light armor, medium armor, shields Druid Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal) Fighter Light armor, medium armor, shields, simple weapons, martial weapons Monk Simple weapons, shortswords Paladin Light armor, medium armor, shields, simple weapons, martial weapons Ranger Light armor, medium armor, shields, simple weapons, martial weapons, one skill from the class's skill list Rogue Light armor, one skill from the class's skill list, thieves' tools Sorcerer - Warlock Light armor, simple weapons Wizard -
Any result that leads you to ask the question "Should I respec my Wizard 1/Rogue 1 to a Rogue 1/Wizard 1?" means multiclassing isn't doing what it is supposed to do. You should get exactly the same thing when you take a Level of Rogue first as when you take a Level of Wizard first. Right now, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.
I think this should be changed to basically be like the old 3.5e gestalt rules, but for 1st Level. You get your best hp at 1st Level and other hp at other levels, your highest number of starting proficiencies for any class, and all armor and weapon proficiencies of any class, and if you are a Rogue or Bard, you should get Expertise x2 (but not Expertise x4 if you are a Rogue/Bard). The only real nerf would be if you go Rogue/Bard or Rogue/Ranger, you wouldn't pick up that additional proficiency, but that is only fair. Then you could get rid of the table and players could multiclass without worrying about the correct order.
Another thing I think Larian should do is allow something to happen after 12th Level. I heard someone estimate there is enough xp to get you to maybe 15th Level. That's 3 additional levels where you aren't advancing. I propose Larian should allow you to pick up Gestalt Levels at each "Level" after 12th. So if you were a Rogue 12, you could gain Fighter 1, but still be a 12th Level character. That would make the late game more interesting without dramatically impacting power. Also, if Larian ever gets around to more granular difficulty settings, you could potentially set a "gestalt" slider to lower than 12, which means your character could only advance to 10th or 11th Level, but would still gain the benefits of Gestalt Levels after you top out. (This would be for anyone who thinks it would be too easy with Gestalt Levels.) A 10th Level Fighter 10/Rogue 5 isn't going to be dramatically better than a 12th Level Fighter, for example, but at least you would have the fun of continuing to advance until the end of the game.
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Aug 2023
|
Yeah... but because it is this way in 5e it will stay. There is also other reasons. If you get it like you say. It change the game balance. It makes multiclassing, much much more powerfull and makes remaining in the single class less powerfull and that is the main problem. I understand your suggestion (it makes multiclassing more simple and more powerful), but it would open a worm can so big that I hope that this does not happen! IMHO
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
|
I hit level 12 before even going into the lower city. The level cap is pointless and lets be honest, Larian simply lacked the time or willingness to make level 7+ spells.
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2021
|
In addition to the part where this is how 5e works (and should work), this only seems like a problem to the few people it does because of the easy respeccing. The easy respeccing devalues a lot of how this game and d&d are meant to work, honestly it would probably be better if it wasn't a thing, or at least far more difficult to make happen. I could go on about reasons respeccing is actually bad for the game's design, but sticking to the one related to your thread:
No, a Wizard 1 that adds Rogue 1 absolutely should NOT be the same as a Rogue 1 that adds Wizard 1. They are not the same thing, and should not be regarded as the same thing. Their precise effectiveness should be different. Their proficiencies should be different.
Main and secondary. Only the class you start as at level 1 is your main class. It's the only class you have a history of being and training. Any multiclassed class is a secondary class you only just started looking into.
A warlock who decides to start improving their martial training (multiclass into fighter) to go with their decision to take the blade pact boon, should not be as good at martial stylings as someone who focused on martial ability from the first place. Meaning a warlock, even a bladelock, who multiclass into fighter should not get all the fighter proficiencies. Starting with not getting heavy armor. Their belated training won't get them accustomed to wearing heavy armors the same way someone who was always pushing in that direction.
Conversely, a fighter who's been working on their martial ability the whole time, but later decides to make a pact with some patron, should maintain all the martial skills they developed before making that pact. Meaning they get martial proficiencies from having fighter as their main class, that a multiclasser won't get.
On both counts, respeccing devalues build choice, because it you decide to multiclass at level 6 (halfway through leveling), you can invalidate the entire notion of having been one class first by pressing Withers's magic button to "rewrite the timeline", and act like you were always something else. You shouldn't be able to decide at a later level which class you want treated as your main class. Whatever class you actually took first should be your main class, your first class, because it literally was. The question should not be "now that I'm a wizard/rouge, which do I want to treat as main? Should I respect to be rogue/wizard" The question should just be "as the wizard I already am, do I want to add rouge and become a wizard main - rogue secondary?" Without any notion of rogue main - wizard secondary being considered an option.
Truthfully, every class should have something that you only get if you start as that class as level one. Something that isn't available from multiclassing into it. When multiclassing, which class you take first should be a narrative one you make for the story of your character, not a mechanical one you make as a meta choice for your build. But if you are going to make it for a build, the choice should not be between getting everything or losing something, as it is in some cases now. It should be between which of the main-exclusive things you want to get & not get.
Last edited by The Old Soul; 27/08/23 07:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
What The Old Soul said, basicly.
This is how 5E works. Dont like it, bring it up with wotc. Or try to mod it I guess.
The whole respeccing at will is a blight in my eyes and goes completly counter to the whole dnd experience that you get at a tabletop. I know its a video game and specially casuals 'need' it. But it cheapens the experience of only gaining levels as you level up and not suddenly respec once you got a few under your belt for some powergaming builds. It also prevents people from actually learning from their mistakes as they can just willy nilly make entire new builds without learning how their old build works FIRST. Which as it stands actually means you learn more in the long run if you do go that route.
That said, make a mistake during character creation and youre kinda boned. So for more casual people I want to stress I really understand the inclusion. I just dont use it myself and have no problem with it that way.
|
|
|
|
|