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

[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.

DC	09	11	13	15	17	19
+1	60%	50%	40%	30%	20%	10%
+6	85%	75%	65%	55%	45%	35%
+1 Adv	84%	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.

DC	09	11	13	15	17	19
+1	60%	50%	40%	30%	20%	10%
+6	85%	75%	65%	55%	45%	35%
+1 Adv	84%	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.