Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2020
H
stranger
Offline
stranger
H
Joined: Oct 2020

"Generally you simply restricting yourself on gaining higher level spells and/or abilities of your original class. Which are significantly more powerful than anything of lower level. No abilities synergy would compensate that. In many cases something might sound cool. But as you hard test it - you would quickly get it's cool only in theory, but crap on practice. Solo-classed party member always outbest any multiclassed character in 5e."

This is largely true. There are a few classes like ranger where their very top level abilities weren't all that strong, so picking up some versatility might be worth it. I myself am a huge cantrip junkie because I find them very useful out of combat for roleplay and problem solving. Also short games where you aren't expecting to level up could find uses for niche combos that work well at that specific stage of the game. For the most part though multiclassing is done in 5e for fun and flavor, or becoming a jack-of-all because you don't like relying on your party rather than actually making you a monster statistically like in 3.5.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Redwyrm
Generally you simply restricting yourself on gaining higher level spells and/or abilities of your original class. Which are significantly more powerful than anything of lower level. No abilities synergy would compensate that. In many cases something might sound cool. But as you hard test it - you would quickly get it's cool only in theory, but crap on practice. Solo-classed party member always outbest any multiclassed character in 5e.

5E really rewards taking only a few levels (sometimes only one) of the extra class. The Sorlock, for example, is almost all Sorcerer.

I miss 2nd edition dual-classing. I really did prefer the earlier editions, even for tabletop play.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CaryMiller
Originally Posted by Kelevraa
Originally Posted by Redwyrm
Taking how awful multiclassing in 5e - should be a very low priority for Larian.


Same could be said about most of 5e. It's a very poorly defined and not very well thought out system. Doesn't mean this game can't be better.


I actually love 5e, it brought me back to D&D after being away from it since 2nd Edition.

I think the rules are fine, I just wish we had more of them to lean on (like Multiclassing) from the start to encourage a wide diversity of characters, while still allowing for the fact that it's a video game and not P&P (where you will need a Face and a Rogue no matter what in some combination).


100% agree. I haven't played D&D since 2e either until this past summer. 5e is such a huge improvement over THAC0, and the multiclassing system is brilliant compared to 2e, in my opinion. There is plenty of definition around the things that need to be defined. Everything else should be left up to the imagination of the players and the DM.


Ragnar Hammerhand
Slayer of Goblins
Lifter of Weights
Eater of Cookies
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad


I miss 2nd edition dual-classing. I really did prefer the earlier editions, even for tabletop play.



They are never doing that again.

Last edited by JDCrenton; 15/10/20 05:00 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad

I miss 2nd edition dual-classing. I really did prefer the earlier editions, even for tabletop play.

It was derpy as hell. Pretty much like most things in AD&D. Just random things thrown, and hardly ever balanced.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Redwyrm
Originally Posted by Smash Dently
Originally Posted by Redwyrm
Taking how awful multiclassing in 5e - should be a very low priority for Larian.

Not to be challenging, just curious what makes Multiclassing so bad in 5e specifically?

Generally how restricting it is. You would get all low level things of new class, but would be extremely restricted on whole synergy. Especially since there are no prestige classes in 5e.
It's significantly worse even than 3.5e. And it's night and day compare to pathfinder, especially 2e. Which have very rewarding and yet very well balanced "multiclassing".


Here is entire rules for multiclassing in 5e:
[Linked Image] [Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

Generally you simply restricting yourself on gaining higher level spells and/or abilities of your original class. Which are significantly more powerful than anything of lower level. No abilities synergy would compensate that. In many cases something might sound cool. But as you hard test it - you would quickly get it's cool only in theory, but crap on practice. Solo-classed party member always outbest any multiclassed character in 5e.



Personally I didn't love 2nd Edition's multiclassing. And I found Pathfinder to be a swamp in terms of possibilities. I actually MUCH prefer the more basic system for Multiclassing in 5e by a mile to either (and I started playing D&D P&P with 2e way back in the 90s, so I'm pretty intimate with it in particular).

I don't find the Multiclass system of 5e to be "restrictive", I find it to be pretty straightforward and easy to plan for.

But more to the point, since this is a video game, and not a session, the main character needs to either adopt some elements of being a Face or leave it to the NPC's (which feels awkward to me in terms of story telling).

Multiclassing would give most of the races a lot more potential to shine (as again, right now Wood Elf, followed by Half-Wood Elf are essentially the two best choices for most classes ATM by default).

I feel strongly that this would even that out a fair bit, without much hassle. Also the Prerequisites for Multiclassing aren't that crazy to meet (we're not rolling for stats, we're using Point Buy).


Last edited by CaryMiller; 15/10/20 07:23 AM.

"Old time love song will die so swiftly.
You never trust me-
For a while it was nice, but it's time to say bye....

I'm cold, you're so cold-
You're so cold, you're so cold-
No-no-no, cold, you're so cold...."
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020



Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Originally Posted by CaryMiller
Originally Posted by JDCrenton
Multiclass Abominations have always been OP in any game.


Originally Posted by Bugginity
Power balance issue on 3.5 and Pathfinder (not early) was really shock, and DM should organize them with giving poor PCs good items, or prohibit multi-class which is OP, these kind of issues are more terrible than 5e on my opinion, even bad for making game as Computer game.




I disagree here. I've DM'd a lot of 5e. Multiclasses can be strong, but they also lose out on basic stat and spell progression.

It's mainly skill access and some OK spell/ability combos that helps with Multiclass. And again, it encourages people to use different types of Races more.

A basic Moon Druid can wipe the floor with everyone in an early game of D&D 5e, without needing much of anything, but for every class like that there's a Dozen others which really benefit from a small 1-3 level Dip.


Then you haven't been building them right. Not the game's fault. You're probably talking about the pen and paper which clearly this game isn't. Not against them changing it to play more like the core ruleset and less like Divinity though.



Do you play 5e Tabletop? (Also, how would you know if my players are building their characters right)? But yes, I am talking about making things a bit closer to Pen and Paper here because I think more people will have more fun in this case.

I get that some of the classes aren't ready yet, but I don't see why we can't Multiclass with what's already been built. I love this game so far, but find myself really trying to make my skills mirror what a simple Multiclass would give me without much hassle (resulting in having to take Wood Elf or High Wood Elf for most builds).


"Old time love song will die so swiftly.
You never trust me-
For a while it was nice, but it's time to say bye....

I'm cold, you're so cold-
You're so cold, you're so cold-
No-no-no, cold, you're so cold...."
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CaryMiller


Personally I didn't love 2nd Edition's multiclassing. And I found Pathfinder to be a swamp in terms of possibilities. I actually MUCH prefer the more basic system for Multiclassing in 5e by a mile to either (and I started playing D&D P&P with 2e way back in the 90s, so I'm pretty intimate with it in particular).


No one liked AD&D, after 3e was released.
PF1e is pretty much polished 3.5e. Generally simplified and optimised, but still hard to get into, if you not dedicated enough to study all rules.
PF2e right now pretty much a pinnacle of what D&D should be.

As of 5e, generally it's just a "D&D for noobs". And where there is appeal to it as well, it's also unfortunately heavily penalize any minmaxing expert of gaming.
You can both easily make creasily powerful character, that would handle himself easily through any combat encounter DM throw at you, without even worrying about group synergy.
And at the same time restrict you on what possibilities you would have as a whole. After a while you would either have to agree roll characters very similar to those you already played, or just move on to another system.

As a whole, you just can't make system that can be both very easy to learn, and very versatile at the same time. Any really interesting system requires study.

Last edited by Redwyrm; 15/10/20 09:01 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Redwyrm
Originally Posted by CaryMiller


Personally I didn't love 2nd Edition's multiclassing. And I found Pathfinder to be a swamp in terms of possibilities. I actually MUCH prefer the more basic system for Multiclassing in 5e by a mile to either (and I started playing D&D P&P with 2e way back in the 90s, so I'm pretty intimate with it in particular).


No one liked AD&D, after 3e was released.
PF1e is pretty much polished 3.5e. Generally simplified and optimised, but still hard to get into, if you not dedicated enough to study all rules.
PF2e right now pretty much a pinnacle of what D&D should be.

As of 5e, generally it's just a "D&D for noobs". And where there is appeal to it as well, it's also unfortunately heavily penalize any minmaxing expert of gaming.
You can both easily make creasily powerful character, that would handle himself easily through any combat encounter DM throw at you, without even worrying about group synergy.
And at the same time restrict you on what possibilities you would have as a whole. After a while you would either have to agree roll characters very similar to those you already played, or just move on to another system.

As a whole, you just can't make system that can be both very easy to learn, and very versatile at the same time. Any really interesting system requires study.


I actually looked at 5e as more of an attempt at merging D&D with a simplified system in the style of White Wolf (Vampire The Masquerade, Werewolf Apocalypse, etc.).

As a fan of those games over 2e and 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e I prefer the limitations (it makes your players more likely to build a party together to support each other instead of being everyman out for themselves/min-maxing in order to see who made the strongest character etc.

I much prefer simpler rules with a heavy emphasis on cinematic story telling and role playing without meta gaming.

Which brings me back to why I think Multiclassing is something that shouldn't be eschewed for BG3. Since most players will have a single player experience, you need to build a party around a main character who can do some of the social dynamics of a face, as well as have as much utility as possible outside of combat.

There's enough characters to avoid scum saving if there's a little overlap in Rogue Skills and at least ONE character is a strong Face.

But it's much harder to build that character without relying on a couple stronger races without the advantage of Multiclassing in order to net better skill lists (something I kept trying to impart on you).

This isn't to power game, it's just to make it easier without having to reload (there's a lot of traps for instance, and a great many social encounters).

So far any character can pick locks as long as you find Thieves Tools (which might get changed), but that means DEX heavy characters are much more valuable than Strength heavy characters for main.


Really this all boils down to Perception being the most valuable skill, and having one to two characters with decent scores in it helps to make things move much more smoothly. But the same can be said of 5e P&P.

Is it perfect? No, not really, but I'm also not sure that adding more complexity before focusing on role playing is ever a good thing.





"Old time love song will die so swiftly.
You never trust me-
For a while it was nice, but it's time to say bye....

I'm cold, you're so cold-
You're so cold, you're so cold-
No-no-no, cold, you're so cold...."
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
*BUMP!*


"Old time love song will die so swiftly.
You never trust me-
For a while it was nice, but it's time to say bye....

I'm cold, you're so cold-
You're so cold, you're so cold-
No-no-no, cold, you're so cold...."
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm happy just getting all the classes for now, wouldn't be surprised if they only bring multi at launch.


Necromancy is just recycling...
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CaryMiller

I actually looked at 5e as more of an attempt at merging D&D with a simplified system in the style of White Wolf (Vampire The Masquerade, Werewolf Apocalypse, etc.).

WoD is unique on it's own.
Super comlex rules not required because vast majority of game is social encounters (especially for vampires)
And where rules are simplified. Game lore is INSANELY complex.
And you wouldn't really be able to "Storytell" it right, unless you learn it whole and keep most important facts in your mind.

Last edited by Redwyrm; 16/10/20 02:07 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I don't think multiclassing is weak in 5e , apart of minimun attributes that we usually ignore at my table. (We usually roll so it has no sense for a player to whant a specific concept like sorcerer paladin hexblade and not be able to do it couse it didnt roll enought str).

Still, most of my players dont do multiclass, mostly because it needs a lot of game knowledge to do right, and MOST of my players dont like to spend so much time with it .

But there are other players that do ... vengance paladin, warlock, phoenix sorcerer combos for twinned greenflameblades with smites and so on .. and I did a warrior/ ranger/roque that could be permanently invisible while doing 600+ damage in the first combat round at lvl 11.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Redwyrm
Originally Posted by CaryMiller

I actually looked at 5e as more of an attempt at merging D&D with a simplified system in the style of White Wolf (Vampire The Masquerade, Werewolf Apocalypse, etc.).

WoD is unique on it's own.
Super comlex rules not required because vast majority of game is social encounters (especially for vampires)
And where rules are simplified. Game lore is INSANELY complex.
And you wouldn't really be able to "Storytell" it right, unless you learn it whole and keep most important facts in your mind.



I ran VTM games for years using a ton of the lore, while slightly modifying events and NPC's as needed to suit my needs. I do the same with 5e using decades of lore on Faerun (some of which has been retconned, so I reinterpret what would make the most sense, etc.)

I'm huge on immersion and atmosphere, and even more about getting the dice out of the way. Both systems play very similarly to me. Whereas 2nd Edition and 3rd/3.5/Pathfinder 1st Edition all made situations more about character creation from a stat stand point over anything else during my experiences.

I feel the stats aren't as important as the personality you inject in a character, so again, we're back to probably stylistic choices. But I DM more than I play as a character and I want to make it about the story, even if some of the players have NEVER played before so they can quickly get into it and feel immersed.

There's a ton of blatant, but small nods to VTM in the 5e Players Handbook too. Which is what sold me on it to start. It's literally what brought me back to D&D.


"Old time love song will die so swiftly.
You never trust me-
For a while it was nice, but it's time to say bye....

I'm cold, you're so cold-
You're so cold, you're so cold-
No-no-no, cold, you're so cold...."
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Druid_NPC
I'm happy just getting all the classes for now, wouldn't be surprised if they only bring multi at launch.



There's a lot to play test with Multi builds though. A ton of stuff which might needs slight tweaking in the rules to keep it relatively balanced.

I'm thinking they're better off wheeling it out ASAP so people can really delve into it now, while they're taking player feedback.


"Old time love song will die so swiftly.
You never trust me-
For a while it was nice, but it's time to say bye....

I'm cold, you're so cold-
You're so cold, you're so cold-
No-no-no, cold, you're so cold...."
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Akari
I don't think multiclassing is weak in 5e , apart of minimun attributes that we usually ignore at my table. (We usually roll so it has no sense for a player to whant a specific concept like sorcerer paladin hexblade and not be able to do it couse it didnt roll enought str).

Still, most of my players dont do multiclass, mostly because it needs a lot of game knowledge to do right, and MOST of my players dont like to spend so much time with it .

But there are other players that do ... vengance paladin, warlock, phoenix sorcerer combos for twinned greenflameblades with smites and so on .. and I did a warrior/ ranger/roque that could be permanently invisible while doing 600+ damage in the first combat round at lvl 11.


Ranger/Rogue can be powerful. But I think excluding a few feats stops things from being insane like that.


"Old time love song will die so swiftly.
You never trust me-
For a while it was nice, but it's time to say bye....

I'm cold, you're so cold-
You're so cold, you're so cold-
No-no-no, cold, you're so cold...."
Joined: Oct 2017
B
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
B
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Akari
I don't think multiclassing is weak in 5e , apart of minimun attributes that we usually ignore at my table. (We usually roll so it has no sense for a player to whant a specific concept like sorcerer paladin hexblade and not be able to do it couse it didnt roll enought str).

Still, most of my players dont do multiclass, mostly because it needs a lot of game knowledge to do right, and MOST of my players dont like to spend so much time with it .

But there are other players that do ... vengance paladin, warlock, phoenix sorcerer combos for twinned greenflameblades with smites and so on .. and I did a warrior/ ranger/roque that could be permanently invisible while doing 600+ damage in the first combat round at lvl 11.



what build of fighter/rogue/ranger can be permanently invisible and 600+ damage in the first round?

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Bugginity
Originally Posted by Akari
I don't think multiclassing is weak in 5e , apart of minimun attributes that we usually ignore at my table. (We usually roll so it has no sense for a player to whant a specific concept like sorcerer paladin hexblade and not be able to do it couse it didnt roll enought str).

Still, most of my players dont do multiclass, mostly because it needs a lot of game knowledge to do right, and MOST of my players dont like to spend so much time with it .

But there are other players that do ... vengance paladin, warlock, phoenix sorcerer combos for twinned greenflameblades with smites and so on .. and I did a warrior/ ranger/roque that could be permanently invisible while doing 600+ damage in the first combat round at lvl 11.



what build of fighter/rogue/ranger can be permanently invisible and 600+ damage in the first round?


I believe that's a sharpshooter build, I've never seen it done.




"Old time love song will die so swiftly.
You never trust me-
For a while it was nice, but it's time to say bye....

I'm cold, you're so cold-
You're so cold, you're so cold-
No-no-no, cold, you're so cold...."
Joined: Oct 2020
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Oct 2020
I think, we should wait a lot for multiclass. There is a lot about different things to implement, like using spells via spell slots and pact magic, multiclass abilities requirements etc.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by PanShlyaptor
I think, we should wait a lot for multiclass. There is a lot about different things to implement, like using spells via spell slots and pact magic, multiclass abilities requirements etc.

I wouldn't expect multiclassing to come a single second before all basic classes have been included, anyway.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Nicou 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5