How do you think class progression should be set up to be better than multiclassing?

[Man_Over_Game]

For classes like the Ranger or Barbarian, there seems to be little reason to go all 20 levels with them, as they give most of their best benefits within the first 5 levels. What do you think classes should be doing through levels 6-15 instead of how they are now?

[Gignere]

For classes like the Ranger or Barbarian, there seems to be little reason to go all 20 levels with them, as they give most of their best benefits within the first 5 levels. What do you think classes should be doing through levels 6-15 instead of how they are now?

It needs to be closer to the power gain as gaining new spell levels for casters. That’s why you don’t really see any casters ditching their progression after 1st 5 levels unless it was multi with Paladin.

[OldTrees1]

Well here is a simple set of principles for class design:
1) Each level should have a level's worth of level appropriate features
2) Level appropriate features are stronger at higher level than at lower levels
3) Structural features should generally show up sooner, but not necessarily at 1st level. Paladin gets Aura of Protection at 6th level. Casters get structural feature as late as 17th.
4) Since structural features are generally shifted earlier, later levels will generally have more enhancing abilities.


This design means multiclassing exchanges power for customization. Customization usually finds synergy OR features the Player highly values in spite of it being weaker.

However there needs to be some synergy otherwise you won't see ratio multiclassing (Ex: Rogue 8 / Barbarian 6) in the later levels. Spellcaster / Spellcaster multiclassing generally has an issue in this area (have you seen a Wizard 8 / Cleric 6?).


Many higher level levels (except for fullcasters) don't follow rule 1 or rule 2. They don't have a level's worth of features. The new features are not level appropriate. Or even worse it is a duplicate of a lower level. Consider Fighter 13th as a perfect example of everything not to do.

[Man_Over_Game]

1) Each level should have a level's worth of level appropriate features

So, uh. NOT Brutal Critical?

[OldTrees1]

So, uh. NOT Brutal Critical?

I just mentioned Fighter 13th as an example of what not to do. Barbarian 13th and 17th are more great examples. Barbarian 17th has less value than Barbarian 13th (the 3rd die is weaker than the 2nd) and 17th level needs to be stronger than 13th. (The 9th level Brutal Critical also does not feel level appropriate to me)


In other words. Yeah, NOT Brutal Critical.

Now it would be fine to have Brutal Critical in addition to some slightly weaker level appropriate features. That would allow the "I can crit big" play experience for those that want it.

[quindraco]

For classes like the Ranger or Barbarian, there seems to be little reason to go all 20 levels with them, as they give most of their best benefits within the first 5 levels. What do you think classes should be doing through levels 6-15 instead of how they are now?

Core to the premise of having a system based on classes and levels is that abilities gained at later levels are better than those gained at earlier ones. Violating that premise, as 5E does, directly encourages multiclassing/discourages monoclassing.

In other words, whatever Barbarians get at level 6 should be better than anything any class gets at level 5, which should be better than at level 4, and so on. Barbarian 6 should be automatically better than Barbarian 5/Anything 1, because the L6 ability is more desirable than anything you can get with a 1-dip, and so on reductively.

In order to deliver on this, you have restructure every class in the game around the core premise, instead of what we do have, which is that often early abilities are superior to late ones.

What Barbarians get at 6 is 3->4 Rages/day (which is worse than 2->3 and a lot worse than 0->2) and their Path feature, so if all you're doing is a patch job, their Path feature has to be so good that between it and the increase in Rages per Day, you'd rather stick to Barbarian than multiclass. Note that Rages per Day is really just their L1 ability scaling - if Barbarians were written post-Tasha's, Rages per Day would have pb scaling, and likely so would Rage Damage.

If we assume Fighter 1 is by definition balanced - and that's not an assumption we need to make - here's an example Barbarian ability you can drop which is better than the 1-dip in Fighter all Barbarians are qualified to take:


Determined Rage
When you enter your rage, you can also regain hit points equal to 1d12 + your
barbarian level.

Savagery
Whenever you have advantage on an attack roll using Strength, you can re-roll one of the dice once.

[OldTrees1]

The good news is, if base classes are better than multiclassing, as long as they are not too much better, you will still get multiclassing due to emergent synergies and player taste preferences.

[da newt]

In my opinion this is not an issue that really needs much fixing.

Yes, there are some classes out there that don't get much after 5 or 6, and it would be nice if the power progression was at least linear, but for me the big negative out there for MC is the overpowered 1 or 2 lvl dip.

If the goodies were better protected (occur at lvl 3 - 4) or are limited by the number of levels IN THAT CLASS, I'd feel like 80% of the issue was resolved.

Personally I like the mix and match quasi modular growth capabilities that the option to MC provides.

"How do you think class progression should be set up to be better than multiclassing?" - Why do you think single class progression should be better than multiclassing? I think they should be as balanced as they can be - neither better or worse than the other.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

We don't have a lot of experience with barbarians at our table, so I'll answer with regard to Ranger. Though that being said the one Barbarian we had that played through CoS with PAM and a magic spear was pretty bloody good at his job to the end of the campaign.
First I'd argue Rangers are decent until level 9, not 5. Spells up to 3rd level solid. Hunter's Mark works, Pass Without Trace is Excellent, Plant growth is also excellent when it works (there are plants) and is non-concentration. Lightning arrow (if pre-cast) can work in the same round as HM, so if you can stealth and gain surprise you're good there. You also have other options to interact with other pillars of the game.
At that point it falls apart. The 10th level default abilty is a total waste of time, and the Tashas option is only really better if you don't have a source of temporary hp. Then you get 4th level spells, which are generally situational or combat based concentration spells that compete with HM. And you only get a few of those. By comparison Paladins are getting aura's against fear, improved steeds and slots that they can use to smite if all else fails.
I'd say for Ranger priority one is fix the 4th level spells to get something that doesn't compete with HM... or just make HM non-concentration at that point. Priority two is get tier 3 appropraite abilities that bring it on par with Paly.

[Man_Over_Game]

"How do you think class progression should be set up to be better than multiclassing?" - Why do you think single class progression should be better than multiclassing? I think they should be as balanced as they can be - neither better or worse than the other.

For two reasons:

1. Classes inherently come with weaknesses and gameplay themes, and being more specialized means that each character is (ideally) more colorful. Fighters can do things Druids can't do, Druids can do things Fighters can't do, but a Druid/Fighter can do a little bit of both. So instead of "The Druid of the party", you're now "The Druid Specialist of the party". Maintaining those rigid themes, as long as it's beneficial for the player, makes each character in the party more unique to one another, while multiclassing does the opposite.

2. As of now, there's not much benefit for something like a Barbarian to progress the majority of its career in Barbarian. That's about 15 levels of content that players get punished for investing towards. Just in the same way that 15 different multiclassing options should be valid, I believe that investing into the class should also be valid.

I'm not necessarily talking about mono-leveling to be strictly better, but players are ALWAYS going to value versatility, and investing into other classes gives you that versatility. Even if single-class builds are stronger, you're still going to see a good percentage of players ignoring that fact. So to increase diversity, mono-class builds should be stronger, so that we can see a good mix of both options performing comparably and all player decisions are rewarded.

I'm of the opinion that if a player's options are "Obviously Good" or "Obviously Bad", that's an instance where poor game design removed player agency. Or, in other words, a good game makes the player think about every one of his choices.

[Kane0]

For classes like the Ranger or Barbarian, there seems to be little reason to go all 20 levels with them, as they give most of their best benefits within the first 5 levels. What do you think classes should be doing through levels 6-15 instead of how they are now?

You also need to counteract the cherrypicking that multiclassing enables, so you need to factor in breadth as well as depth of capabilities, plus that element of choice.

[Abracadangit]

If martials all had maneuvers (which I've heard, apocryphally, was supposed to be the plan until playtesters freaked out that it felt like 4th Ed.), then martials could have something that at least gives people pause before multi-ing. Typically when one of my players doesn't want to go multi, it's because they're a caster who wants stronger spells faster. Since martials don't have anything that works like that (except Extra Attack, sorta, and that doesn't stack after you get it once), there's really nothing stopping you from cruising around and picking up those sweet low-level abilities. But if stronger maneuvers were only available at the higher levels, multi-ing could put you in a position where you don't have access to the really awesome moves until later, and now you've got some disincentive.

Other than that, maybe give other martials a third attack, somewhere high up in the level chain? Let fighters keep their fourth, but that way 5th level won't be such the checkpoint that it is now.

Another problem is that a lot of the level 20 capstones just kinda suck. Heck, I'd be happier if everyone got something like barbs' Indomitable Might. Wizards get it to Int and Wis, rangers get it to Dex and Con, monks get it to Dex and Wis, etc. It would be boring, but at least it would FEEL stronger. Or keep everyone's capstones unique and just make them suck less.

I also think there might be something to offering incentives to single-classers. Like when a single-class char reaches an ASI checkpoint, offer them one Reliable Talent of their choice, for one skill proficiency or tool proficiency that they have. "But that's a rogue thing," I know, I know, but I don't see any harm in offering it piecemeal to other characters, and it feels thematically tied to single-classing. "You're a wizard who stayed the course, since you didn't spend your energies/studies elsewhere, here's Reliable Talent for Arcana." Or maybe single-classers should get an ASI AND a feat at each ASI level when they get there. Then multi-ing starts to look less attractive.

[Dalinar]

Solutions in search of a problem here, IMO. Why shouldn't someone who's taken time to pore over the myriad character options available to them searching for synergies be rewarded for doing so?

Some classes/subclasses are too frontloaded (looking at you, Hexblade), and some "capstone" abilities are incredibly lame (one of the many issues with Sun Soul), but that strikes me as more of a case-by-case balance issue rather than a fundamental problem with 5e.

[Xervous]

Each class needs features at higher levels that fit with the concept (duh) and help the class step up to take on the challenges of each subsequent tier. “More numbers” is inherently vulnerable to synergistic dips, but “useful T3 feature” isn’t something you acquire with a dip. So we mix both of these in.

In short, the class needs to provide uniquely attractive new ways to do things, or new things worth doing. If they’re doing the exact same thing with bigger numbers someone will probably find a multiclass with bigger numbers. They can’t find one that replicates a debuff purge for the whole party when the barbarian rages, or an at will “fit yourself and objects through openings slightly too small for you” ability for a certain subclass of rogue.

[PhillipJokar]

Class vs Multiclass balance really only matters for low-level features being mixed early imo. Games rarely reach high level and when they do the DM has plenty of options to change character balance in the party: Items, non-class abilities, NPC relationships, deities and so on.

Applying multiclass penalties to the strongest early features so monoclass characters using them aren't brought down might work, but the real solution is a party that talks about any preplanned early power spikes.

[MrStabby]

Solutions in search of a problem here, IMO. Why shouldn't someone who's taken time to pore over the myriad character options available to them searching for synergies be rewarded for doing so?


A good question. However it is one with a really, really simple answer:

Because it can diminish the fun had by others at the same table, and less fun is worse than more fun.

[Snails]

Solutions in search of a problem here, IMO. Why shouldn't someone who's taken time to pore over the myriad character options available to them searching for synergies be rewarded for doing so?

Some classes/subclasses are too frontloaded (looking at you, Hexblade), and some "capstone" abilities are incredibly lame (one of the many issues with Sun Soul), but that strikes me as more of a case-by-case balance issue rather than a fundamental problem with 5e.

The player should be rewarded for finding synergies that make for an effective character genuinely different from an existing standard type. But if there is significant frontloading, then it is more a matter of simply shopping for power (and making a non-difficult decision to discard those combinations that do not work). That is not an effort that deserves any reward at all.

I think it is fair to say there is a big drop off in all the non-spellcaster classes at higher levels, where the majority of the levels give you practically nothing. That is a problem. That high level ability has to be really really strong if it "costs" 2-3 levels, when you could take just 2 levels of Fighter for Action Surge instead. That is a fundamental problem with 5e.

[ZRN]

A good question. However it is one with a really, really simple answer:

Because it can diminish the fun had by thers at the same table, and less fun is worse than more fun.

And this, folks, is why the premise of this thread is wrong and monoclassing should NOT be set up to be "better than" multiclassing.

WOTC tried the whole "adding intentional trap options to reward player expertise" thing with 3e and considered it a big failure. If you're going to introduce multiclassing to your TTRPG, the goal should be to make sure that any reasonable multiclass character is at least close to the same power level as a single-classed character, just as you should be trying to make sure the classes, spells, feats, etc. are balanced against each other. Not so much because things are only fun when they're perfectly balanced, but because it's really easy for a DM to UNbalance things if they want, but it's a lot harder to balance them.

There are certainly some specific classes in 5e that suck at higher levels, but I'd argue that's more about specific cases than a systemic problem.

[Segev]

So, something like this at Barbarian 6 or 7?

Unfettered Rage
While raging, you may ignore the Charmed, Frightened, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, and Stunned conditions, as well as all effects of Exhaustion. You may expend an extra use of Rage on your turn to enter a Rage as a non-action, even if you would otherwise be prevented from doing so.


Or a Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight allowing you to gain its benefits when in your favored terrain or against favored enemies (or both) without the minute of setup time?


Maybe, in addition to Slippery Mind, giving Rogues something like:

Improved Cunning Action
Once you reach 15th level as a rogue, you can take up to two bonus actions on your turn.

[OldTrees1]

And this, folks, is why the premise of this thread is wrong and monoclassing should NOT be set up to be "better than" multiclassing.

WOTC tried the whole "adding intentional trap options to reward player expertise" thing with 3e and considered it a big failure. If you're going to introduce multiclassing to your TTRPG, the goal should be to make sure that any reasonable multiclass character is at least close to the same power level as a single-classed character, just as you should be trying to make sure the classes, spells, feats, etc. are balanced against each other. Not so much because things are only fun when they're perfectly balanced, but because it's really easy for a DM to UNbalance things if they want, but it's a lot harder to balance them.

The best way to have single classed and multiclass be similar in power level is to design it so single class is prima facie slightly better than multiclass. That will result in them being sufficiently balanced in practice provided there is enough potential synergy.

If I compare a 6th level single classed character vs a 6th level 2/4 multiclass character, the multiclass character traded away 5th and 6th level features in exchange for their pick of 1st/2nd level features from another class.

Prima facie we should expect the 5th and 6th level features to be better than the 1st and 2nd level feature. In practice the aspect of player choice means they value those weaker 1st and 2nd level features they chose more than the stronger 5th and 6th level features. This is probably due to a mixture of synergy and player tastes.

So if you design single classing as slightly better than multiclassing, then the will be sufficiently similar in practice.


There are certainly some specific classes in 5e that suck at higher levels, but I'd argue that's more about specific cases than a systemic problem.

You are right that this is not a systemic mechanical problem. It might be a systemic design problem leading to these specific cases. I see specific content flaws, to some extent or another, in all of the 5E classes. However that is a content issue and can be fixed at the problem levels. Is Barbarian 13th not a level with a level's worth of level appropriate features? Well then add level appropriate features until it is. Repeat to taste.


So, something like this at Barbarian 6 or 7?
Those seem like reasonable examples.

[PhantomSoul]

The best way to have single classed and multiclass be similar in power level is to design it so single class is prima facie slightly better than multiclass. That will result in them being sufficiently balanced in practice provided there is enough potential synergy.


The same idea as for spells, yeah; a Level 7 Spells should be (at least slightly) better than a Level 1 Spell Upcast using a Level 7 Slot and/or do something meaningfully new. (Though Multiclassing adds options whereas Upcasting usually doesn't... shhhhh... plus Multiclassing [to me] ideally errs on the lower side just because you're sure to miss favourable Multiclassing combos that give a big advantage through cross-class synergy.)

[Reach Weapon]

Because it can diminish the fun had by others at the same table, and less fun is worse than more fun.

Why should the game privilege one group's fun over another's? How are you calculating these levels of overall fun? Does it benefit the hobby to empower players who may be overly concerned with other player's character builds?

[Doug Lampert]

A really nice mount/companion would be a good thing for rangers. Say you get one companion "slot" at level 10, one at 14 or so, and one at 18 or so. The existing animal companion for a beastmaster also counts as a (weak) companion and having this path thus grants an extra slot for the beastmaster companion.

Make the buffs good enough that powerful creatures may well want to be a companion. That can allow for flight and other mobility options and fits the class reasonably well. Let a ranger take almost anything as a mount/companion at level 10+, and the mount/companion gets some nifty bonuses out of it, so that dragon or griffon or nightmare or Pegasus has a REASON to want to be the ranger's pet.

For the non-beasmaster slots, any creature with a CR (or level if classed) less than the Ranger's level may be a companion.

The companion uses the ranger's proficiency bonus in place of its own, and adds 5 HP per level/CR it is lower than the ranger's level. If a companion and the ranger are in the same or adjacent spaces then all area effect damage on each is halved (damage to the ranger is only halved once because the effect does not stack with itself).

Oh, and while you are at it, hunters mark dies a horrible death and level 2 rangers simply add 1d6 damage to all weapon attacks. This also scales up at levels 10, 14, and 18, and the damage bonus applies to all companions.

For me:
Barbarians are Conan, I know Iron Heart Surge was horribly written in 3.5, but it's still a very Conan like ability. Just say "Nope" to that spell effect, I flex my mighty thews and break that dominate spell, resist that petrification, and hulk smash straight through puny wall of force! Rewrite Iron Heart Surge to have no action cost (because you may need to use it when not allowed to act) and to counter one spell or similar effect that restricts the character's ability to act or move. Maybe doing this costs a rage use or something, but if so, hand out extra rages like candy at high level.

[Man_Over_Game]

Solutions in search of a problem here, IMO. Why shouldn't someone who's taken time to pore over the myriad character options available to them searching for synergies be rewarded for doing so?

To me, it's the same reason the Champion should be better than what it is.

I'd rather give more power to those that can do less. It cuts down on unnecessary time for the table and makes the game simpler during times when a player only cares about numbers. For instance, the majority of Paladin/Sorcerer builds just focus on Booming Blade and Divine Smite.That's a lot of unnecessary complexity for what's basically a generic damage buff.

I do not believe that a player should be punished simply for the fact that they prefer simplicity. Those that want complexity and utility at the cost of damage are the kinds of players that don't really care about how much damage they're doing in the first place - they mostly enjoy the challenge. And, on the other hand, a player who's playing a straightforward build really only cares about the things he's specialized for, like dealing damage.

Ideally, it'd go like this:
Simplicity = Raw impact
Complexity = Utility
Multiclassing = Complexity
Singleclassing = Simplicity

That way, everyone gets what they want.

And it's really straightforward design from the perspective of the player: If he wants to do Barbarian things very well, he levels into Barbarian; otherwise, he levels into something else. It seems rather silly for the best way to be a Barbarian is to not take levels into Barbarian.

[Xervous]

Why should the game privilege one group's fun over another's? How are you calculating these levels of overall fun? Does it benefit the hobby to empower players who may be overly concerned with other player's character builds?

At a point it has to decide if it wants to cater more to simplicity loving players or those who are happy to do the semester long studying session to get the game working as they desire. The second player will have no difficulty playing games aimed at the first player. But the first player needs to increase their effort to play a game that caters to the second. If the goal is to foster enjoyment without force you’re not going to be demanding player #1 hit the books. You’ll simply be telling player #2 that he has to accept a compromise to play at this table.

[Dalinar]

To me, it's the same reason the Champion should be better than what it is.

I'd rather give more power to those that can do less. It cuts down on unnecessary time for the table and makes the game simpler during times when a player only cares about numbers. For instance, the majority of Paladin/Sorcerer builds just focus on Booming Blade and Divine Smite.That's a lot of unnecessary complexity for what's basically a generic damage buff.

I do not believe that a player should be punished simply for the fact that they prefer simplicity. Those that want complexity and utility at the cost of damage are the kinds of players that don't really care about how much damage they're doing in the first place - they mostly enjoy the challenge. And, on the other hand, a player who's playing a straightforward build really only cares about the things he's specialized for, like dealing damage.

Ideally, it'd go like this:
Simplicity = Raw impact
Complexity = Utility
Multiclassing = Complexity
Singleclassing = Simplicity

That way, everyone gets what they want.

And it's really straightforward design from the perspective of the player: If he wants to do Barbarian things very well, he levels into Barbarian; otherwise, he levels into something else.

Eloquently stated. However:

You're drawing a distinction between "raw impact" and "utility" that I don't think exists. Perhaps "specialization" is the word you're looking for? Ability to solve one specific problem really well vs ability to solve many problems?

I do think there's a problem that certain abilities were not nearly as strong as the developers probably meant for them to be (especially the ones surrounding critical hits). There shouldn't be such a thing as a dead level. But my hypothesis is that fully balancing a game is outside the capabilities of game developers. I've seen it in basically every asymmetrical game I can think of. The fact of game development is you have to get it out the door at some point, and you simply don't have as much information available on how to play the game as the community does.

Fortunately for D&D, one of the players is literally a referee, who can alter the game world and rules surrounding it to suit their table. They can challenge the flying character with things like indoor combat, ranged or flying enemies, stuff like inclement weather, or secondary objectives (of course, not every time--gotta play to the PCs' strengths sometimes, make 'em feel awesome, you know?). They can declare, for instance, that their game won't include Peace or Twilight Clerics, or that all Hexblades must be single-classed. They can run campaigns that end before high-level spells come online.

Most importantly, so long as they act like adults about it, they can intervene if one player feels overshadowed by another--either by helping the weaker player rework the mechanics of their character, or by band-aiding the problem with a magic item or similar, or worst-case asking the stronger player to tone it down in some way that all involved find agreeable.

What's this got to do with single-class vs multiclass balance? Because the existence of a DM means that there is a safety valve that filters out options that are too big a problem. If multiclassing (either in general or in specific combinations) is too powerful in the opinion of a given DM, it's their right to place limitations on it or disallow it outright. This is encouraged by the PHB calling it an optional rule.

If multiclassing weren't as powerful as single-classing, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion, right? We'd instead be asking what WOTC could do to present a more flexible system for realizing character concepts that don't fit neatly into the archetypes represented by the classes.

And maybe we can find a point of agreement there--that if lategame abilities were more valuable, staying with your class feels less like you're giving up something for the sake of staying true to the character you want to play.

I think the real point of contention is the word "better" in the title.

[Man_Over_Game]

But my hypothesis is that fully balancing a game is outside the capabilities of game developers. I've seen it in basically every asymmetrical game I can think of. The fact of game development is you have to get it out the door at some point, and you simply don't have as much information available on how to play the game as the community does.

To be fair, calculating the value of the +5% crit chance from Champion (7 * 0.05 = +0.35 damage per attack) and the value of Brutal Critical (6.5 * 0.05 = +0.325 damage per attack) really should have been on their job description.

Otherwise though, I agree.

I guess what I'm asking is how folks would fix the dead levels, so that leveling the class you normally wouldn't want to straight to 20 actually seems like a legit strategy.

I'm kinda fond of the idea of making the first Brutal Critical replacement just have the Barbarian crit any time one of his attacks with Advantage both hit while raging, and the other Brutal Critical levels add other features (like having your crits replace your Rage damage bonus to be equal to your Barbarian level, stuff like that).

[PhantomSoul]

To be fair, calculating the value of the +5% crit chance from Champion (7 * 0.05 = +0.35 damage per attack) and the value of Brutal Critical (6.5 * 0.05 = +0.325 damage per attack) really should have been on their job description.

Otherwise though, I agree.
(emphasis mine)

I'd say it was (in) it.
(Was going to blue text... but actually, it's the blackest text ever xD)

[mr_stibbons]

I don't think it's controversial to claim that the t3-4 abilities of marital classes and half casters not only fail to be attractive compared to high level spell slots, they also fail to be competitive with the starting abilities of other marital/half caster classes.

Some of this is probably unavoidable: front-loading class abilities is important to make characters feel meaningfully distinct, and toning them down would make classes feel homogenous at low levels. Equally, there are valid concerns about stacking too many passive and triggered abilities causing high level martial classes would make them both increasingly complicated to play, or homogenous as the design space for generically useful passive bonuses is used up. (i.e: if every class has a powerful passive boosting their skills, damage, saving throws, and defences, is there a meaningful difference between a high level fighter and a high level barbarian?)

In my mind, the best ways to avoid these problems would be to combine powerful limited use abilities -as equivalent to a 6+ level spell once per long rest like a casting class would have, and more aggressive scaling of core features. There's no good reason why rage damage, to pick a particularly egregious example, scales from +2 to +4 over 20 levels. It could easily match or exceed your proficiency bonus without being overpowered. Similarly, a make marital arts die end at 2d8 or more, and give fighters extra uses of action surge before 17th level. This would keep classes distinct without bloating bookkeeping.

[Kane0]

I guess what I'm asking is how folks would fix the dead levels, so that leveling the class you normally wouldn't want to straight to 20 actually seems like a legit strategy.

You might want to specify which classes and what dead levels in particular, since it's a pretty broad area.

But drawing from my current homebrew:

Extra Attack (addendum)
If you already have the Extra Attack feature you instead increase one attribute of your choice by 1, to a maximum of 20.
If you are using the optional Feats rule, you may instead select a feat that grants +1 to an attribute and gain its benefits that do not include the +1 to an attribute.


Level 9: Brutal Critical (replacement)
You add your Barbarian level to the damage you deal with a critical hit

Level 13: Improved Reckless Attack (replacement)
When you use Reckless Attack you score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20, and you can choose to use your Reckless Attack feature when you make an attack using your reaction.

Level 15: Persistent Rage (addendum)
While Raging, if the result a saving throw is lower than your ability score for that roll, you can choose to use your ability score as the result.

Level 17: Improved Danger Sense (replacement)
Your Danger Sense ability works even when you are deafened or blinded

Level 18: Indomitable Might (replacement)
If the result a strength, dexterity, constitution or intimidation ability check is lower than your ability score for that roll, you can choose to use your ability score as the result.

Level 20: Primal Champion (addendum)
If you are under an effect that grants a specific Strength or Constitution score, you can increase the score you gain from it by 4 to a maximum of 30.



Level 9: Indomitable (replacement)
If you fail a saving throw you can choose to reroll it as if it were a Constitution saving throw.
After you use this ability you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Level 13: Critical Focus (replacement)
When you hit with a weapon attack you can choose to turn it into a critical hit as if you rolled a 20 on the attack roll.
After you use this ability you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Level 20: Lord of Battle (replacement, because my fighters get extra attack 3 at level 17)
You can use your Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable and Critical Focus features each twice between rests. When you finish a short or long rest, you regain your expended uses.



Level 1: Natural Explorer (replacement)
You gain your choice of either a Climb or Swim speed equal to your movement.
In addition, while travelling for an hour or more you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to any Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom ability checks you or your allies make.

Level 1: Quarry (addition, Favored Enemy is left as a ribbon with additional FEs gained at levels 9, 13 and 17)
Once on your turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark another creature as your Quarry.
When you make an attack against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as the attack. This damage increases at higher levels as shown on the Ranger table.

Level 2: Nature's Boon (replacement)
At level 2 and again at levels 6, 10, 14 and 18 choose one from the options below:

Camouflage: When you take the Hide action you become invisible until you move more than 5 feet during your turn, make an attack or cast a spell. If selected a second time you can remain invisible until you move more than your movement speed instead of more than 5 feet.

Healing Salves: As a part of a long rest, you can prepare a number of healing salves equal to your Wisdom modifier. Each salve restores HP equal to 1d8 + Ranger level and can be applied to a creature using an action. If selected a second time each healing salve applied a creature also provides the benefits of a Lesser Restoration spell or removes one level of exhaustion. Unused salves expire at the end of a long rest.

Honed Senses: You gain Darkvision out to a range of 60 feet and can take the Search action as a bonus action. If selected a second time, your Darkvision allows you to see through magical darkness and being unable to see a creature does not impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it

Land's Stride: Spells and magical effects cannot reduce your movement speed and you can ignore nonmagical difficult terrain. If selected a second time, you gain advantage on saving throws against being being Paralysed, Restrained or Stunned

Traps: As an action you can lay a trap, which occupies a 5 foot radius space within reach. A creature that first moves into this space or starts its turn there must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw against your spell DC or be either Blinded, Deafened, Poisoned or knocked Prone (your choice when you lay the trap) until the start of their next turn. You can have a number of traps active at any given time equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1), any additional trap you place renders the oldest existing trap inert. If selected a second time, you can deploy a trap up to 30 feet away from you, and each trap occupies a 10 foot radius area.


Rogue could probably use a bit of a once-over as well, but I haven't got anything myself yet.
Edit: Monk has some lacklustre levels too (10th, 13th, 15th)

[Witty Username]

This sounds like a non-spellcaster problem, as the tradeoffs for higher level spell access already has the desired effect.

The obvious answer is progressively stronger features.
For example let's take the champion fighter. Currently, they have Improved Critical and Superior Critical. Functionally these features have the same amount of impact on the game.
One possible solution would be to increase the later feature to have greater impact (like say doubling your crit range instead of +1 crit range). Another way would be too increase the breadth of the effect (replacing superior critical with a feature the applied more broadly to attacks, like simply rolling all attacks with advantage).

Another way is to gate particular mechanics beyond certain levels. I don't really know of non-spellcaster generalized mechanics that already do this, but there are sought after mechanics that we could use as examples.
Monks stuning strike works for people like this, most monk builds I have seen plan on at least 5 levels for it because a similar effect can't be gotten on martial classes at a lower level investment.

Overall it feels to me that higher level characters seem like they stop getting stuff, so adding meaningful new abilities at higher level may be enough.

[Sigreid]

Honestly, because of the way EB works, just take 2 levels of warlock and then do whatever strikes your fancy.

[ZRN]

I don't think it's controversial to claim that the t3-4 abilities of marital classes and half casters not only fail to be attractive compared to high level spell slots, they also fail to be competitive with the starting abilities of other marital/half caster classes.


I don't know if this is uncontroversial across the board. Do you think monks and paladins fit this claim?

As for classes like barbarians and fighters... look at the late playtest documents and you can tell where the cut back "overpowered" abilities and left something underwhelming instead. For example, the final playtest fighter's Indomitable was advantage on ALL saving throws, permanently. Would 13 still feel like a dead level if they'd left that in place? Point being, I think this issue is more about crunch-time resulting in unpolished design than some deeper systemic problem.

[mr_stibbons]

I don't know if this is uncontroversial across the board. Do you think monks and paladins fit this claim?

As for classes like barbarians and fighters... look at the late playtest documents and you can tell where the cut back "overpowered" abilities and left something underwhelming instead. For example, the final playtest fighter's Indomitable was advantage on ALL saving throws, permanently. Would 13 still feel like a dead level if they'd left that in place? Point being, I think this issue is more about crunch-time resulting in unpolished design than some deeper systemic problem.

For monks, they tend to be monclassed more because their innate features are hard to work into a multiclass build more than their high level features being particularly good-fighting styles largely don't apply, your bonus action is spoken for every turn, you need very specific stats to be workable. Tongue of the sun and moon and Timeless body are basically ribbons as the sole features on two levels, and purity of body is not much better than that. Outside of the Tasha's subclasses, they don't really have any extra damage to keep in line with level 11 cantrip scaling or a fighter's extra attack and tend to fall behind as a damage output.

I haven't seen many high level paladins, but they do seem a bit better off. One class bucking the trend is still enough to call it a trend though.

In a world where WOTC was willing to release more new classes, or rework the PHB classes, this wouldn't be as big a deal of course. But in the world we live in, that's not the case. Whatever the reason for the martial classes coming out undercooked at high levels was, that is the base state of the game.

[Man_Over_Game]

For monks, they tend to be monclassed more because their innate features are hard to work into a multiclass build more than their high level features being particularly good-fighting styles largely don't apply, your bonus action is spoken for every turn, you need very specific stats to be workable. Tongue of the sun and moon and Timeless body are basically ribbons as the sole features on two levels, and purity of body is not much better than that. Outside of the Tasha's subclasses, they don't really have any extra damage to keep in line with level 11 cantrip scaling or a fighter's extra attack and tend to fall behind as a damage output.

I haven't seen many high level paladins, but they do seem a bit better off. One class bucking the trend is still enough to call it a trend though.

In a world where WOTC was willing to release more new classes, or rework the PHB classes, this wouldn't be as big a deal of course. But in the world we live in, that's not the case. Whatever the reason for the martial classes coming out undercooked at high levels was, that is the base state of the game.

I think Monks would go a long way if their starting Ki-spenders were more affordable and they got fewer Ki points to compensate. The reason a lot of folks don't dip into Monk isn't just about the stats, but the fact that the consistency of your starting features depends on your Monk level. In a way, it's the same problem that spellcasters have when it comes to multiclassing, and is essentially the opposite problem of the thread.

Hmm...Idea. They cost either a Ki point or a Bonus Action, with Flurry of Blows needing both. Strong for a dip, yes, but also fairly expensive for most multiclassing builds that could take advantage of it. The worst I could see from it is maybe a Fighter or a melee Druid spending two levels for a BA Dodge.

[Person_Man]

Well here is a simple set of principles for class design:
1) Each level should have a level's worth of level appropriate features
2) Level appropriate features are stronger at higher level than at lower levels
3) Structural features should generally show up sooner, but not necessarily at 1st level. Paladin gets Aura of Protection at 6th level. Casters get structural feature as late as 17th.
4) Since structural features are generally shifted earlier, later levels will generally have more enhancing abilities.


This design means multiclassing exchanges power for customization. Customization usually finds synergy OR features the Player highly values in spite of it being weaker.

However there needs to be some synergy otherwise you won't see ratio multiclassing (Ex: Rogue 8 / Barbarian 6) in the later levels. Spellcaster / Spellcaster multiclassing generally has an issue in this area (have you seen a Wizard 8 / Cleric 6?).


Many higher level levels (except for fullcasters) don't follow rule 1 or rule 2. They don't have a level's worth of features. The new features are not level appropriate. Or even worse it is a duplicate of a lower level. Consider Fighter 13th as a perfect example of everything not to do.

I agree completely with this post.

I’d add that Devs should take all of the class features and subclass features, and plus them into a spreadsheet. And that the features that each class gains at each level should be roughly equal usefulness/power compared to other classes. So for example, at 17th level, every class should get something that is roughly as powerful as a 9th level spell.

It would also be helpful if every class ability/spell/etc automatically scaled with levels, or if nothing scaled with class levels. Right now we have the weird situation where most things don’t scale, but do stack in weirdly specific ways (Extra Attack, Brutal Critical, etc) but some thing do scale and basically win an encounter they’re used in (many spells).

[Snails]

As for classes like barbarians and fighters... look at the late playtest documents and you can tell where the cut back "overpowered" abilities and left something underwhelming instead. For example, the final playtest fighter's Indomitable was advantage on ALL saving throws, permanently. Would 13 still feel like a dead level if they'd left that in place? Point being, I think this issue is more about crunch-time resulting in unpolished design than some deeper systemic problem.

There are observable designer tendencies: to overvalue unusual abilities, to overvalue abilities that do not fit entirely within the class stereotype, to overvalue generic defensive abilities (in spite of them having no clearly overpowered stack).

Is that systemic? Sort of, yes.

I think advantage on ALL saving throws is exactly the kind of thing a high level Fighter needs. It is heroic, but not in a boring hit harder with a stick kind of way.

[Man_Over_Game]

There are observable designer tendencies: to overvalue unusual abilities, to overvalue abilities that do not fit entirely within the class stereotype, to overvalue generic defensive abilities (in spite of them having no clearly overpowered stack).

Is that systemic? Sort of, yes.

I think advantage on ALL saving throws is exactly the kind of thing a high level Fighter needs. It is heroic, but not in a boring hit harder with a stick kind of way.

Most Fighters get the relevant saves anyway (Resilience), this just basically lets them spend their feats on other things, like stat buffs or noncombat stuff.

[Reach Weapon]

Well here is a simple set of principles for class design:
1) Each level should have a level's worth of level appropriate features
2) Level appropriate features are stronger at higher level than at lower levels
3) Structural features should generally show up sooner, but not necessarily at 1st level. Paladin gets Aura of Protection at 6th level. Casters get structural feature as late as 17th.
4) Since structural features are generally shifted earlier, later levels will generally have more enhancing abilities.

While reading them I can't help but agree, but on further reflection, I wonder if they aren't an over simplification.

While the power that each class level grants is important, it seems to me that the actual metric by which these things are commonly and best judged relate to how much better they make the character.

As a project, this forum could probably design a class that not only meets all these rules but where each level is over-powered, and yet still results in underpowered characters due to MADness, restriction, poor synergies and the like. (Some will insist it's a Ranger.)

[OldTrees1]

I don't know if this is uncontroversial across the board. Do you think monks and paladins fit this claim?

As for classes like barbarians and fighters... look at the late playtest documents and you can tell where the cut back "overpowered" abilities and left something underwhelming instead. For example, the final playtest fighter's Indomitable was advantage on ALL saving throws, permanently. Would 13 still feel like a dead level if they'd left that in place? Point being, I think this issue is more about crunch-time resulting in unpolished design than some deeper systemic problem.

While when Paladin suffers this symptom is controversial, and I think many would consider Paladin one of the least effected, even Paladin is effected by this symptom.

Last time this topic came around I criticized Paladin 12th level despite me considering it the best designed class. After lots of discussion (including lots of pointing to Paladin's using 2 primary abilities) I relented and criticized Paladin 14th+ level. Cleansing Touch is a reasonable late Tier 2 feature. Paladin goes downhill from there. However despite this harsh criticism of Paladin class design, the other no full casters have it worse. For example I would start criticizing Monk around 10th level.

If Fighter 13th was advantage on all saving throws, that sounds more reasonable. You would still want the suite of T3 features to have a level appropriate breadth, but that would be a good example feature.



I agree completely with this post.

It would also be helpful if every class ability/spell/etc automatically scaled with levels, or if nothing scaled with class levels.

Thanks.

Having everything scale does not help the player much assuming equal quality design. Scaling features would just mean you get fewer new features but more improvement to old features.

Having everything scale can make design easier, but it also can be a writer's block for some ideas. Totem Barbarian features are not readily adapted to scaling.

All in all I think scaling is a useful tool for the cases where it is useful. Keep it in the toolbox and know when to use it (Paladin Aura of Protection Cha scaling) and when not to use it (copy paste Brutal Critical's 9th level feature for 13th and 17th levels).


While reading them I can't help but agree, but on further reflection, I wonder if they aren't an over simplification.

While the power that each class level grants is important, it seems to me that the actual metric by which these things are commonly and best judged relate to how much better they make the character.

As a project, this forum could probably design a class that not only meets all these rules but where each level is over-powered, and yet still results in underpowered characters due to MADness, restriction, poor synergies and the like. (Some will insist it's a Ranger.)

That is a good way to unpack and elaborate on my oversimplification. Thanks.

I am usually judging levels by what they are contributing to the character, which would include the context of the prior levels and the context of those levels. However that is an unspoken assumption that is worth highlighting.

[Man_Over_Game]

While reading them I can't help but agree, but on further reflection, I wonder if they aren't an over simplification.

While the power that each class level grants is important, it seems to me that the actual metric by which these things are commonly and best judged relate to how much better they make the character.

As a project, this forum could probably design a class that not only meets all these rules but where each level is over-powered, and yet still results in underpowered characters due to MADness, restriction, poor synergies and the like. (Some will insist it's a Ranger.)

Lol, been thinking about this.

Just gotta steal the homework off of 4e. They had this kind of formula down flat. Most classes have a primary score, but then have like secondary benefits to their powers that scale off of like 3 of their other stats. For instance, the Barbarian had powers that scale off of Wisdom, Dexterity and Charisma, depending on whether you were focusing on ranged damage and party support (Wisdom), raw damage (Dexterity) or debuffing enemies (Charisma).

The tricky part is writing them all down, but I think that can be managed by just having the player fill in the numbers for those scaling abilities. For instance, one way the current Barbarian could be designed is by allowing the Barbarian to deal his Rage damage to enemies he attacks that are within a distance that's equal to 5ft + 5ft * [Wisdom Modifier]. That way, you can easily make the Barbarian as a ranged character as long as you have the Wisdom to support it. Dumber Barbarians are too blinded by the Rage to be able to focus on a target that's far away. And now it's an aura that has 15 or whatever feet and you write that down instead of remembering a different static 15ft aura that's arbitrarily decided (like the ranges on Paladin auras).

One thing I noticed is that it doesn't really matter how intricate things get as long as the numbers don't change during combat. With that in mind, there is a lot of opportunity for adding random stuff to various features to characters, as long as it's easy to remember and they don't change all that much. Some examples might include:



A bonus to your Rage damage equal to your Dexterity modifier (up to your Rage damage bonus) You still only get your Rage damage bonus when making Strength attacks.
Rage is now a Reaction you take when you are hit, and you reduce the triggering damage by an amount equal to your Barbarian level when doing so.
While within your Rage aura, enemies get a penalty to their attack rolls equal to your Charisma modifier (up to your Rage bonus).
While within your Rage aura, enemies get a penalty to their AC equal to your Intelligence modifier (up to your Rage bonus).


With something like this, you wouldn't really need subclasses, just more ASIs.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I’ve tried a few things. The best by far is requiring all xp to be divided between each class equally. Knowing their Level progression pace is going to be halved or quartered is enough.

[OldTrees1]

Lol, been thinking about this.

Just gotta steal the homework off of 4e.

Yes, 4E had good ideas for how to offer multiple useful secondary abilities, but also make them optional. Extending this idea into the future you can even make a character who valued a secondary ability more than the primary (5E Paladin with 14 Dex and 18 Cha casting Heroism and being an Auradin).

[Gignere]

Most Fighters get the relevant saves anyway (Resilience), this just basically lets them spend their feats on other things, like stat buffs or noncombat stuff.

Nah advantage without proficiency isn’t worth much. Like a +1 wis save against DC 19 means you are likely to fail even with advantage. In fact having advantage makes proficiency even better at high levels but doesn’t replace the need for it unless you are stapled to a Paladin.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nah advantage without proficiency isn’t worth much. Like a +1 wis save against DC 19 means you are likely to fail even with advantage. In fact having advantage makes proficiency even better at high levels but doesn’t replace the need for it unless you are stapled to a Paladin.

Choosing your target as DC 19 is...a little skewed. There are exactly 58 monsters from the "big 3" monster books that have save DCs of 19+. About half of those are unique named monsters that will likely never come up in a campaign. Well over half (probably 70%, don't care to look more detailed right now) are above CR 20. These are the kind of boss monsters the system expects you to face...once. Or maybe twice. These are not (as designed) normal every-day fights.

The vast majority of those saving throws are
a) WIS saves against fear (the dragons, something that is annoying but little more than that, especially with the overwhelming number of ways parties of those levels have to remove/immune fear)
b) DEX saves against damage (fighters have a large HP pool)
c) CON saves, often against poison (fighters have proficiency). Basically...against damage.

Fighters have tons of ASIs that they can pick up a proficiency, so either WIS or DEX saves are generally covered, so only one is a problem. There's also a team, so not everyone has to cover every base.

[Gignere]

Choosing your target as DC 19 is...a little skewed. There are exactly 58 monsters from the "big 3" monster books that have save DCs of 19+. About half of those are unique named monsters that will likely never come up in a campaign. Well over half (probably 70%, don't care to look more detailed right now) are above CR 20. These are the kind of boss monsters the system expects you to face...once. Or maybe twice. These are not (as designed) normal every-day fights.

The vast majority of those saving throws are
a) WIS saves against fear (the dragons, something that is annoying but little more than that, especially with the overwhelming number of ways parties of those levels have to remove/immune fear)
b) DEX saves against damage (fighters have a large HP pool)
c) CON saves, often against poison (fighters have proficiency). Basically...against damage.

Fighters have tons of ASIs that they can pick up a proficiency, so either WIS or DEX saves are generally covered, so only one is a problem. There's also a team, so not everyone has to cover every base.

The feature does come into play at level 13 so it’s probably not unusual to see those tougher saves but even against an arch mage, CR 12 that’s DC17. Just advantage without proficiency isn’t going to suddenly make your wis saves reliable. I was responding to the poster saying that you wouldn’t need resilient if you had advantage on all saves at level 13, which I disagree.

[OldTrees1]

The feature does come into play at level 13 so it’s probably not unusual to see those tougher saves but even against an arch mage, CR 12 that’s DC17. Just advantage without proficiency isn’t going to suddenly make your wis saves reliable. I was responding to the poster saying that you wouldn’t need resilient if you had advantage on all saves at level 13, which I disagree.

You are right that Monk's Diamond Soul is a stronger feature

At level 13 you will see a wide range of DCs. There could be some DC 17s and DC 13s. Even some DC 11s.


DC091113151719
+160%50%40%30%20%10%
+685%75%65%55%45%35%
+1 Adv84%75%64%51%36%19%


So the difference between proficiency and advantage is smaller than one initially might think.

[Gignere]

You are right that Monk's Diamond Soul is a stronger feature

At level 13 you will see a wide range of DCs. There could be some DC 17s and DC 13s. Even some DC 11s.


DC091113151719
+160%50%40%30%20%10%
+685%75%65%55%45%35%
+1 Adv84%75%64%51%36%19%


So the difference between proficiency and advantage is smaller than one initially might think.

But having both would be great. So if fighters kept the old indomitable at level 13 they should definitely still be getting resilient wis. So even for the higher DCs they will have > 50% chance of saving. Basically having advantage doesn’t make proficiency obsolete it is actually complementary.

[OldTrees1]

But having both would be great. So if fighters kept the old indomitable at level 13 they should definitely still be getting resilient wis. So even for the higher DCs they will have > 50% chance of saving. Basically having advantage doesn’t make proficiency obsolete it is actually complementary.

I see your point and agree with your evidence. However I can also see some Fighters being fine with advantage (10%->19% worst case) when they consider the opportunity cost (whatever else the 5th ASI/Feat could be). Especially when we consider the medium DCs benefit roughly equally from proficiency vs advantage. Having both is stronger than either alone, but some Fighters will have other priorities to consider too.

Basically if a Fighter was going to take Resilience Wis, then some of those Fighters might change their mind if they get Advantage on Wis saves for free before they purchase Resilience Wis. It will not convince all Fighters, but some will.

So while Resilience is complementary, some Fighters will be satisficers rather than optimizers when it comes to their Wis saves. Advantage might be good enough for them to pick a different feat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The feature does come into play at level 13 so it’s probably not unusual to see those tougher saves but even against an arch mage, CR 12 that’s DC17. Just advantage without proficiency isn’t going to suddenly make your wis saves reliable. I was responding to the poster saying that you wouldn’t need resilient if you had advantage on all saves at level 13, which I disagree.

Arch mages are kinda cherry-picked as well--they're the lowest CR creature with DC 17. Most are CR 15+. But yes, that would roughly double the number of possible monsters. But again, the vast majority of those creatures don't do WIS saves, and when they do, it's almost always fear[1]. The number of published creatures with true SoD (or even save or suck) abilities is really small. For all the talk about needing all these high defenses because of <insert spell here>, those spells aren't on NPC lists. So unless your DM is targeting you[2], it's not as big of an issue as it seems.

Also, fighters have extra ASIs for a reason. If they insist that the only thing they can use those for is offense, that's their problem. Spending feats or ASIs on defense or to shore up weaker spots is perfectly fine.

I'd also say it's a rare fighter who dumps their WIS anyway. They're SAD as it comes (STR OR DEX, CON) with the most ASIs. Even with a not-super-synergistic race and the standard array, they can max their primary stat by level 8 and dump the rest wherever.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Most Fighters get the relevant saves anyway (Resilience), this just basically lets them spend their feats on other things, like stat buffs or noncombat stuff.

Not going to lie, I just straight up give Fighters Legendary Resistance instead of Indomitable (with the same number of uses). If you're 9 levels deep into Fighter, you deserve Nice Things.

[Hytheter]

In short, the class needs to provide uniquely attractive new ways to do things, or new things worth doing. If they’re doing the exact same thing with bigger numbers someone will probably find a multiclass with bigger numbers.

I think I've always understood this on some level but seeing it articulated is an eye-opener. Well put.


I think Monks would go a long way if their starting Ki-spenders were more affordable and they got fewer Ki points to compensate. The reason a lot of folks don't dip into Monk isn't just about the stats, but the fact that the consistency of your starting features depends on your Monk level. In a way, it's the same problem that spellcasters have when it comes to multiclassing, and is essentially the opposite problem of the thread.

If the goal is to make monks more dippable it'd be easier to just give them a larger starting pool of Ki. Level+Wis or something.

Tangential, but I've seen the idea posited of using Ki-cost negation as a scaling mechanism. Higher level monks would be more appealing if at some point the likes of Flurry and Step of the Wind became free.

[Rynjin]

You design classes the way Pathfinder 1e did them, especially taking into account the lessons they learned toward the end of the game's active development.

D&D 3.5 had the exact same issue; multiclassing was pretty much mandatory for most characters, either through rampant dipping because so many class had frequent dead levels, or through Prestige Classes for casters in particular, because it was the only way to get real class features that weren't casting, without giving up your casting progression.

Paizo didn't like this paradigm, so they did a few things with the express purpose of reducing the need and desire for multiclassing,a nd to make level 1-20 in a class the norm:

1.) Favored Class Bonuses. For every level in your favored class (chosen at first level), you get a small bonus; +1 HP, +1 skill point, or a similar minor buff based on your race that could be applied to certain classes.

2.) Every class was designed to be a complete package. In the early days the effectiveness of this varied, with classes like Fighter in particular still being dip-fodder, but every class was MEANT to feel like it became more...itself as tie went on. Much later, with Advanced Armor and Weapon Training options, and Weapon Mastery feats (which technically anyone could take, but had to jump through hoops to get) even Fighter got this. A Level 5 Fighter should feel more...Fighter-y than a level 1 Fighter, or a level 5 Barbarian.

3.) Give most classes an ability at EVERY level. This gives you a psychological "hook" to stay in the class. "Well next level I get, so I can't swap, and then NEXT level I get..."
--3a.) Talents. Most classes in the game get some kind of talent every 2 levels (some starting at 1st and repeating on odd levels, and some starting at 2nd and repeating at even levels): Rogue Talents, Alchemist Discoveries, Witch Hexes, etc. This not only gives you an ability at every level, or close to it, it always gives you a CHOICE to look forward to, not just a static ability you have no control over. Minor or major boosts you CHOOSE to customize your character further.

4.) Archetypes. Give players the ability to swap out class features they don't like, for ones they do. These in many ways take the place of multiclassing specifically, to the point that many common (and even uncommon) class combinations become redundant. Do you want to be an Inquisitor of the god of nature? Well, then you want some more nature-y abilities, yes? Why not be a Sacred Huntmaster, and trade out a few of your abilities for a Druid's Animal Companion and a couple of other goodies? And so on.
--4a.) More classes, particularly Hybrid classes. It was long said on the boards that a hypothetical gestalt of Rogue and Fighter would actually be a balanced class, because both classes are so insanely weak on their own. Paizo pretty much put their money where their mouth is on this one, with the Slayer: a full BaB class with a ton of skills, Sneak Attack (but lower progression than Rogue), Weapon Training style bonuses (available from 1st level, but limited to one target at a time and taking an action to activate), and access to both Bonus Feats and Rogue Talents via their Slayer talents. This actually killed two birds with one stone, as it also acted as the "spell-less ranger" everyone wanted. It is an extraordinary class, and very well balanced.

5.) A reduction in Prestige Classes. They exist, but over time mostly became obsoleted by classes and archetypes; why be an Arcane Trickster (a Wizard/Rogue PrC) when you could be an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (a Rogue that trades some Sneak Attack progression for spells) and not have to plan your build exhaustingly from level 1 and struggle through some very clunky levels?

6.) EVERY class has something level dependent that scales. Multiclassing is an actual sacrifice for most characters, not just casters, because you're missing out on something cool you have that could become even cooler later.

What all these things add up to is a game where multiclassing still exists, and can be powerful if you know what you're doing, but is entirely optional. You can, and are encouraged to, pick a class that appeals to you and stick with it because it allows you to play the exact character archetype you imagine in your head with minimal effort; everything is done at charop and from there natural progression takes you forward. I've made well over a hundred Pathfinder characters and the last time I remember multiclassing with one was...2014, maybe?

5e does not take most of these lessons to heart. A lot of your major character choices are chosen at levels 1 and 3, when you pick your initial class/race, and then get your Specialization. A lot of these things don't scale.

Unless you're an Eldritch Knight, what incentive at all do you have to stay Fighter in Core 5e? You pretty much have all your class features at 3rd, and then get your Extra Attack at 5th. If you really like your level 7 ability, maybe tough it til then. Champion gets some extra +numbers abilities, but you could get similar +numbers stuff from other classes, and probably have more fun doing it. Battlemaster gets a few more Maneuvers known, but if you're happy with the three you have then there's little incentive to stay. After all, your Maneuvers continue to scale at the same pace since the DC is based off your Proficiency mod (shared across all characters) and your stats, instead of 10+1/2 your level+Stat.

You gonna wait until level 10 for an average +1 on your Maneuver dice? Or would you rather take 3 levels of another class instead and get an entirely new Specialization ability at 3rd, plus other stuff like Fighting Styles, etc.

These lessons have already been learned, and I'm sure could be adapted and simplified to work in a hypothetical 6e which still wants to take a rules-medium approach.

[Jerrykhor]

Fighter 13 might be mediocre, but Monk 15 is worse.

[Kane0]

1.) Favored Class Bonuses. For every level in your favored class (chosen at first level), you get a small bonus; +1 HP, +1 skill point, or a similar minor buff based on your race that could be applied to certain classes.

2.) Every class was designed to be a complete package. In the early days the effectiveness of this varied, with classes like Fighter in particular still being dip-fodder, but every class was MEANT to feel like it became more...itself as tie went on. Much later, with Advanced Armor and Weapon Training options, and Weapon Mastery feats (which technically anyone could take, but had to jump through hoops to get) even Fighter got this. A Level 5 Fighter should feel more...Fighter-y than a level 1 Fighter, or a level 5 Barbarian.

3.) Give most classes an ability at EVERY level. This gives you a psychological "hook" to stay in the class. "Well next level I get, so I can't swap, and then NEXT level I get..."
--3a.) Talents. Most classes in the game get some kind of talent every 2 levels (some starting at 1st and repeating on odd levels, and some starting at 2nd and repeating at even levels): Rogue Talents, Alchemist Discoveries, Witch Hexes, etc. This not only gives you an ability at every level, or close to it, it always gives you a CHOICE to look forward to, not just a static ability you have no control over. Minor or major boosts you CHOOSE to customize your character further.

4.) Archetypes. Give players the ability to swap out class features they don't like, for ones they do. These in many ways take the place of multiclassing specifically, to the point that many common (and even uncommon) class combinations become redundant. Do you want to be an Inquisitor of the god of nature? Well, then you want some more nature-y abilities, yes? Why not be a Sacred Huntmaster, and trade out a few of your abilities for a Druid's Animal Companion and a couple of other goodies? And so on.
--4a.) More classes, particularly Hybrid classes. It was long said on the boards that a hypothetical gestalt of Rogue and Fighter would actually be a balanced class, because both classes are so insanely weak on their own. Paizo pretty much put their money where their mouth is on this one, with the Slayer: a full BaB class with a ton of skills, Sneak Attack (but lower progression than Rogue), Weapon Training style bonuses (available from 1st level, but limited to one target at a time and taking an action to activate), and access to both Bonus Feats and Rogue Talents via their Slayer talents. This actually killed two birds with one stone, as it also acted as the "spell-less ranger" everyone wanted. It is an extraordinary class, and very well balanced.

5.) A reduction in Prestige Classes. They exist, but over time mostly became obsoleted by classes and archetypes; why be an Arcane Trickster (a Wizard/Rogue PrC) when you could be an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue (a Rogue that trades some Sneak Attack progression for spells) and not have to plan your build exhaustingly from level 1 and struggle through some very clunky levels?

6.) EVERY class has something level dependent that scales. Multiclassing is an actual sacrifice for most characters, not just casters, because you're missing out on something cool you have that could become even cooler later.

1) Well we can't do extra skill points but extra HP is doable. Some other ribbons might be preferable though since HP bloat is already something to keep an eye on. Tools, languages, more uses of certain features, etc.
2) Can you elaborate?
3) Filling in dead/ribbon/numerical-only levels, agreed.
4) Tasha's revisited ACFs concept, which is basically this (see also AD&D kits) and could be expanded on.
4a & 5) Subclasses were pretty much designed in 5e to fill the same role
6) There has been a distinct move towards using Prof bonus to power more features which I think hones in on this



5e does not take most of these lessons to heart. A lot of your major character choices are chosen at levels 1 and 3, when you pick your initial class/race, and then get your Specialization. A lot of these things don't scale.

I would disagree, but i'm not going to die on a hill about it.

[Rynjin]

2) Can you elaborate?


So, Barbarian is a great example. At 1st level, you get angry and swing your sword. You are bog standard fantasy Barbarian man. Nothing wrong with that, but you're nothing special.

By 10th level and up, you're basically a figure of myth, scaled down a little. You are a nascent CuChulain, or the Hulk. When you Rage, you CHANGE. Spells bounce off your hide, and you cut the very concept of magic. You call upon the power of your totem spirits to make your ancestors slay your enemies, grant you bestial claws and teeth to kill your enemies, or even grow wings and FLY.

Fighters also go through this metamorphosis when Advanced Weapon/Armor training abilities are in play. At 1st level, you swing a sword and wear good armor. Neat I guess.

By 10th level, you are a master of the blade. Your training allows you to cut arrows, ballista bolts and other siege projectiles, and even SPELLS from the air in a perfect parry, you can call upon the soul of your blade to grant it magical powers, you can Two-Weapon Fight with weapons nobody else can effectively due to lack of skill, and make up for with training what other classes get handed for free (things like extra skill points, Initiative, and bonuses to your Will save base don your Weapon Training bonus). Your Bravery lets you stand against foes you normally couldn't, and rally your allies to battle.

Each class sells a myth, or legendary figure, that makes you WANT to play that class from 1-20 because...it's just cool, basically.

A lot of abilities grant wholly new capabilities as you level. Some scale better than others, but everybody gets something new they can choose to do if they spec for it.


1) Well we can't do extra skill points but extra HP is doable. Some other ribbons might be preferable though since HP bloat is already something to keep an eye on. Tools, languages, more uses of certain features, etc.


Yeah, a lot of those things are there. Eg. 1/4th of a Bonus Talent, so every 4 levels you get a new Talent from your class, 1/3 of a point of Ki for your Monk or Ninja, or a +1 to your CMD against a pair of Combat Maneuvers of your choice. Languages would be covered under skill points in PF as the Linguistics skill covers that, but could be adapted for 5e.

[Pex]

Lol, been thinking about this.

Just gotta steal the homework off of 4e. They had this kind of formula down flat. Most classes have a primary score, but then have like secondary benefits to their powers that scale off of like 3 of their other stats. For instance, the Barbarian had powers that scale off of Wisdom, Dexterity and Charisma, depending on whether you were focusing on ranged damage and party support (Wisdom), raw damage (Dexterity) or debuffing enemies (Charisma).

The tricky part is writing them all down, but I think that can be managed by just having the player fill in the numbers for those scaling abilities. For instance, one way the current Barbarian could be designed is by allowing the Barbarian to deal his Rage damage to enemies he attacks that are within a distance that's equal to 5ft + 5ft * [Wisdom Modifier]. That way, you can easily make the Barbarian as a ranged character as long as you have the Wisdom to support it. Dumber Barbarians are too blinded by the Rage to be able to focus on a target that's far away. And now it's an aura that has 15 or whatever feet and you write that down instead of remembering a different static 15ft aura that's arbitrarily decided (like the ranges on Paladin auras).

One thing I noticed is that it doesn't really matter how intricate things get as long as the numbers don't change during combat. With that in mind, there is a lot of opportunity for adding random stuff to various features to characters, as long as it's easy to remember and they don't change all that much. Some examples might include:



A bonus to your Rage damage equal to your Dexterity modifier (up to your Rage damage bonus) You still only get your Rage damage bonus when making Strength attacks.
Rage is now a Reaction you take when you are hit, and you reduce the triggering damage by an amount equal to your Barbarian level when doing so.
While within your Rage aura, enemies get a penalty to their attack rolls equal to your Charisma modifier (up to your Rage bonus).
While within your Rage aura, enemies get a penalty to their AC equal to your Intelligence modifier (up to your Rage bonus).


With something like this, you wouldn't really need subclasses, just more ASIs.

That just makes the class MAD which I think no class should be. Do this, you then need to divorce feats from ASI. I'd prefer that anyway, but now it's almost mandatory. Alternatively have no feats, but that's the wrong thing to do. Feats are a good thing 3E introduced into the game regardless of how one thinks of a particular D&D version's implementation of it. It does no good to give a class a power, but the player never gets to use it because he has to put a 10 or 8 in the relevant ability score. The player will multiclass if his next barbarian level is gain a power he'll never use.

There is a compromise to have your idea and not be MAD. Don't give the barbarian all of these. Rather, keep the subclasses and have each subclass use a different secondary stat. All barbarians want ST for their main class thing, but one subclass does DX stuff, another does WI stuff, a third does CH stuff, etc.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Ah right so like fulfilling the class fantasy, gotcha.



Yeah, a lot of those things are there. Eg. 1/4th of a Bonus Talent, so every 4 levels you get a new Talent from your class, 1/3 of a point of Ki for your Monk or Ninja, or a +1 to your CMD against a pair of Combat Maneuvers of your choice. Languages would be covered under skill points in PF as the Linguistics skill covers that, but could be adapted for 5e.
5e tends to not to do the numerical thing as heavily, especially in fractions, but yeah there will be some things. Keep in mind that multiclassing is classified as optional so the default assumption should be that everyone gets those favoured class bonuses all the time.

[Xervous]

Ah right so like fulfilling the class fantasy, gotcha.


It’s more having a class fantasy that fits the tier of play. If fog cloud wizard fits T1 and teleporting, fireball slinging, scrying etc wizard is T3 how is “mundanely good at sword” justifying itself in T3? The concept of something like fighter needs to allow for class features appropriate to the given tier.

[OldTrees1]

That just makes the class MAD which I think no class should be. Do this, you then need to divorce feats from ASI. I'd prefer that anyway, but now it's almost mandatory. Alternatively have no feats, but that's the wrong thing to do. Feats are a good thing 3E introduced into the game regardless of how one thinks of a particular D&D version's implementation of it. It does no good to give a class a power, but the player never gets to use it because he has to put a 10 or 8 in the relevant ability score. The player will multiclass if his next barbarian level is gain a power he'll never use.

There is a compromise to have your idea and not be MAD. Don't give the barbarian all of these. Rather, keep the subclasses and have each subclass use a different secondary stat. All barbarians want ST for their main class thing, but one subclass does DX stuff, another does WI stuff, a third does CH stuff, etc.

There is a difference between a class that is Multiple Ability Dependent and a class that can reward investment in different abilities.

If the only Barbarian feature at a level requires Cha, that would point towards MAD. If that same level had a choice between multiple features, one of which scaled with Cha, that would not necessarily be MAD.

Also you don't have to separate it into different subclasses. Some Barbarians might want to dabble in each, while others would want to specialize in one. However you could use subclasses if you must, despite sacrificing this use case.

[Zuras]

Fighter provides the weakest argument for junking martial class progression. Most fighter core combat abilities scale with your extra attack, or at least scale your single turn Nova damage. Action surge at 5th level is twice as powerful, adding two attacks instead of just one, and abilities like Fighting Spirit and Improved Critical all increase in power as you add attacks, which makes the Fighter modestly quadratic.

The problem with fighter is more that the distance between desirable bits is too great, especially since most campaigns don’t spend much time at levels 11+, and the levels between 5 and 11 are pretty dead if you’re not excited about ASIs. Even Battle Master, which has the most mechanical improvements, only adds a single superiority die (a 25% improvement over 3rd level!) a few new maneuvers, and a 22% increase in the size of their superiority die. That’s a total 52% increase in the power of your die pool from level 3 to 10, which isn’t that impressive compared to the growth of other resource pools over 7 levels.

Never had a fighter who stuck it out to level 11 complain about Tier 3 play, though, so I would say they just need more variety, not raw power, 6-10. Barbarian and Ranger, on the other hand, need significant help. Every mid to high level Barbarian or Ranger I’ve seen used GWM/Sharpshooter, which would hopefully not be a requirement if the classes were better balanced.

Things only start getting bad after 8th level for Barbarians and 9th for Rangers, though, so in practical terms it doesn’t really bother people that much in typical campaigns. People complain more about high level Rangers because the Ranger player is looking at their uninspiring list of 4th level spells three levels after the Bard stole the best ones off their list. Meanwhile the Barbarian is feeling like an immortal war god because even if their higher level features are garbage they’re the main beneficiaries of the party’s buffing spells and temp HP generation.

[Man_Over_Game]

That just makes the class MAD which I think no class should be. Do this, you then need to divorce feats from ASI. I'd prefer that anyway, but now it's almost mandatory. Alternatively have no feats, but that's the wrong thing to do. Feats are a good thing 3E introduced into the game regardless of how one thinks of a particular D&D version's implementation of it. It does no good to give a class a power, but the player never gets to use it because he has to put a 10 or 8 in the relevant ability score. The player will multiclass if his next barbarian level is gain a power he'll never use.

There is a compromise to have your idea and not be MAD. Don't give the barbarian all of these. Rather, keep the subclasses and have each subclass use a different secondary stat. All barbarians want ST for their main class thing, but one subclass does DX stuff, another does WI stuff, a third does CH stuff, etc.

I think there's this weird need to be able to do all of the things you're able to all of the time. None of these are required. A Vengeance Paladin, for instance, can function completely fine with 10 Charisma. If the player has to compromise and make hard choices, that's good game design as it means you're promoting player agency.

[Zuras]

I think there's this weird need to be able to do all of the things you're able to all of the time. None of these are required. A Vengeance Paladin, for instance, can function completely fine with 10 Charisma. If the player has to compromise and make hard choices, that's good game design as it means you're promoting player agency.

I can’t see a class designed that way doing anything other than driving more, rather than less, player unhappiness. People forced to choose between ice cream and a brownie complain more than the ones told to eat their gruel and be happy it’s warm.

[ZRN]

There are observable designer tendencies: to overvalue unusual abilities, to overvalue abilities that do not fit entirely within the class stereotype, to overvalue generic defensive abilities (in spite of them having no clearly overpowered stack).

Is that systemic? Sort of, yes.

I think advantage on ALL saving throws is exactly the kind of thing a high level Fighter needs. It is heroic, but not in a boring hit harder with a stick kind of way.

I'm being nitpicky here, but I would say "systemic" means "built into the system so that it's hard to get rid of without a big overhaul;" in the case we're talking about here, the problems are more indicative of a flaw in WOTC's design process (e.g., they tried experimental stuff, got negative feedback because apparently playtesters wanted everything to be a lot like 3e, and then scaled back to something "safe"/boring because they ran out of time to test new experimental/powerful concepts).

When it comes to fighters, I think beyond Indomitable sucking, a big part of the problem is that their PHB subclasses get really lackluster benefits at higher levels. It also seems like they pretty quickly realized this was bad and fixed it with most subsequent subclasses. Like, look at what you get when you turn level 18 with each subclass:

PHB:
EK: you can give up 2-3 attacks to cast a low-level spell.
BM: Your d10s turn into d12s.
Champion: You got bored with this character 8 levels ago.

Xanathar's:
Cavalier: one billion opportunity attacks
Samurai: free Action Surge when you hit zero hp
Arcane Archer: all your shots get doubled bonus damage

Tasha's:
Psi Warrior: Cast Telekinesis a dozen times a day!
Rune Knight: You can be as big as a fire giant!

...so if when you hear "fighter" you immediately think "battlemaster," then yes, you're looking at dead or boring levels at 9, 10, 13, 15, and 18.

[Segev]

Having everything scale does not help the player much assuming equal quality design. Scaling features would just mean you get fewer new features but more improvement to old features.

Having everything scale can make design easier, but it also can be a writer's block for some ideas. Totem Barbarian features are not readily adapted to scaling.

All in all I think scaling is a useful tool for the cases where it is useful. Keep it in the toolbox and know when to use it (Paladin Aura of Protection Cha scaling) and when not to use it (copy paste Brutal Critical's 9th level feature for 13th and 17th levels).


Things like the Totem Warrior and the 4-elements Monk are amongst the easiest to patch, though, too, because their modularity just means making up new modules that do what you want them to do. Is 4-elements suffering from its choices and options being too weak? Make stronger ones. Is the high-level feature set for Totem Warrior not very good? Make new choices for them (admittedly to stay in theme you need to make a whole new spirit totem, but you can also cheat a little by making the Dire Wolf that has the Wolf's features at X and Y level and this entirely different, patch feature at the level you're worried about, if you really want to...and that's not even required, since nothing locks the Totem Warrior into a particular totem spirit until he picks it at a given level).

I am also, lately, of the opinion that the best "scaling" features are those that use earlier features as a basis for greater focus->power while being, themselves, useful.

This particularly comes up with Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain, wherein having later features - or even specific Ranger spells - that do X normally and X+Y against Favored Enemies or in your Favored Terrain would make those somewhat lackluster features into very useful things without trying ot modify them too directly.

[Man_Over_Game]

I can’t see a class designed that way doing anything other than driving more, rather than less, player unhappiness. People forced to choose between ice cream and a brownie complain more than the ones told to eat their gruel and be happy it’s warm.

Battlemasters are considered one of the most well-designed Fighter subclass and are exactly this. Heck, most of the best Fighter subclasses (Rune Knight, Eldritch Knight) run into this problem.

[OldTrees1]

Things like the Totem Warrior and the 4-elements Monk are amongst the easiest to patch, though, too, because their modularity just means making up new modules that do what you want them to do. Is 4-elements suffering from its choices and options being too weak? Make stronger ones. Is the high-level feature set for Totem Warrior not very good? Make new choices for them (admittedly to stay in theme you need to make a whole new spirit totem, but you can also cheat a little by making the Dire Wolf that has the Wolf's features at X and Y level and this entirely different, patch feature at the level you're worried about, if you really want to...and that's not even required, since nothing locks the Totem Warrior into a particular totem spirit until he picks it at a given level).

I am also, lately, of the opinion that the best "scaling" features are those that use earlier features as a basis for greater focus->power while being, themselves, useful.

This particularly comes up with Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain, wherein having later features - or even specific Ranger spells - that do X normally and X+Y against Favored Enemies or in your Favored Terrain would make those somewhat lackluster features into very useful things without trying ot modify them too directly.

All great points that I agree with. Scaling is a useful design tool, however I would not make it a mandatory aspect for every feature being designed. You just need to make sure the character's feature volume scales. Some of that can be from old abilities scaling to be better (at the cost of some of the new ability budget), or you could have stronger new abilities, or a custom mixture based on the intended design focus of the class.

[Zuras]

I'm being nitpicky here, but I would say "systemic" means "built into the system so that it's hard to get rid of without a big overhaul;" in the case we're talking about here, the problems are more indicative of a flaw in WOTC's design process (e.g., they tried experimental stuff, got negative feedback because apparently playtesters wanted everything to be a lot like 3e, and then scaled back to something "safe"/boring because they ran out of time to test new experimental/powerful concepts).

When it comes to fighters, I think beyond Indomitable sucking, a big part of the problem is that their PHB subclasses get really lackluster benefits at higher levels. It also seems like they pretty quickly realized this was bad and fixed it with most subsequent subclasses. Like, look at what you get when you turn level 18 with each subclass:

PHB:
EK: you can give up 2-3 attacks to cast a low-level spell.
BM: Your d10s turn into d12s.
Champion: You got bored with this character 8 levels ago.

Xanathar's:
Cavalier: one billion opportunity attacks
Samurai: free Action Surge when you hit zero hp
Arcane Archer: all your shots get doubled bonus damage

Tasha's:
Psi Warrior: Cast Telekinesis a dozen times a day!
Rune Knight: You can be as big as a fire giant!

...so if when you hear "fighter" you immediately think "battlemaster," then yes, you're looking at dead or boring levels at 9, 10, 13, 15, and 18.

Eldritch Knight works pretty well using Eldritch Strike and low level spells, in my experience. I agree the level-to-level gains after you hit 11th are pretty sparse, though, but by 18th level you’re looking for that 4th attack at 20. The temptation to multiclass is highest well before that.

The problem with Battlemaster is even less systemic. All it really needs is some level gated maneuvers. Currently every maneuver you pick up after 3rd level is one you didn’t want badly enough to take earlier. Add better, gated maneuvers or come up with some additional riders you can use on maneuvers by reducing the size of the die.

Alternately, just do what DMs have done since first edition and distract the fighter with a cool magic item so their capabilities keep changing and growing even on their relatively dead levels.

[mr_stibbons]

I'm being nitpicky here, but I would say "systemic" means "built into the system so that it's hard to get rid of without a big overhaul;" in the case we're talking about here, the problems are more indicative of a flaw in WOTC's design process (e.g., they tried experimental stuff, got negative feedback because apparently playtesters wanted everything to be a lot like 3e, and then scaled back to something "safe"/boring because they ran out of time to test new experimental/powerful concepts).



Perhaps it's more accurate to say that full casters have systemic advantages in design rather than martial classes have systemic issues-the core system of gaining 6th 7th, 8th and 9th level spells will keep a caster sticking to their class pretty much by default (unless you botch every spell a class can take at a high spell levels, which is pretty unlikely). Whereas, for fighters and barbarians, it's up to the designers to do the work of creating something that keeps up with the system of spell progression, which turns out to be a pretty difficult task.

[ZRN]

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that full casters have systemic advantages in design rather than martial classes have systemic issues-the core system of gaining 6th 7th, 8th and 9th level spells will keep a caster sticking to their class pretty much by default (unless you botch every spell a class can take at a high spell levels, which is pretty unlikely). Whereas, for fighters and barbarians, it's up to the designers to do the work of creating something that keeps up with the system of spell progression, which turns out to be a pretty difficult task.

This is a very fair point. Any full caster has built-in systemic incentives to stay single-classed, which means that the designers have to create more incentives in other classes to stay loyal.

[Yakk]

I call this the "back 10" problem. Every class has a back 10 problem; features in T3 and T4 tend to be worse, level for level, than T1 features. Spellcasters hide it behind their ability to get access to level 9 spells.

Spellcasters level 9 spell lockdown to nearly pure-class characters is an example of a "back 10" that is, if anything, too strong.

My attack on it is along a few fronts.


Reduce the Spellcaster slot exclusivity. Your spellcasting feature advances at 1/2 of your other class levels in terms of what level of spell you can learn, capped at twice your class level.

So a level 10 wizard/level 10 cleric has access to 8th level wizard and cleric spells.

Look at T1 features. Ensure they to a decent extent scale with levels in your class, so you both get class-defining features early on, yet dipping isn't crazy over strong.

Buff up the T2/3/4 features of every class. Look for synergy, and make it local.

Include synergy locally in a class. As an example, Paladin smites synergize with critical hits and higher level and more spell slots. So it out-synergizes much better than it in-synergizes.


Examples of things I am experimenting with:

Give Rangers a "Primal Pact" at level 1. This is a 2nd subclass, with 3 options; Pack, Claw and Hunt. The Pack gives you the Tasha's Primal Beast companion. (The Beastmaster gets a bunch of stuff to improve it).

This is a strong feature, but its HP scales with Ranger class levels; someone doing a dip will get a low HP companion (still useful), while a pure Ranger gets one that scales much better.

Paladin get smite-enhancing features. In later tiers they get an extra die on all smites, if they roll a 19 and they smite the attack becomes a critical hit, and when they smite they gain advantage on attacks on the target until the end of their next turn.

This packs crit-synergy into the Paladin chassis instead of making dips over strong.

Barbarians brutal critical includes a 19-20 crit range on reckless attacks, and gives 2 weapon dice at 13/17.

Spellcasters non-slot features in the back 10 are also improved. Wizard free spells are now cast as if they where using level 3 and 6 slots. Warlocks get a 2nd pact or patron. Warlock pact boon auto-upgrades. Warlock arcanum always uses the highest arcanum slot to cast the spell. Clerics get the ability to concentrate on a spell targeting only themselves or an item they are holding, plus another spell that targets at least something that isn't themselves or an item they are holding.

Finally, the extra attack problem is patched (two classes level 5+ both with extra attack gives you a dead level; you get to advance the lower level classes non-spellcasting features by a level in exchange; and if you have two extra-attack 5 classes whose levels sum to 5, you can grab extra attack early in exchange for deferring features by 1 level.

All together, the goal is to make even split more practical, single classes strong, and permit casters to multiclass without falling into a trap.

[Zuras]

Battlemasters are considered one of the most well-designed Fighter subclass and are exactly this. Heck, most of the best Fighter subclasses (Rune Knight, Eldritch Knight) run into this problem.

I’ve never encountered a Hunter Ranger player who thought having to choose between Evasion and Uncanny Dodge at 15th level was empowering.

I’ll agree that the issue is less pronounced for any proactive/offensive ability, and can be fun if you’re picking from a menu of options which can work together in different ways. For defensive buffs, though, players just get frustrated and worry they picked the wrong one vs th threats their DM is going to hit them with.

[Segev]

I’ve never encountered a Hunter Ranger player who thought having to choose between Evasion and Uncanny Dodge at 15th level was empowering.

I’ll agree that the issue is less pronounced for any proactive/offensive ability, and can be fun if you’re picking from a menu of options which can work together in different ways. For defensive buffs, though, players just get frustrated and worry they picked the wrong one vs th threats their DM is going to hit them with.

I suspect it's more that getting either or both of those at level 15 feels ... uninspiring. They're not that powerful, so by level 15, you FEEL like you are getting what you'd get from a multiclass when you get one of those.

[mr_stibbons]

I’ve never encountered a Hunter Ranger player who thought having to choose between Evasion and Uncanny Dodge at 15th level was empowering.

I’ll agree that the issue is less pronounced for any proactive/offensive ability, and can be fun if you’re picking from a menu of options which can work together in different ways. For defensive buffs, though, players just get frustrated and worry they picked the wrong one vs th threats their DM is going to hit them with.

Considering that rogues get both by level 7, there's an obvious issue there. These aren't better that low tier features, they literally are low tier features.

[Man_Over_Game]

Considering that rogues get both by level 7, there's an obvious issue there. These aren't better that low tier features, they literally are low tier features.

That's what I was thinking. As long as the feature itself is good, few people complain about having to choose a few out of a list. For instance, while Totem Barbarians are a bit stale in their mechanics, they have a decent diversity when it comes to the levels where you're getting features that actually matter.

I mean, Casters have this problem all of the time and none of them complain. The only ones that do are Sorcerers, and the general consensus is that they're just too limited compared to others.

For something like a Barbarian, though, being able to have enough options that you don't get all of the features would be a welcome change. I hate how almost every single Barbarian level is basically "I hurt less, they hurt more" with different wording, across 90% of the class and subclasses. A few options would go a long way.

[Yspoch]

Maybe a fun idea, but probably creating a hot mess:

Classes only progress to level 11, after that you have to multiclass (no ability score requirements).
Levels 1-3 progress as normal
Level 4 gets all perks of 4 and 5
Level 5 gets all perks of 6 and 7
...
Level 10 gets all perks of 16 and 17
Level 11 gets all perks of 18 to 20

* HP/Hit Dice progress as normal
* Spell levels progress as normal (Spell levels 7+ need a rule based on character level or some other special treatment)
* Spell slots, Rage (uses and dmg) and other class level goodies get treated as above (Level 11 Wizard has 22 slots, some (4) he can only use for upcasting, L11 Babarian has unlimited rages and +4 rage dmg)

There would be lots of unintentional side effects (Bards Magical Secrets needs a special rule) and characters would feel more like glass cannons, but could be a fun short campaign.

Because the first three levels are unchanged, dips and low level multiclassing is less desirable. This "solution" tries to raise class loyality with quantity of perks instead of better quality. The (only?) advantage here is, you don't have to create new perks and just work with those that are already there. I didn't look at subclasses, so those might kill the whole concept from the start.

[Person_Man]

This thread reminds me of an awesome forum homebrew project from years ago based on 3.5 SRD, which organized class abilities into Tracks. It made comparing class abilities for balance purposes really easy, and it also made multiclassing really easy and balanced, because you could just swap out Tracks. I want to say it was called Legends or something similar? Do any other grognards remember this and have a link?

[Mitchellnotes]

Just wanted to pop in fast and throw a thought out there. I don't know how often it is that people do what would be more like a "true" multiclass (6-10 levels) of a 2nd class versus dipping. Martial classes have potentially more incentive to do this I suppose, but more often, it seems like multiclassing is done to either pick up something that is missing from their class (hexblade for SAD, or cleric for armor +goodies being the most notable examples) or to pick up a few things from other classes to do a specific thing really well (gloomstalker/assassin/etc/etc builds).

I don't think there is going to be any design centered on the classes themselves that would reduce the "dipping" aspect, and the hyper focused multiclassing seems to be fairly niche. To reduce dipping, I think providing broader other ways for armor/weapon proficiencies could be good (something like a "martial" feat that provides access to light, medium, and heavy armor +shields as well as weapons). As it is, for wizards to get heavy armor is either go through a whole lot of hoops, pick a race that already has the proficiency, or dip 1 level in a class that gives it. In terms of preventing other dipping, if Clerics picked domains at level 2, I think that would help out a lot with the cleric 1 dips, and if the hexblade +cha to attacks shifted to being a blade pact feature at 3, that would help out a lot. It's easy to dip 1, much harder to dip 2 or 3.

[Aimeryan]

Didn't read much of the thread, so this may have came up before.

As I see it, each class should have a way of doing something unique to that class. More levels in that class should improve that. Levels in other classes make you specialise less, however, versatility is a form of power in itself.

The casters, they have spell levels, which only increase with more levels in that class. Every two levels improve this. However, spells are also very versatile. Taking levels in any other class means less power in this area, which is also a very versatile area, so more versatility in compensation is not very valuable.

The martials, they pretty much focus on damage. They get increases in this regard quite sporadically. There is little versatility in the class kit. Taking levels in other classes can also add damage, and often a fair amount is frontloaded. Taking levels in other classes (especially caster classes) add versatility, which martials have very little off.

I find the problems to be fairly obviously when laid out this way. However, it should be noted that both approaches have problems; the casters are already very versatile so have very little reason to multiclass, while the martials can be made more powerful in their speciality by taking other classes instead so have too much reason to multiclass.

Ideally, we would want a system where more power in the specialist area was more easily significantly increased by taking more levels inside the class, while versatility was more easily significantly increased by taking levels outside the class. In this system there is reason to both take more levels in the main class and to take levels in another class - it is for the keen mind to make the decision on which would benefit them more.

[Pex]

I think there's this weird need to be able to do all of the things you're able to all of the time. None of these are required. A Vengeance Paladin, for instance, can function completely fine with 10 Charisma. If the player has to compromise and make hard choices, that's good game design as it means you're promoting player agency.

But it's breaking the thread premise. If my choice is to gain a level where I can't use the class power because I lack a high score in the relevant ability score or take a level in another class where I gain a power using my highest ability score, I'm multiclassing. You are not giving choices. You're declaring the player will get a specific power at a specific level each using a different ability score.

I totally disagree it is good game design to provide a power a player will never use. The other alternative where a player is given a list of choices of powers that use different ability scores is fine because the player can choose where he develops his character. It's ok he'll never choose the WI power because his WI is 10 but will choose the DX power because it's 16 while another player will choose the WI power because his WI is 16 while never choose the DX power because that it 10. However, if level X is you get the DX power no choice and level X + 1 is you get a WI power no choice and level X + 2 is you get an IN power no choice, you are effectively giving dead levels. Not all of them are depending what the ability scores are, but at least one and more likely two.

[Man_Over_Game]

But it's breaking the thread premise. If my choice is to gain a level where I can't use the class power because I lack a high score in the relevant ability score or take a level in another class where I gain a power using my highest ability score, I'm multiclassing. You are not giving choices. You're declaring the player will get a specific power at a specific level each using a different ability score.

I totally disagree it is good game design to provide a power a player will never use. The other alternative where a player is given a list of choices of powers that use different ability scores is fine because the player can choose where he develops his character. It's ok he'll never choose the WI power because his WI is 10 but will choose the DX power because it's 16 while another player will choose the WI power because his WI is 16 while never choose the DX power because that it 10. However, if level X is you get the DX power no choice and level X + 1 is you get a WI power no choice and level X + 2 is you get an IN power no choice, you are effectively giving dead levels. Not all of them are depending what the ability scores are, but at least one and more likely two.

I'm not talking about getting them over several levels, I just mean getting them all at once. Having a use for that 12 in a stat doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

Frankly, it seems rather silly to me that only 30% of your stats are relevant at any given point in time in 5e. If that's the case, why do we need 6 stats?

[OldTrees1]

But it's breaking the thread premise. If my choice is to gain a level where I can't use the class power because I lack a high score in the relevant ability score or take a level in another class where I gain a power using my highest ability score, I'm multiclassing. You are not giving choices. You're declaring the player will get a specific power at a specific level each using a different ability score.

I totally disagree it is good game design to provide a power a player will never use. The other alternative where a player is given a list of choices of powers that use different ability scores is fine because the player can choose where he develops his character. It's ok he'll never choose the WI power because his WI is 10 but will choose the DX power because it's 16 while another player will choose the WI power because his WI is 16 while never choose the DX power because that it 10. However, if level X is you get the DX power no choice and level X + 1 is you get a WI power no choice and level X + 2 is you get an IN power no choice, you are effectively giving dead levels. Not all of them are depending what the ability scores are, but at least one and more likely two.

What if at level X you got to choose 2 abilities from a list?
What if that list included some abilities that benefited from a secondary ability?

Alternatively what if at level X you got 3 abilities. Each ability has a valuable floor that scales with Str. However each ability has room to scale with a secondary ability. The 20 Str barbarian, the 18 Str/14 Dex barbarian, and the 18 Str/12 Wis/12Cha barbarian all got good features.

What if the Str Barbarian, the Str/Dex Barbarian, and the Str/Wis/Cha Barbarian all get a level's worth of relevant features that were level appropriate for that level?

I don't think Man_Over_Game is implying any dead levels.

[Gurgeh]

I think one problem is the way that 5e handles ASIs (and feats); they're a general-purpose and universal aspect of character progression, but the game treats them as part of a class's advancement. Not only does this lead to wonky progression for multiclass characters (simliar to 3.5 having tortured BAB/save progression unless you lined things up just right), it also exacerbates the magical/martial power gap, since spellcasting progression is one of the few class features that progresses even on ASI levels.

[Rynjin]

Frankly, it seems rather silly to me that only 30% of your stats are relevant at any given point in time in 5e. If that's the case, why do we need 6 stats?

I like the Final Fantasy d6 stat system. It would be interesting to implement something like it in D&D.

Your stats are:
Power
Resolve
Dexterity
Mind

Your Derived stats are:
HP (from Resolve and class)
MP (from Mind and class)
Avoidance (your AC; from Dex and class)

Force (from both Power and Resolve; determines some ability DCs and saves)
Finesse (from both Dexterity and Mind; determines some ability DCs and saves)

Weapon damage (derived from any of the 4 stats limited by weapon type)

Spell damage (some from Power, some from Mind)

Accuracy is determined ENTIRELY by your class (which gives a flat Accuracy bonus at 1st level that never scales) and overall character level (you add half your level to ACC).

This gives every character a reason to have at least 3/4 of the stats at a decent level. Casters in particular are encouraged to be pretty MAD, because they need Mind, Power, and at least some Resolve; Dex can be kind of dumped. Likewise martials may be able to dump Mind a bit, but even some of them have Mind based abilities, like Paladin.

Skills are determined entirely by skill rank; no stat modifiers.

I think this could be spruced up for D&D if it doesn't want to go full rules-lite.

[Pex]

I'm not talking about getting them over several levels, I just mean getting them all at once. Having a use for that 12 in a stat doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

Frankly, it seems rather silly to me that only 30% of your stats are relevant at any given point in time in 5e. If that's the case, why do we need 6 stats?

It makes sense for your class, the Thing you choose to focus on. That is where your talent/training is. You are not supposed to be good at everything, but you are supposed to be good at that stuff. The other ability scores matter for things that are not class specific. In 5E's case that's general ability checks (skills) and defenses against attacks (saving throws and AC).

To give everything at once is to give minimum 6 powers every level for 20 levels at the current. That's a lot to ask to expect any semblance of balance and is blatantly very complex for one class let alone all classes. To do otherwise means having dead levels, which you don't want if you want to encourage staying single class. You'd have to redesign the game to the point it's not recognized as D&D anymore to have something coherent. That's fine if you really want to create your own game system to sell, but that's beyond the scope of relevant discussion. Pathfinder did choose to have lots and lots of powers for classes, especially for books after the Core. However, you only choose one per level it is gained.

[Jerrykhor]

I'm being nitpicky here, but I would say "systemic" means "built into the system so that it's hard to get rid of without a big overhaul;" in the case we're talking about here, the problems are more indicative of a flaw in WOTC's design process (e.g., they tried experimental stuff, got negative feedback because apparently playtesters wanted everything to be a lot like 3e, and then scaled back to something "safe"/boring because they ran out of time to test new experimental/powerful concepts).

When it comes to fighters, I think beyond Indomitable sucking, a big part of the problem is that their PHB subclasses get really lackluster benefits at higher levels. It also seems like they pretty quickly realized this was bad and fixed it with most subsequent subclasses. Like, look at what you get when you turn level 18 with each subclass:

PHB:
EK: you can give up 2-3 attacks to cast a low-level spell.
BM: Your d10s turn into d12s.
Champion: You got bored with this character 8 levels ago.

Xanathar's:
Cavalier: one billion opportunity attacks
Samurai: free Action Surge when you hit zero hp
Arcane Archer: all your shots get doubled bonus damage

Tasha's:
Psi Warrior: Cast Telekinesis a dozen times a day!
Rune Knight: You can be as big as a fire giant!

...so if when you hear "fighter" you immediately think "battlemaster," then yes, you're looking at dead or boring levels at 9, 10, 13, 15, and 18.

Rogues also have the same problem.

PHB
Arcane Trickster: Powerful, though probably requires working with your fellow wizard.
Assassin: Addon to Assassinate, with all same weaknesses remaining. Targets a strong save, and really, at this point everyone and their mothers will Legendary Resist this
Thief: The best of the lot, nothing much to say.

XGTE
Inquisitive: A bit more damage on a pretty underwhelming subclass.
Mastermind: Useless 99% of the time.
Scout: Like Crossbow Expert and can tack on SA, but not allowing on the same target sucks a bit.

Tasha
Phantom: Do more damage to the 2nd creature of your Wails. Yay?
Soulknife: A version of Stunning Strike that makes Monks roll on the floor laughing. Or as I like to call it, 'Once per day watch this ability fail anyways either through high Save bonuses or LR'.
Swashbuckler: Miss your attack? Try again! This is a lv17 ability?

[Gignere]

Rogues also have the same problem.

PHB
Arcane Trickster: Powerful, though probably requires working with your fellow wizard.
Assassin: Addon to Assassinate, with all same weaknesses remaining. Targets a strong save, and really, at this point everyone and their mothers will Legendary Resist this
Thief: The best of the lot, nothing much to say.

XGTE
Inquisitive: A bit more damage on a pretty underwhelming subclass.
Mastermind: Useless 99% of the time.
Scout: Like Crossbow Expert and can tack on SA, but not allowing on the same target sucks a bit.

Tasha
Phantom: Do more damage to the 2nd creature of your Wails. Yay?
Soulknife: A version of Stunning Strike that makes Monks roll on the floor laughing. Or as I like to call it, 'Once per day watch this ability fail anyways either through high Save bonuses or LR'.
Swashbuckler: Miss your attack? Try again! This is a lv17 ability?

To be fair part of the level progression for rogues is their extra d6 of sneak attack every odd level.

Still it’s an underwhelming progression even taking that into account.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I will point out that 3 levels of Mastermind on any support build makes it about 100% better.

Also that Swashbuckler was originally from SCAG and was reprinted in XGtE, not TCoE.

[Kane0]

I like the Final Fantasy d6 stat system. It would be interesting to implement something like it in D&D.

Your stats are:
Power
Resolve
Dexterity
Mind

Your Derived stats are:
HP (from Resolve and class)
MP (from Mind and class)
Avoidance (your AC; from Dex and class)

Force (from both Power and Resolve; determines some ability DCs and saves)
Finesse (from both Dexterity and Mind; determines some ability DCs and saves)

Weapon damage (derived from any of the 4 stats limited by weapon type)

Spell damage (some from Power, some from Mind)

Accuracy is determined ENTIRELY by your class (which gives a flat Accuracy bonus at 1st level that never scales) and overall character level (you add half your level to ACC).

This gives every character a reason to have at least 3/4 of the stats at a decent level. Casters in particular are encouraged to be pretty MAD, because they need Mind, Power, and at least some Resolve; Dex can be kind of dumped. Likewise martials may be able to dump Mind a bit, but even some of them have Mind based abilities, like Paladin.

Skills are determined entirely by skill rank; no stat modifiers.

I think this could be spruced up for D&D if it doesn't want to go full rules-lite.

Sounds pretty workable to me.

Power = Strength
Resolve = Wisdom
Dexterity = Dexterity
Mind = Intelligence

HP = class die + resolve
Spell Points = Class + Mind
AC = Prof + Dex

Attacks and spell/ability DCs use prof + relevant stat

Decouple skills from stats and use prof

Or something like that, was just bouncing the thought

[JellyPooga]

Rogues also have the same problem.

PHB
Arcane Trickster: Powerful, though probably requires working with your fellow wizard.
Assassin: Addon to Assassinate, with all same weaknesses remaining. Targets a strong save, and really, at this point everyone and their mothers will Legendary Resist this
Thief: The best of the lot, nothing much to say.

XGTE
Inquisitive: A bit more damage on a pretty underwhelming subclass.
Mastermind: Useless 99% of the time.
Scout: Like Crossbow Expert and can tack on SA, but not allowing on the same target sucks a bit.

Tasha
Phantom: Do more damage to the 2nd creature of your Wails. Yay?
Soulknife: A version of Stunning Strike that makes Monks roll on the floor laughing. Or as I like to call it, 'Once per day watch this ability fail anyways either through high Save bonuses or LR'.
Swashbuckler: Miss your attack? Try again! This is a lv17 ability?

It's worth pointing out, when discussing Rogue subclasses, that the Rogue has a very strong base-class chassis. When you've got Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge and Evasion, not to mention 4 skill Expertise as standard and all within your first 7 Class levels, it feels a little spoiled to be wailing over not getting that much from your subclass. It doesn't stop there for the Rogue, either; Reliable Talent, Blindsense, Slippery Mind, Elusive and Stroke of Luck are all solid features too; adding subclass abilities is just icing on an already tasty cake. Do some of them feel underwhelming? Sure, but they're all still Rogues at the end of the long-rest and will provide a satisfying Rogue play experience every time. NB - If you're looking for a subclass to significantly change the base playstyle of your Class (e.g. like the difference between a Moon Druid and a Land Druid in Tier 1-2 play), then the Rogue is a poor candidate; all Rogue subclasses are Rogues first, with a little pinch of subclass flavour. Played as such, they're fine. Just don't go expecting to get the Archmage Experience from an Arcane Trickster, or the Mighty Warrior playstyle from a Swashbuckler.

[Man_Over_Game]

Decouple skills from stats and use prof

What's funny about that is that this was the same exact solution I suggested in regards to a "Skills are problematic" thread : https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25141469&postcount=5

Basically just remove the ability scores, each skill gets 2xPB, and Expertise now gives you Advantage in that skill. This fixes the massive problem with scaling that skills get that mechanics like attacks or spells don't.

I also suggested consolidating a lot of the skills (E.G. Animal Handling + Nature + Herbalism Kit + Poisoner's Kit + Alchemy Kit = "New Nature") so that they fit archetypes of characters rather than being too niche to be used, and then offer those skill archetypes to all characters. That way, decoupling them from ability scores is an actual benefit, since it means that any class can use any skill archetype that's relevant to their character.

For instance, you can have a Zealot Barbarian who's skilled in everything related to religion and spirit magic, or a Ranger who knows everything there is to know about herbs and potions. The kind of stuff that both makes sense and makes the game more interesting.

[Person_Man]

I think one problem is the way that 5e handles ASIs (and feats); they're a general-purpose and universal aspect of character progression, but the game treats them as part of a class's advancement. Not only does this lead to wonky progression for multiclass characters (simliar to 3.5 having tortured BAB/save progression unless you lined things up just right), it also exacerbates the magical/martial power gap, since spellcasting progression is one of the few class features that progresses even on ASI levels.

Agreed.

In 5E it is an unfortunate side effect of an early design choice to make Feats optional, on the assumption that they were too complex for new players. But in reality the overwhelming majority of players use them, and new players don’t need to pay attention to them until after they’ve already played a dozen hours or more of the game (assuming you start at level 1), at which point they are familiar enough with the game to know what Feats would benefit their character.

A similar problem existed in 2nd Ed AD&D, when Proficiencies were optional, but virtually everyone used them. (Though in fairness that edition was filled with optional rules).

[Sigreid]

To answer the original question, the answer would be for class features to get more powerful as levels go up instead of front loading particularly martial classes so much.

[Theodoxus]

My answer probably isn't surprising - but I'd make multiclassing require a bit of system mastery to avoid potential traps...

By going back to pre-3rd Edition styles. Multiclassing is akin to gestalt. You pick two classes (I suggest only 2, though adventurous types could certainly try more). You get all the (first level) abilities of both classes at 1st level. Take the better HD, choose which saves you want, but one must be strong (Con, Dex, or Wis) the other weak. Spell slots work like 5E multiclassing rules. The character levels at 2/3s the rate of single classed characters. You do end up stronger (13/13) than a traditional 5E split MC (10/10) but you're trading away the versatility of deciding when to take the levels in each class as well as being forced to take every level (up to 13) in both classes. (If you go 3 classes - the most I would consider as a DM - the level progression would by 3/8s, maxing at 8/8/8... I'm not sure it's worth it, but /shrug)

I'd also allow a 5E style of MC, let's call it dual classing - but unlike prior editions, there's no "you can't use your first classes abilities and still get xp" clause. It would work exactly like the current 5E version with the caveat that you can't go back to a prior class. No Sorc 1/Paladin 2/Sorc 18 builds. You can do Sorc 18/Paladin 2 or Paladin 2/Sorc 18 if you want... this prevents things like shopping for a "free" Resilience: Constitution in the example. AKA the reason people dip in the first place.

Like I said, it takes a bit more system mastery, but since apparently WotC made MC optional in the first place was to discourage new players from falling for trap options, I'm fine with it.

[OldTrees1]

I'd also allow a 5E style of MC, let's call it dual classing - but unlike prior editions, there's no "you can't use your first classes abilities and still get xp" clause. It would work exactly like the current 5E version with the caveat that you can't go back to a prior class. No Sorc 1/Paladin 2/Sorc 18 builds. You can do Sorc 18/Paladin 2 or Paladin 2/Sorc 18 if you want... this prevents things like shopping for a "free" Resilience: Constitution in the example. AKA the reason people dip in the first place.

Unfortunately the "you can't go back" mechanic would encourage dipping and prevent ratio multiclassing. The Fighter 1 / Wizard 19, Paladin 2 / Sorcerer 18, Hexblade 1 / Paladin X would still exist but the Barbarian X / Rogue Y, Paladin 2X / Warlock X, Barbarian 3X / Druid 2X would not be feasible. Although you are right that it would prevent dips that start at level 2.

Now to be fair you also suggested a kind of enforced equal ratio hybrid. However none of my 3 examples were 1:1 ratios.

If I wanted to discourage a Paladin 2 dip on Sorcerer X, I would make do 2 things:
1) Improve Paladin 3 to encourage deeper multiclassing
2) Improve Sorcerer X+1 to encourage single classing
Now since there is some debate among Sorcadins about Paladin 2 vs Paladin 6, and Sorcerer odd levels grant spell levels, I think some of this already exists.

[Theodoxus]

Seems the easiest way to do that, while not having to modify core mechanics like I suggest, would be to create a Paladin Oath that grants the things people dip for. But since that generally more spell slots to smite more (with the added benefit of things like arcane cantrips and metamagic), I don't see that route as particularly feasible without it becoming so OP it ends up the only Paladin Oath that's ever taken.

Perhaps instead, we look at the sorcerer side of the equation. One could make a bloodline that emulates all the things a Paladin provides, though probably at a much higher level. But it runs into a couple of issues; first it definitely thumbs its nose at the Divine Soul. Second, if it granted heavy armor proficiency at 1st level, it would problematic...

But I think if it went something like
1st - Proficiency with all Weapons, Armor and Shields
6th - Divine Smite
14th - Aura of Protection
18th - Divine Might

Divine Might: Beginning at 18th level, you can summon power that imbues new abilities:
* Lay on Hands: You can heal wounds. As an action, use a spell slot and roll 1d8 for every level of spell slot used. This creates a pool of energy you can use just like a Paladin's Lay on Hands. The pool of energy dissipates at the end of a short or long rest. (No coffeelock healbots!)
* Divine Sense: You can determine the presence of celestial, fiends and undead. As an action, you can use a spell slot to open your awareness to detect such creatures. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet times the spell slot used that is not behind total cover.
* Cleansing Touch: You can end one spell. As an action, you can use a spell slot to end a spell on yourself or a willing creature you touch. The spell automatically ends if it is equal to or lower than the spell slot used to cleanse it. (could put in language akin to dispel magic using lower slots for higher spells - I think it's more complicated than what I was envisioning, but I'm not against it.)


I'd grant the following spells as bonuses:
1st - Cure Wounds, Divine Favor
3rd - Find Steed, Lesser Restoration
5th - Crusader's Mantle, Remove Curse
7th - Aura of Life, Staggering Smite
9th - Banishing Smite, Dispel Evil and Good

Is that enough to keep someone from MCing Paladin and Sorcerer? I don't know... I guess it depends if you want to Lay on Hands at 1st or 18th level ;)

[Man_Over_Game]

To answer the original question, the answer would be for class features to get more powerful as levels go up instead of front loading particularly martial classes so much.

One problem you get with this missing out on core gameplay changes early on. For instance, the Phantom Rogue is really friggin' boring until level 9. The best Berserker feature isn't available until level 10.

I think the trick is to just front load features that scale well enough. As of now, we are getting the front-loaded features, they just aren't getting strong enough. For instance, you could reduce the Battlemaster Die down to a D4, scaling up to a D12, and add another die usage later on to compensate. The D4 isn't weak enough to stop people from multiclassing for the effects, it just pays out a lot more if you stick with it.

[Feanor5]

For classes like the Ranger or Barbarian, there seems to be little reason to go all 20 levels with them, as they give most of their best benefits within the first 5 levels. What do you think classes should be doing through levels 6-15 instead of how they are now?

DnD has changed over the years moving away from a rigid understanding of classes that penalized multiclassing heavily, to the current state of 5e where multiclassing has become a mainstream feature that is clearly one of most popular aspects of the game.

The current state of affairs though is still heavily influenced by tradition and is still structured around a superficially and unnecessarily rigid set of assumptions about what each class represents. So in order to create a synergistic multiclass character the player has to spend considerable efforts studying the classes to discover appropriate breakpoints in the design of a class, that lend themselves to switching to a new class with good synergy.

It would be very good if classes would be built with such breakpoints in mind (i.e. one per tier?), that would conclude with a tier-level capstone and would enable the player to easily choose a new class for the next tier.

Ensuring that such tier-level capstones exist, would also motivate players to stick with their existing class in order to reach additional capstones, which would obviously build upon and enhance previous abilities.

[Theodoxus]

I think the trick is to front load features that scale well enough.

Provided the initial offering is small enough that no one would multiclass into it for the feature alone, yet scales quickly enough that the class itself isn't useless. Such a proposal would definitely skew builds away from dipping (if all classes were balanced with this in mind) and more towards a 1:1 ratio - especially (holy grail, unicorn time) - if higher (7th+) level abilities were actually synergistic with each other.

That could be as simple as Fighter gets Proficiency in Int saves at 7th while Rogues get Proficiency in Cha saves at 7th, so there's incentive to level both. It could also be more complex; an additive effect between two classes. Say, Paladin's Improved Divine Smite and Barbarian's Brutal Critical have riders that come online when paired together. Perhaps it improves the crit range ala Champion. (Since that's a 20th level character to get both features, maybe that improved crit range is like 15-20. That's certainly incentive to lose infinite rages and primal/divine champion.)

ETA:
DnD has changed over the years moving away from a rigid understanding of classes that penalized multiclassing heavily, to the current state of 5e where multiclassing has become a mainstream feature that is clearly one of most popular aspects of the game.

The current state of affairs though is still heavily influenced by tradition and is still structured around a superficially and unnecessarily rigid set of assumptions about what each class represents. So in order to create a synergistic multiclass character the player has to spend considerable efforts studying the classes to discover appropriate breakpoints in the design of a class, that lend themselves to switching to a new class with good synergy.

It would be very good if classes would be built with such breakpoints in mind (i.e. one per tier?), that would conclude with a tier-level capstone and would enable the player to easily choose a new class for the next tier.

Ensuring that such tier-level capstones exist, would also motivate players to stick with their existing class in order to reach additional capstones, which would obviously build upon and enhance previous abilities.

The classes are pretty much already built that way. Tier 1, mid tier, most classes get their archetype. Capstones are extra attack, 3rd level spells, uncanny dodge, etc. Tier 2 doesn't have many mid-tier notables, but capstones are again, extra attack (fighter), improved damage (paladin, ranger), 6th level spells / mystic arcanum... etc. Tier 3 the capstones are literally on the classes and I'd say it's pretty much 50/50 as to their usefulness. Interestingly, the mid-tier abilities are very much present, between cantrips maxing out at 17th (along with 9th level spells) to 5th level spells for Paladins and Rangers (yay?) Rogue archetype capstones, etc.

Would it be better if there were clearer demarcations? Sure - but it's not like you'd need to start from scratch. The coding is there for the ripening.

[OldTrees1]

Seems the easiest way to do that, while not having to modify core mechanics like I suggest, would be to create a Paladin Oath that grants the things people dip for. But since that generally more spell slots to smite more (with the added benefit of things like arcane cantrips and metamagic), I don't see that route as particularly feasible without it becoming so OP it ends up the only Paladin Oath that's ever taken.

Perhaps instead, we look at the sorcerer side of the equation. One could make a bloodline that emulates all the things a Paladin provides, though probably at a much higher level. But it runs into a couple of issues; first it definitely thumbs its nose at the Divine Soul. Second, if it granted heavy armor proficiency at 1st level, it would problematic...

Yes. I am a bit shocked this was not said earlier (or I missed it). However one way to incentivize single class over multiclass is to allow the single class to replicate what the multiclass was trying to do. This is not necessarily a sufficient solution but it is a good tool.

In the case of the Paladin 2 / Sorcerer X, the Sorcerer that channels arcane energy through there attack does not have single class support. So they have been multiclassing to enable that character concept. If you add a Sorcerer bloodline that enables a single class version then the Player has the option to choose between the multiclass and single class instantiations of the character concept. Once you have that comparison, then you use the growing power principles in this thread to keep the Sorcerer X+2 a viable alternative to Sorcerer X / Paladin 2.

Yes, I expect that Sorcerer bloodline would discourage a Paladin 2 dip by providing a viable alternative.

[Man_Over_Game]

Provided the initial offering is small enough that no one would multiclass into it for the feature alone, yet scales quickly enough that the class itself isn't useless. Such a proposal would definitely skew builds away from dipping (if all classes were balanced with this in mind) and more towards a 1:1 ratio - especially (holy grail, unicorn time) - if higher (7th+) level abilities were actually synergistic with each other.

That could be as simple as Fighter gets Proficiency in Int saves at 7th while Rogues get Proficiency in Cha saves at 7th, so there's incentive to level both. It could also be more complex; an additive effect between two classes. Say, Paladin's Improved Divine Smite and Barbarian's Brutal Critical have riders that come online when paired together. Perhaps it improves the crit range ala Champion. (Since that's a 20th level character to get both features, maybe that improved crit range is like 15-20. That's certainly incentive to lose infinite rages and primal/divine champion.)

Well-put. I like this.

[Theodoxus]

My own homebrew is going in that direction, though I might table it... having only 4 primary classes, using archetypes to create hybrid builds is really the only way to do it. It's been fun trying to create the meta for what I've been reading about what people like. Ranger in particular is all over the board. You can create new subclasses that emphasize one or two specific aspects. Or even rebuild the Ranger as is - giving the granularity that someone is looking for. It then becomes possible (albeit not necessarily easy) to create a custom tailored subclass for a specific player.

But, the more I ruminate on the whole thing, the more I'm finding the Spheres of Might and Power do all this much more succinctly than I'm finding myself capable of... why reinvent the wheel and all that.

[Corran]

Yes. I am a bit shocked this was not said earlier (or I missed it). However one way to incentivize single class over multiclass is to allow the single class to replicate what the multiclass was trying to do. This is not necessarily a sufficient solution but it is a good tool.

In the case of the Paladin 2 / Sorcerer X, the Sorcerer that channels arcane energy through there attack does not have single class support. So they have been multiclassing to enable that character concept. If you add a Sorcerer bloodline that enables a single class version then the Player has the option to choose between the multiclass and single class instantiations of the character concept. Once you have that comparison, then you use the growing power principles in this thread to keep the Sorcerer X+2 a viable alternative to Sorcerer X / Paladin 2.

Yes, I expect that Sorcerer bloodline would discourage a Paladin 2 dip by providing a viable alternative.
The danger with this is that you will end up with classes that are same-y. Classes are defined by what they can do as much as by what they cannot do. Or in other words, by what they can do but others cannot. If you start giving every class melee burst damage, there goes some of the incentive for playing paladins ad fighters. Same as if you were giving everyone AoE spells, high AC, or whatever else. It's good if there are things you cannot achieve with most classes if you want the choice of class to be meaningful.

[Sigreid]

One problem you get with this missing out on core gameplay changes early on. For instance, the Phantom Rogue is really friggin' boring until level 9. The best Berserker feature isn't available until level 10.

I think the trick is to just front load features that scale well enough. As of now, we are getting the front-loaded features, they just aren't getting strong enough. For instance, you could reduce the Battlemaster Die down to a D4, scaling up to a D12, and add another die usage later on to compensate. The D4 isn't weak enough to stop people from multiclassing for the effects, it just pays out a lot more if you stick with it.

I didn't say it wouldn't require a lot of thought and communication between the design teams to pull off. They'd have to be working to an agreed power level for each bracket, and that should also include the power of the available spells for spell casters.

[Man_Over_Game]

The danger with this is that you will end up with classes that are same-y.

That was my line of thinking, too. That's one of the reasons I think it should focus on single-class for straight power, and multiclassing for utility/versatility.

The fact that Paladin/Sorcerer exists mostly to make a higher defense/damage version than they are separately is something of a failure in my book.

[Corran]

That was my line of thinking, too. That's one of the reasons I think it should focus on single-class for straight power, and multiclassing for utility/versatility.

The fact that Paladin/Sorcerer exists mostly to make a higher defense/damage version than they are separately is something of a failure in my book.
Imo the failure is mostly about two specific things.
1. Shield works better for fighters than for casters.
2. Casting is not affected by wwearing armor as long as you have proficency with it.

Doesn't mean that you wont be seeing this multiclass if you fix those, but these are the two things that seem to me as the source of the problem with much of the dipping/multiclassing I see in games or discussed.

Edit: Also, I'd like to see cantrips nerfed a bit. Dont want them to be far and away my best ranaged option when playing a melee character with a decent casting stat. This is the kind of versatility I wouldn't like to see encouraged by multiclassing, although I like your idea in general (ie multiclassing being more about versatility; which for the most part I think it is in 5e).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Edit: Also, I'd like to see cantrips nerfed a bit. Dont want them to be far and away my best ranaged option when playing a melee character with a decent casting stat. This is the kind of versatility I wouldn't like to see encouraged by multiclassing, although I like your idea in general (ie multiclassing being more about versatility; which for the most part I think it is in 5e).

They (cantrips) are not...unless you're talking about agonizing eldritch blast. Which is very far away from cantrips in general. A bow (even without feat/fighting-style support) is better DPR at less opportunity cost, generally.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

After thinking about this a bit more in a broad sense I'd say a couple of things.
1) In terms of most combinations and levels it is not currently better to multiclass. There are some combos that are viable and similar in power to the single classes and a fairly short list of combos with specific levels that are better than single classes. Despite the rarity of these OP combos, they are the ones that powergamers are going to exploit.
2) Most multiclasses that are better than single classes are dips of 1-3 levels.
In my perfect world there would be A) more multiclasses that are in the viable range both in terms of combinations and levels. I don't necessarily think single classes need to be better, but they shouldn't be worse. B) No OP combos that are based on 'dips' of just 1 or 2 levels. I don't think these generally lend themselves to good roleplaying. and C) No weak single classes. 5e isn't badly balanced at low to mid level, but as has been discussed at length, there are some classes that start to fall behind by tier 3.

[Man_Over_Game]

They (cantrips) are not...unless you're talking about agonizing eldritch blast. Which is very far away from cantrips in general. A bow (even without feat/fighting-style support) is better DPR at less opportunity cost, generally.

Firebolt, level 5, deals 2d10 damage, an average of 11. Longbow deals 1d8, +3 for mod and twice per turn, deals an average of 15 damage.

That is a 36% damage difference, in the benefit of the Longbow. Now, without any additional benefits, that's all the longbow is going to be doing. Firebolt requires only one hand, deals with physical damage resistances without an issue, has uses for more than just damage, it weighs nothing, and it's one of three cantrips you start with (when no martial class starts with even a second Martial weapon).

At 11th level, the Firebolt comes out ahead with an average damage of 5.5 (assuming you don't pick up an ASI that improves it). Yes, you can buff the longbow damage with things like Hunter's Mark, but that costs long-term resources when the other half didn't need to. While the Ranger spent its 5th level trying to maintain a lead, that Cantrip caster spent nothing for its upgrade and also got access to spells like Fireball (which, even with like a 50% save chance, deals an average of 20 damage to each target in an 8x8 grid).

Cantrips deserve to be nerfed. Would that be fun? I dunno, that's another question.

[Gurgeh]

Firebolt, level 5, deals 2d10 damage, an average of 11. Longbow deals 1d8, +3 for mod and twice per turn, deals an average of 15 damage.

That is a 36% damage difference, in the benefit of the Longbow. Now, without any additional benefits, that's all the longbow is going to be doing. Firebolt requires only one hand, deals with physical damage resistances without an issue, has uses for more than just damage, it weighs nothing, and it's one of three cantrips you start with (when no martial class starts with even a second Martial weapon).
The Fighter can choose to start with up to three martial weapons, provided you're happy with one of those three being a longbow; the paladin can start with two, and the ranger doesn't get variety but can start with up to three (two shortswords and a longbow). Even the Rogue can get two martial weapons (though these can only be a rapier or shortsword). Picking up more (nonmagical) weapons is also pretty trivial in terms of expenses, even for a first-level character. A hand crossbow costs 75gp, there are handful of 50gp options, and almost all the rest cost less than 30.

A dedicated archer is going to get a bunch of advantages from class features or feats that most spellcasters' cantrips will not get - they may end up with better damage options, but those will be levelled spells - while a melee fighter who just keeps the longbow around for times when they can't swing at something close is, by definition, working outside of the niche they've chosen to specialise in.

The longbow's also got better range (150/600 vs 120 for Fire Bolt), though whether or not this comes up is going to be fairly table-dependent.

[Man_Over_Game]

The Fighter can choose to start with up to three martial weapons, provided you're happy with one of those three being a longbow; the paladin can start with two, and the ranger doesn't get variety but can start with up to three (two shortswords and a longbow). Even the Rogue can get two martial weapons (though these can only be a rapier or shortsword). Picking up more (nonmagical) weapons is also pretty trivial in terms of expenses, even for a first-level character. A hand crossbow costs 75gp, there are handful of 50gp options, and almost all the rest cost less than 30.

Yeah, I realized I missed a line when I was reviewing the Fighter class starting gear, my bad.

I will say that being able to spend more resources into making something competent isn't exactly a compelling argument, though. I don't mean to say that you're wrong, but it seems silly that, without spending more, cantrips are better.

[Rynjin]

Cantrips deserve to be nerfed. Would that be fun? I dunno, that's another question.

Counterargument: martial methods of attack deserve to be buffed.

Neither 16.5 nor 15 damage is particularly impressive when at level 11 you're facing down enemies with over 100 HP.

[Kane0]

Counterargument: martial methods of attack deserve to be buffed.

Neither 16.5 nor 15 damage is particularly impressive when at level 11 you're facing down enemies with over 100 HP.

Counter-counterargument: HP bloat could stand to be reduced past tier 2. Parties dishing out hundreds of damage per combat starts to be relatively normal around Tier 2.

[Theodoxus]

<Sees threads decrying combat is over too quickly and one can't build up a nova requiring 2+ rounds of bonus action 'buffing'>

Maybe the folks that want to do an RTS style slow build up to their combat are also the ones happy that the 11th level melee guy is only doing 15 points a hit against monsters with 100s of HP...

Seems like the best thing for classes that have multiple uses for their bonus action are smaller damage pools... feels less of a waste when it takes two or three rounds to ramp up to your damage potential and the bad guy isn't close to half dead yet...

[Dienekes]

Honestly, in the current discussion of cantrip damage, the power of bursts, and hp bloat, I think the real issue we’re coming up to is that the game just works better between levels 1-10. After that point the math can get a little odd with some stuff getting left behind, and others advanced.

[Kane0]

Honestly, in the current discussion of cantrip damage, the power of bursts, and hp bloat, I think the real issue we’re coming up to is that the game just works better between levels 1-10. After that point the math can get a little odd with some stuff getting left behind, and others advanced.

Yeah gut the game down to 12 levels.

Everyone gets ASIs at levels 2-5-8-11, Feats at 3-6-9-12 and Talents (feats for the noncombat pillars) at 1-4-7-10 regardless of their class levels.
Prof starts at +2 and goes up at levels 4, 7 and 10
All classes subclass out at 2 with features at 5, 8 and 11
Drop spell levels from 9 to 5, full casters getting new spell levels at 3, 5, 7 and 9
Every class gets full features at 1 (two to start with), 4 (extra attack), 7 and 10 and proper ribbons at 1, 3, 6 and 9 plus capstone at 12


And redo the skill list
And redo or remove the six core attributes
And re-implement Fort/Ref/Will saves
And give all classes some casting progression (full, 3/4, 2/3, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4)
And rework spellcasting so the whole system isn't a bunch of cherrypicking

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, I realized I missed a line when I was reviewing the Fighter class starting gear, my bad.

I will say that being able to spend more resources into making something competent isn't exactly a compelling argument, though. I don't mean to say that you're wrong, but it seems silly that, without spending more, cantrips are better.

You're also ignoring that there's a big difference between all or nothing (cantrips) and two chances to hit. And that gets worse over time. Assuming a base 70% hit chance, you've only got a 9% chance of doing no damage with two shots, compared to a 30% chance of doing no damage with a cantrip. That's (without crits) 11.9 dpr (at a +4 mod) vs 7.7, ie 155% better. Including crits changes it only a small amount. And level 5 is the worst comparison point.

Plus magic items boost one, but not the other.

The numbers I've seen say that cantrips (other than agonizing eb) end up being about 50% of martial no-resource damage.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah gut the game down to 12 levels.
Drop spell levels from 9 to 5, full casters getting new spell levels at 3, 5, 7 and 9


A solid comprehensive change although I had to presume obvious features like higher levels having a level's worth of features appropriate for that level.

I am curious on why you kept the missing spell level. Why is there no new spell level at 11th?

[Kane0]

The theory being new first level spells are about the strength of 1st -2nd now, seconds being 2nd-3rd, thirds being 4th-5th, fourths being 5th-6th and fifths being 7th-8th. 9th level spells (and the stronger 8ths) are cut and turned into capstones or rituals requiring multiple high level casters.

[Witty Username]

Yeah, I realized I missed a line when I was reviewing the Fighter class starting gear, my bad.

I will say that being able to spend more resources into making something competent isn't exactly a compelling argument, though. I don't mean to say that you're wrong, but it seems silly that, without spending more, cantrips are better.

I think that depends on what you mean by, without spending more. looking at Dex builds, they will tend to have a primary(usually but not always ranged) and secondary weapon (usually but not always melee).
assuming bow/rapier or rapier/bow
the secondary on a fighter will be dealing 3d8+15 (28.5 avg)
on other dex martials 2d8+10 (19 avg)
both of these compare favorably to cantrip damage from firebolt.
Str builds have ranged issues but that is more the weirdness of thrown weapons but we got darts
fighter 3d4+15 (22.5 avg)
other 2d4+10 (15 avg)
so Str fighters are still in. and Str melee damage tends to be higher than Dex in no shield builds so you could argue trade-offs.

This doesn't apply by 17th level, but at that point character power has transcended notions of weapons and cantrips being at all relevant.

[Gurgeh]

Thrown weapons don't work well with Extra Attack unless you're using the Thrown Weapon fighting style or have a fairly permissive GM, since you only get one free item interaction per turn, but you need to draw a new weapon for every thrown weapon attack you make.

The range is also pretty punishing - even javelins only have a short range of 30 feet, and almost all of the other options are stuck at a mere 20 feet.

With that said - darts are interesting in that they're both a thrown and a ranged weapon, so in principle you could invest in Thrown Weapon Fighting for +2 damage on every dart and also take Archery style for +2 to hit (and then engage in Sharpshooter nonsense so you're not stuck at pseudo-melee range). You can then either pack on a shield for two more AC than a bow user would run, or opt to fight with two weapons if your bonus action economy is good.

[Woggle]

With that said - darts are interesting in that they're both a thrown and a ranged weapon, so in principle you could invest in Thrown Weapon Fighting for +2 damage on every dart and also take Archery style for +2 to hit (and then engage in Sharpshooter nonsense so you're not stuck at pseudo-melee range). You can then either pack on a shield for two more AC than a bow user would run, or opt to fight with two weapons if your bonus action economy is good.

You can also do sort of the reverse of this with javelins by investing in both duelling and thrown weapon fighting for a cumulative +4 to damage. Of course Sharpshooter skews it heavily in favour of the dart.

[Feanor5]

To me, it's the same reason the Champion should be better than what it is.

I do not believe that a player should be punished simply for the fact that they prefer simplicity. Those that want complexity and utility at the cost of damage are the kinds of players that don't really care about how much damage they're doing in the first place - they mostly enjoy the challenge.

Listening in to some of the videos where the 5e designers discuss their early experience designing the game, I understand that their insight from conducting player surveys, is that there is a "silent majority" of players who in fact prefer simplicity and low impact. This is why in fact, the "Champion" is the most popular sub-class in the game.

There is a small community of vocal players that are interested in complexity and raw impact though. I guess this is us.


To me, it's the same reason the Champion should be better than what it is.
Ideally, it'd go like this:
Simplicity = Raw impact
Complexity = Utility
Multiclassing = Complexity
Singleclassing = Simplicity

That way, everyone gets what they want.


It would seem the game is just fine for the bulk of the audience, thats why its successful at the end of the day, I guess.

The issue for us (as many pointed out already) is that very few classes have sufficient internal synergy, excluding full casters who have inherent synergy due to the progressing spell levels.

However, this is only an issue for the players who are so into the game that they will invest the time to discover and appreciate said synergy. Again, this is us.

The solution to the question you pose, is simply to produce more sub-classes, with stronger synergy (complexity and raw impact) between their own abilities across all tiers. Only this can motivate invested players to stick with one class, instead of multiclassing. I believe a good example of this is the Conquest Paladin.

Its exactly because this sub-class comes with an inherent complexity (involving all tiers) that needs to be understood in order to unlock its raw-impact, that its so fascinating (see Wall of Fear thread).

Each class can have its "Champion" for the ones interested in simplicity (possibly even specifically marked as a base/low complexity option), and more complex interesting sub-classes for the rest of us.

[Theodoxus]

The theory being new first level spells are about the strength of 1st -2nd now, seconds being 2nd-3rd, thirds being 4th-5th, fourths being 5th-6th and fifths being 7th-8th. 9th level spells (and the stronger 8ths) are cut and turned into capstones or rituals requiring multiple high level casters.

This doesn't really solve the problem of overpowered spells though. I mean, you'll get fewer just by the sake that you get fewer slots overall, but if you're still getting access to the power of an 8th level spell and arguably sooner than in a standard game, it will skew the power to the casters.

I think the better approach would be as you have for 9th level spells, but for all spells 6th to 9th. That way casters are topping out still with the same level of spell as a normal 5E game caster would in a campaign that's ending in the 9 to 12th level range.

what to do at 11th level though... probably something like Spell Mastery across all primary casters, though I'd opine for only allowing 1st level spells to be picked.

The other option I guess would be to allow for 6th level spells at 11th, which would work a little better in generating 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 casters...

[Witty Username]

Thrown weapons don't work well with Extra Attack unless you're using the Thrown Weapon fighting style or have a fairly permissive GM, since you only get one free item interaction per turn, but you need to draw a new weapon for every thrown weapon attack you make.

The range is also pretty punishing - even javelins only have a short range of 30 feet, and almost all of the other options are stuck at a mere 20 feet.

With that said - darts are interesting in that they're both a thrown and a ranged weapon, so in principle you could invest in Thrown Weapon Fighting for +2 damage on every dart and also take Archery style for +2 to hit (and then engage in Sharpshooter nonsense so you're not stuck at pseudo-melee range). You can then either pack on a shield for two more AC than a bow user would run, or opt to fight with two weapons if your bonus action economy is good.

I thought darts did not qualify as thrown weapons, but it appears I misread the entry. RIP Str ranged damage.
I would let a player draw multiple darts (It can't be harder than arrows), but yeah not RAW.

[Gurgeh]

Darts can still benefit from a strength build since they have the Finesse property (despite the implications of the name, Finesse works both ways and lets you use str for a weapon that would otherwise be dex-only), but yeah, if you wanted to focus on ranged attacks then it still does feel a bit underwhelming given your strength will only be giving you damage, while an equivalent dex build would get free initiative and light/medium armoured AC in the bargain.

[Kane0]

This doesn't really solve the problem of overpowered spells though. I mean, you'll get fewer just by the sake that you get fewer slots overall, but if you're still getting access to the power of an 8th level spell and arguably sooner than in a standard game, it will skew the power to the casters.

I think the better approach would be as you have for 9th level spells, but for all spells 6th to 9th. That way casters are topping out still with the same level of spell as a normal 5E game caster would in a campaign that's ending in the 9 to 12th level range.

what to do at 11th level though... probably something like Spell Mastery across all primary casters, though I'd opine for only allowing 1st level spells to be picked.

The other option I guess would be to allow for 6th level spells at 11th, which would work a little better in generating 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 casters...

Sure, sounds reasonable. I do assume all dead levels will be filled in even for casters

[Theodoxus]

Sure, sounds reasonable. I do assume all dead levels will be filled in even for casters

Yeah, building out your concept in table form, the meta class would look like this:



Level
PB
Feature
SA
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th


1st
+2


Talent, Class Feature, Ribbon



1d6
2
-
-
-
-


2nd
+2


ASI, Subclass



1d6
3
-
-
-
-


3rd
+2


Feat, Ribbon



2d6
4
2
-
-
-


4th
+3


Talent, Class Feature



2d6
4
3
-
-
-


5th
+3


ASI, Subclass



3d6
4
3
2
-
-


6th
+3


Feat, Ribbon



3d6
4
3
3
-
-


7th
+4


Talent, Class Feature



4d6
4
3
3
1
-


8th
+4




ASI, Subclass






4d6
4
3
3
2
-


9th
+4


Feat, Ribbon



5d6
4
3
3
3
1


10th
+5


Talent, Class Feature



5d6
4
3
3
3
2


11th
+5




ASI, Subclass






6d6
4
3
3
3
2


12th
+5


Feat, Capstone



6d6
4
3
3
3
2



So they are definitely getting something every level.

[Segev]

Darts can still benefit from a strength build since they have the Finesse property (despite the implications of the name, Finesse works both ways and lets you use str for a weapon that would otherwise be dex-only), but yeah, if you wanted to focus on ranged attacks then it still does feel a bit underwhelming given your strength will only be giving you damage, while an equivalent dex build would get free initiative and light/medium armoured AC in the bargain.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but I want to make it clear that darts, and all strength-based or finesse weapons you use strength with, use strength to hit regardless of whether you use them ranged or melee. The default for ranged is dex, but finesse lets you use strength for both attack and damage even then.

[Man_Over_Game]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but I want to make it clear that darts, and all strength-based or finesse weapons you use strength with, use strength to hit regardless of whether you use them ranged or melee. The default for ranged is dex, but finesse lets you use strength for both attack and damage even then.

I think he's saying that you don't get much benefit using Strength-based Ranged weapons, because anyone that uses Strength also probably wants Heavy Armor, and also probably would just do better as a melee character. While Dexterity characters get plenty of reasons to use ranged attacks.

In fact, the only Strength-based ranged character I would probably see as being "optimized" (and not shoehorning stats and features into a challenging theme for the sake of it) is probably an Ancestral Guardian. I still wouldn't use Darts or Sharpshooter for it, though.

[Gurgeh]

Yes, I was using "damage" in the abstract there (as in, increases to the accuracy of your attacks is still a damage increase, just in the average sense rather than the immediate one). Mostly just griping about dex being just as good as strength for damage output while also giving a suite of super nice things on the side.

[Segev]

I think he's saying that you don't get much benefit using Strength-based Ranged weapons, because anyone that uses Strength also probably wants Heavy Armor, and also probably would just do better as a melee character. While Dexterity characters get plenty of reasons to use ranged attacks.

In fact, the only Strength-based ranged character I would probably see as being "optimized" (and not shoehorning stats and features into a challenging theme for the sake of it) is probably an Ancestral Guardian. I still wouldn't use Darts or Sharpshooter for it, though.

I generally see thrown and finesse ranged weapons that use strength as ways for the strength-based character not to suffer for a low Dex when forced into fighting at range. Having that javelin to hurl 60 feet, even at disadvantage for range, and not also losing 3-5 to your bonus to hit and damage, is better than nothing.

[mmcgeach]

I tried to theorycraft enough interesting combat-related abilities for high level fighters so that it would be competitive with a 2-level dip in Barbarian. I ended up with L20 Fighters doing about 120 average DPR. This is far in excess of what single-class martials do now, and also maybe too high for even multiclass martials. It also has dramatic consequences for encounter design, where even if the high-level casters aren't dropping encounter-ending bombs, your average case fighter is going to clean up stuff without any real resource expenditure.

Anyway, I found:


I absolutely would have liked high level martial levels to be worth taking
multiclassing is kind of interesting as it is now: a solution to what to do with high-level martials
any fix would have to be pretty substantial to compete with taking a 2 level Barb dip or 3 level Gloomstalker dip
this results in pretty dramatic changes to Tier 3 and 4 play
That might be ok, since otherwise it seems like Tier 3 and 4 are just about Wizards.


So, it's a lot of work. It'd have to be done carefully. You'd have to do every martial class. It's probably worth doing if you want to focus on Tier 3 and 4 play.

[OldTrees1]

I tried to theorycraft enough interesting combat-related abilities for high level fighters so that it would be competitive with a 2-level dip in Barbarian.

Bolded/Underlined for emphasis. Why did you restrict yourself to only combat related abilities? It is reasonable for high level fighters to have levels where they gain non-combat-related abilities that are competitive with the combat-related abilities from a dip in Barbarian.


Anyway, I found:


I absolutely would have liked high level martial levels to be worth taking
multiclassing is kind of interesting as it is now: a solution to what to do with high-level martials
any fix would have to be pretty substantial to compete with taking a 2 level Barb dip or 3 level Gloomstalker dip
this results in pretty dramatic changes to Tier 3 and 4 play
That might be ok, since otherwise it seems like Tier 3 and 4 are just about Wizards.


So, it's a lot of work. It'd have to be done carefully. You'd have to do every martial class. It's probably worth doing if you want to focus on Tier 3 and 4 play.

With a more balanced distribution of abilities the changes to Tier 3/Tier 4 are reduced in magnitude and broadened in scope.

Otherwise your findings seem accurate.