And we're back to "min-maxers are evil and shouldn't be allowed to play". Cool. Thread now actually solved - make sure your character is terrible and has no realistic chance of succeeding on an adventure without DM fiat and you're good to go.
Every class in the PHB spells out exactly what you get when multiclassing into it, too. Because for the optional rule to work, you need to know that information. if you don't use the rule? Then you don't care and can disregard that bullet.
Again - easy. Even if the book takes the 'optional' tag off, a DM can forbid multiclassing. And on DDB they can easily see if their players have a multiclass character sheet and can even forcibly remove that class, since a DM has edit privileges over a player's sheet in their campaign. I'd strongly recommend against wholesale screwing with a player's sheet, but a DM has more ability to say no to multiclassing on this platform than on any other.
And frankly, who cares if they design the game with half an eye towards multiclassing? They design the game with an eye towards a lot of things that are irrelevant to someone's personal table. Just play the game that works for you and yours and stop trying to bully other folks into leaving the game because they don't want to play worn-out Tolkienesque tropes every single campaign.
[REDACTED].
It is not Gatekeeping to want the solo-character classes to actually be considered viable. It is not Gatekeeping to worry that a return to "MC as core" might bring back the inanity and toxicity of 3.x where onlyMC was "viable" or even required to obtain certain concepts, where characters had enough dips to make Abserd look tame in comparison. Where a cottage industry was created around selling guides on how to make broken build xyz. Where if the DM did not allow MC then they are a "badwrongfun" DM (or worse... amazing how quick they were to toss around the toxic labels when they did not get their way). That was not a good time in the hobby.
Every class in the PHB spells out exactly what you get when multiclassing into it, too. Because for the optional rule to work, you need to know that information. if you don't use the rule? Then you don't care and can disregard that bullet.
Again - easy. Even if the book takes the 'optional' tag off, a DM can forbid multiclassing. And on DDB they can easily see if their players have a multiclass character sheet and can even forcibly remove that class, since a DM has edit privileges over a player's sheet in their campaign. I'd strongly recommend against wholesale screwing with a player's sheet, but a DM has more ability to say no to multiclassing on this platform than on any other.
And frankly, who cares if they design the game with half an eye towards multiclassing? They design the game with an eye towards a lot of things that are irrelevant to someone's personal table. Just play the game that works for you and yours and stop trying to bully other folks into leaving the game because they don't want to play worn-out Tolkienesque tropes every single campaign.
You need to stop projecting your own neurosis onto others... it detracts from your otherwise well worded arguments.
It is not Gatekeeping to want the solo-character classes to actually be considered viable. It is not Gatekeeping to worry that a return to "MC as core" might bring back the inanity and toxicity of 3.x where onlyMC was "viable" or even required to obtain certain concepts, where characters had enough dips to make Abserd look tame in comparison. Where a cottage industry was created around selling guides on how to make broken build xyz. Where if the DM did not allow MC then they are a "badwrongfun" DM (or worse... amazing how quick they were to toss around the toxic labels when they did not get their way). That was not a good time in the hobby.
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
This is not 3.X where you had prestige classes, nobody is asking for prestige classes. You could still do solo classes in 3.x but the requirements of prestige classes were definitely a bit crazy.
Nah, I think trying to punish a player for making a creative choice by taking away a benefit they've already been given feels super bad. 0/10 would not recommend.
This I agree with. But an ability that fails to grow/improve outside of its class? is that punishing a player or is that just the price of multiclassing?
Nah, I think trying to punish a player for making a creative choice by taking away a benefit they've already been given feels super bad. 0/10 would not recommend.
This I agree with. But an ability that fails to grow/improve outside of its class? is that punishing a player or is that just the price of multiclassing?
With the exception of cantrips, every feature already stops growing unless the class you're multi-classing into already has something that improves or grows that, such as spell slots, extra attack/sneak attack/etc on weapon attacks, or whatever. That continues as you take levels in the alternative class, you don't need some "extra" thing, it already exists.
Yeah, Sneak Attack only upscales with Rogue levels, Ki only grows with Monk levels, Pact Magic only grows with Warlock levels, spell levels only grow with caster levels in general even if spell slots can grow with multiclassing. I don't think we need to make monoclassing that much more attractive other than capstones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And we're back to "min-maxers are evil and shouldn't be allowed to play". Cool. Thread now actually solved - make sure your character is terrible and has no realistic chance of succeeding on an adventure without DM fiat and you're good to go.
you need to learn the difference between a Min/maxer and an Optimizer. One looks and works to be the best they can within a given framework. The other is a toxic @$$/troll whose idea of fun is showing off their so called system mastery while ruining the fun of as many players at the table as possible but most importantly they have a driving need to get one over on the DM.
Care to guess which is which? And any mechanic that facilitates or encourages that second personality? Yeah... not good.
Every class in the PHB spells out exactly what you get when multiclassing into it, too. Because for the optional rule to work, you need to know that information. if you don't use the rule? Then you don't care and can disregard that bullet.
Again - easy. Even if the book takes the 'optional' tag off, a DM can forbid multiclassing. And on DDB they can easily see if their players have a multiclass character sheet and can even forcibly remove that class, since a DM has edit privileges over a player's sheet in their campaign. I'd strongly recommend against wholesale screwing with a player's sheet, but a DM has more ability to say no to multiclassing on this platform than on any other.
And frankly, who cares if they design the game with half an eye towards multiclassing? They design the game with an eye towards a lot of things that are irrelevant to someone's personal table. Just play the game that works for you and yours and stop trying to bully other folks into leaving the game because they don't want to play worn-out Tolkienesque tropes every single campaign.
You need to stop projecting your own neurosis onto others... it detracts from your otherwise well worded arguments.
It is not Gatekeeping to want the solo-character classes to actually be considered viable. It is not Gatekeeping to worry that a return to "MC as core" might bring back the inanity and toxicity of 3.x where onlyMC was "viable" or even required to obtain certain concepts, where characters had enough dips to make Abserd look tame in comparison. Where a cottage industry was created around selling guides on how to make broken build xyz. Where if the DM did not allow MC then they are a "badwrongfun" DM (or worse... amazing how quick they were to toss around the toxic labels when they did not get their way). That was not a good time in the hobby.
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
This is not 3.X where you had prestige classes, nobody is asking for prestige classes. You could still do solo classes in 3.x but the requirements of prestige classes were definitely a bit crazy.
While the reality is that they may be viable; the perception is they are not. Or at least not all of them are.
The difference in terminology between "min-maxer" and "optimizer" is nowhere near universal enough to invoke as an argument. Has anyone defined those terms for the purposes of this thread? If not, then everyone is using their own personal definitions, and those can vary wildly from individual to individual.
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
While the reality is that they may be viable; the perception is they are not. Or at least not all of them are.
The difference in terminology between "min-maxer" and "optimizer" is nowhere near universal enough to invoke as an argument. Has anyone defined those terms for the purposes of this thread? If not, then everyone is using their own personal definitions, and those can vary wildly from individual to individual.
Both terms have been well and clearly defined in the hobby at large for over 2 decades (almost 3) now. You failing to stay abreast of developments outside of an isolated sphere does not invalidate their usages.
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
While the reality is that they may be viable; the perception is they are not. Or at least not all of them are.
And which ones do you think aren't viable?
Me personally? None. but which are perceived as such? Have you not been paying attention to the threads on just the DDB boards for the past 8 or so years? Ranger (universally), Sorcerer, Warlock, every caster class, etc... Unless you multi-class that is. The perception is all casters must dip 2 levels of fighter to remain viable. (I see that one all the time at my tables from newbies).
Hell, there is a thread here in the UA forum over the viability of the armor feat where one of the arguments against it is a dip into fighter for the armor proficiency.
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
While the reality is that they may be viable; the perception is they are not. Or at least not all of them are.
And which ones do you think aren't viable?
Me personally? None. but which are perceived as such? Have you not been paying attention to the threads on just the DDB boards for the past 8 or so years? Ranger (universally), Sorcerer, Warlock, every caster class, etc... Unless you multi-class that is. The perception is all casters must dip 2 levels of fighter to remain viable. (I see that one all the time at my tables from newbies).
Hell, there is a thread here in the UA forum over the viability of the armor feat where one of the arguments against it is a dip into fighter for the armor proficiency.
I am not going to judge it on people being overly dramatic, Ranger as a class needed some buffs and we are seeing some in one D&D but I wouldn't say it wasn't viable, the issue was how situational half their shit was, so it could be either A) really good or be B) completely useless, and nothing inbetween. Warlock is like the benchmark for damage output, they just get a bad rap because they're aren't as abusively overpowered as sorcerer and wizard. Sorcerer has some of the highest damage potential in the game, above Wizard in that regards. Anybody who claims any of the casters aren't viable is straight up lying. There might be things casters can get from multiclassing but literally none of the casters need to multiclass and what gains they get from multiclassing are usually barely a break even, since they are slowing spell progression in doing so.
Action surge is over-rated, again, the cost of taking action surge is you'll be a spell level behind and 2 character classes behind with less overall spell slots. Action surge is nice on fighter because they get it as part of their own leveling but to get two levels of fighter as a caster, it's not worth the investment.
I am not going to judge it on people being overly dramatic, Ranger as a class needed some buffs and we are seeing some in one D&D but I wouldn't say it wasn't viable, the issue was how situational half their shit was, so it could be either A) really good or be B) completely useless, and nothing inbetween. Warlock is like the benchmark for damage output, they just get a bad rap because they're aren't as abusively overpowered as sorcerer and wizard. Sorcerer has some of the highest damage potential in the game, above Wizard in that regards. Anybody who claims any of the casters aren't viable is straight up lying. There might be things casters can get from multiclassing but literally none of the casters need to multiclass and what gains they get from multiclassing are usually barely a break even, since they are slowing spell progression in doing so.
Action surge is over-rated, again, the cost of taking action surge is you'll be a spell level behind and 2 character classes behind with less overall spell slots. Action surge is nice on fighter because they get it as part of their own leveling but to get two levels of fighter as a caster, it's not worth the investment.
From my observation, the issue with Warlock I've seen expressed isn't that they can't dish out damage. It's that they're repetitive in how they do it, and the few slots they have at any given time means they can't diversify nearly as much in how they contribute in combat. Sorcerer and Wizard don't have these problems.
That's why Hexblade stands out, because it actually makes melee fighting more viable. Even then though, half the time you hear about Hexblade, it's as a dip for Sorcerer or Paladin.
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
While the reality is that they may be viable; the perception is they are not. Or at least not all of them are.
And which ones do you think aren't viable?
Me personally? None. but which are perceived as such? Have you not been paying attention to the threads on just the DDB boards for the past 8 or so years? Ranger (universally), Sorcerer, Warlock, every caster class, etc... Unless you multi-class that is. The perception is all casters must dip 2 levels of fighter to remain viable. (I see that one all the time at my tables from newbies).
Hell, there is a thread here in the UA forum over the viability of the armor feat where one of the arguments against it is a dip into fighter for the armor proficiency.
I am not going to judge it on people being overly dramatic, Ranger as a class needed some buffs and we are seeing some in one D&D but I wouldn't say it wasn't viable, the issue was how situational half their shit was, so it could be either A) really good or be B) completely useless, and nothing inbetween. Warlock is like the benchmark for damage output, they just get a bad rap because they're aren't as abusively overpowered as sorcerer and wizard. Sorcerer has some of the highest damage potential in the game, above Wizard in that regards. Anybody who claims any of the casters aren't viable is straight up lying. There might be things casters can get from multiclassing but literally none of the casters need to multiclass and what gains they get from multiclassing are usually barely a break even, since they are slowing spell progression in doing so.
Action surge is over-rated, again, the cost of taking action surge is you'll be a spell level behind and 2 character classes behind with less overall spell slots. Action surge is nice on fighter because they get it as part of their own leveling but to get two levels of fighter as a caster, it's not worth the investment.
I never said the thoughts on it were logical or even justified. Just that they are far too prevalent. And perception is often stronger than reality. And rules that make MC easier? What perception is that putting forth?
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
That is very game dependent. Take the whole Sneak Attack thing going on. There are literally people who claim rogue is not a viable class to play without finding someway to hit BB + double SA. There are plenty who claim Monk isn't a viable single class in their games. Or sorcerer.
Perception is reality. If you beleive something strongly, that belief becomes reality for you, irregardless of what others think. And, given that games vary between tables, they might very well be correct. The default assumptions that WotC offers for balance are kinda ... almost never used, so they're meaningless.
Nah, I think trying to punish a player for making a creative choice by taking away a benefit they've already been given feels super bad. 0/10 would not recommend.
This I agree with. But an ability that fails to grow/improve outside of its class? is that punishing a player or is that just the price of multiclassing?
With the exception of cantrips, every feature already stops growing unless the class you're multi-classing into already has something that improves or grows that, such as spell slots, extra attack/sneak attack/etc on weapon attacks, or whatever. That continues as you take levels in the alternative class, you don't need some "extra" thing, it already exists.
Psi knight / soul knife is a popular multiclass in no small part due to the fact that both classes have separate die pools that grow based on proficency bonus, not class level. So not entirely true that cantrips are unique here.
The difference in terminology between "min-maxer" and "optimizer" is nowhere near universal enough to invoke as an argument. Has anyone defined those terms for the purposes of this thread? If not, then everyone is using their own personal definitions, and those can vary wildly from individual to individual.
Both terms have been well and clearly defined in the hobby at large for over 2 decades (almost 3) now. You failing to stay abreast of developments outside of an isolated sphere does not invalidate their usages.
Nah. They're the same thing, a distinction without meaning. The so-called difference is that people try to use the word optimizer to mean "good, non-disruptive min-maxer." But ultimately what's good or not is subjective between groups and, in the end, its just an evolution of the same concept. Did you know they did the same thing with munchkin and min-maxer, where the latter had the same meaning as optimizer? Then min-maxer got the bad rep, so optimizer came about? It'll keep going until optimizer is a dirty word and a new one will arise.
And I remember when people tried to claim they were clearly defined, and then had an entire thread filled with people argauing over the definitions. Clearly defined they are not. Slang rarely is.
Both terms have been well and clearly defined in the hobby at large for over 2 decades (almost 3) now. You failing to stay abreast of developments outside of an isolated sphere does not invalidate their usages.
And yet a great many people on this board use the two interchangeably, and always targeted at the negative connotation you provided. The idea that anyone who makes good mechanical decisions for a character are doing so purely out of smug spite, with the conscious and explicit desire to degrade the experience of everyone else at the table. Why is that, if 'the hobby at large' has settled so conclusively on fixed definitions for the two terms?
Might it be that the rapid influx of new players has upset what some folks consider to be norms, and not everyone who's part of these ongoing 'discussions' is a three-decade hobby veteran?
No it is an answer. Just not the one you want or like. Given the limited data in the Mobile Game demo there is nothing there to indicate any of the abilities you ascribe to the character. So at this point I can only assume you are moving the goal post. (Unless you have a better example?)
It isn't an answer, those abilities are also detailed in their in-game profile; the teleportation is the reason why Okita Alter's Agility is only describe to be A rank in the game when the regular Okita has an A+ in agility despite Alter supposedly being stronger in every way, it's because when teleportation is involved their actual speed is no longer relevant.
It is also noted in the description of their abilities:
The regular Okita has the skill "Reduced Earth B" which is described as: "A technique to instantly reduce the distance between herself and the opponent. The ultimate walking tecnique many martial arts try to achieve. It’s not pure quickness, it’s a perfect combination of multiple phenomena, like walking techniques, defensive body movement, Breathing and blind spots. If it reached it’s highest rank (A), it would no longer be a simple technique, it would become dimension hopping, something on the realm of Xianshu (Senjutsu)."
Whereas Alter has the skill "Furthest Earth A" which is described as: "The ultimate stepping technique which enables perfect movement through any space." This is the A rank version of the regular Okita's Reduced Earth, meaning Okita Alter is teleporting.
There is also plenty to indicate teleportation, as she is seen in the demo to be instantaneously moving from point a to point b. In FGO, you tend to see them actually move if they aren't teleporting.
Rather instead of even considering that it was her inherent ability, you just went it's the weapon's ability (which is false) and just delegated everything into the weapon, which is a cop out.
Nah, I think trying to punish a player for making a creative choice by taking away a benefit they've already been given feels super bad. 0/10 would not recommend.
This I agree with. But an ability that fails to grow/improve outside of its class? is that punishing a player or is that just the price of multiclassing?
The cost of multiclassing is delaying and missing out on other features, including Feats/ASI's. What was suggested in this thread is just punishing the player for multiclassing.
you need to learn the difference between a Min/maxer and an Optimizer. One looks and works to be the best they can within a given framework. The other is a toxic @$$/troll whose idea of fun is showing off their so called system mastery while ruining the fun of as many players at the table as possible but most importantly they have a driving need to get one over on the DM.
Care to guess which is which? And any mechanic that facilitates or encourages that second personality? Yeah... not good.
In modern usage, both of the terms Min/Maxer and Optimizer are used interchangably. The term you are describing is munchkin which doesn't even need any level of system mastery. Min/Maxers and optimizers see the rules as a puzzle to be solved while a munchkin sees the rules as something to be ignored until it benefits them.
Me personally? None. but which are perceived as such? Have you not been paying attention to the threads on just the DDB boards for the past 8 or so years? Ranger (universally), Sorcerer, Warlock, every caster class, etc... Unless you multi-class that is. The perception is all casters must dip 2 levels of fighter to remain viable. (I see that one all the time at my tables from newbies).
Hell, there is a thread here in the UA forum over the viability of the armor feat where one of the arguments against it is a dip into fighter for the armor proficiency.
As someone who min/maxes|optimizes, no one who actually does proper optimization or min/maxing thinks you need to take 2 levels of fighter to be viable as a caster. Honestly, that 2 level dip in fighter probably hurts more than it helps because you are delaying spell progression AND spell slot progression by 2 levels. Those newbies of yours are looking at the wrong places or are not properly comprehending what they read.
Rangers have been observed to be rather lacking in their PHB incarnation, with many of their features being heavily dependent on the campaign being played and the beast master subclass just being mechanically bad. Warlock suffered in how Pact of the Blade worked pre-Hexblade and how people seemed to prefer long rests of short rests, which heavily gimps warlocks. Sorcerer, especially when compared to Wizards, just suffered from a small number of spells known and a spell list that could use more utility; which was why in Tasha's their subclasses gave them so many extra spells. However, Wizard, Paladin, Bard, Cleric, etc. Essentially every other class worked perfectly single classed, and the ones that had issues before were basically patched in the newer books (namely Tasha's).
I never said the thoughts on it were logical or even justified. Just that they are far too prevalent. And perception is often stronger than reality. And rules that make MC easier? What perception is that putting forth?
Reality should matter more and those thoughts aren't really prevalent from my experience. Also, no one is asked for rules to make MC easier; someone asked for a rule that punished multiclassing in order to make it harder, which most people in this thread are against.
No it is an answer. Just not the one you want or like. Given the limited data in the Mobile Game demo there is nothing there to indicate any of the abilities you ascribe to the character. So at this point I can only assume you are moving the goal post. (Unless you have a better example?)
It isn't an answer, those abilities are also detailed in their in-game profile; the teleportation is the reason why Okita Alter's Agility is only describe to be A rank in the game when the regular Okita has an A+ in agility despite Alter supposedly being stronger in every way, it's because when teleportation is involved their actual speed is no longer relevant.
It is also noted in the description of their abilities:
The regular Okita has the skill "Reduced Earth B" which is described as: "A technique to instantly reduce the distance between herself and the opponent. The ultimate walking tecnique many martial arts try to achieve. It’s not pure quickness, it’s a perfect combination of multiple phenomena, like walking techniques, defensive body movement, Breathing and blind spots. If it reached it’s highest rank (A), it would no longer be a simple technique, it would become dimension hopping, something on the realm of Xianshu (Senjutsu)."
Whereas Alter has the skill "Furthest Earth A" which is described as: "The ultimate stepping technique which enables perfect movement through any space." This is the A rank version of the regular Okita's Reduced Earth, meaning Okita Alter is teleporting.
There is also plenty to indicate teleportation, as she is seen in the demo to be instantaneously moving from point a to point b. In FGO, you tend to see them actually move if they aren't teleporting.
Rather instead of even considering that it was her inherent ability, you just went it's the weapon's ability (which is false) and just delegated everything into the weapon, which is a cop out.
No it is not a cop out. You provided a link to a 15 min vid of what amounts to a fight scene from an 8-bit JRPG gussied up with images for a cell phone. Nothing in the data provided even hints at what you claim it does. I saw a character make Multi-attacks and then an anime uber critical. The vid made it a point to concentrate on the sword for said anime style attack so what else can someone unfamiliar with the game conclude? the weapon is the source of the beam attack. You are calling it a cop out because my conclusion did not match yours. Twice you linked the same vid. If there was additional lore I needed to be aware of maybe you should have linked to that instead?
The cost of multiclassing is delaying and missing out on other features, including Feats/ASI's. What was suggested in this thread is just punishing the player for multiclassing.
Delays that are not impactful until later levels. Levels that (as the companies own metrics tell us) are seldom if ever reached. A cost delayed and never paid is not a valid cost.
Reality should matter more and those thoughts aren't really prevalent from my experience.
Reality should matter but as any politician can tell you "Perception is reality." While your experiences do not show you those thoughts as prevalent. Mine and the experiences of others says otherwise. The number of threads not just here but on other sites asking about the ideal multiclass build for class XYZ over the last 8 plus years; says it is that prevalent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And we're back to "min-maxers are evil and shouldn't be allowed to play". Cool. Thread now actually solved - make sure your character is terrible and has no realistic chance of succeeding on an adventure without DM fiat and you're good to go.
Please do not contact or message me.
[REDACTED].
It is not Gatekeeping to want the solo-character classes to actually be considered viable.
It is not Gatekeeping to worry that a return to "MC as core" might bring back the inanity and toxicity of 3.x where only MC was "viable" or even required to obtain certain concepts, where characters had enough dips to make Abserd look tame in comparison. Where a cottage industry was created around selling guides on how to make broken build xyz. Where if the DM did not allow MC then they are a "badwrongfun" DM (or worse... amazing how quick they were to toss around the toxic labels when they did not get their way). That was not a good time in the hobby.
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
This is not 3.X where you had prestige classes, nobody is asking for prestige classes. You could still do solo classes in 3.x but the requirements of prestige classes were definitely a bit crazy.
This I agree with.
But an ability that fails to grow/improve outside of its class? is that punishing a player or is that just the price of multiclassing?
With the exception of cantrips, every feature already stops growing unless the class you're multi-classing into already has something that improves or grows that, such as spell slots, extra attack/sneak attack/etc on weapon attacks, or whatever. That continues as you take levels in the alternative class, you don't need some "extra" thing, it already exists.
Yeah, Sneak Attack only upscales with Rogue levels, Ki only grows with Monk levels, Pact Magic only grows with Warlock levels, spell levels only grow with caster levels in general even if spell slots can grow with multiclassing. I don't think we need to make monoclassing that much more attractive other than capstones.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Depth in a class should be viable and rewarded. Breadth in skills from multiclassing should be viable and rewarded.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
you need to learn the difference between a Min/maxer and an Optimizer.
One looks and works to be the best they can within a given framework.
The other is a toxic @$$/troll whose idea of fun is showing off their so called system mastery while ruining the fun of as many players at the table as possible but most importantly they have a driving need to get one over on the DM.
Care to guess which is which?
And any mechanic that facilitates or encourages that second personality? Yeah... not good.
While the reality is that they may be viable; the perception is they are not. Or at least not all of them are.
The difference in terminology between "min-maxer" and "optimizer" is nowhere near universal enough to invoke as an argument. Has anyone defined those terms for the purposes of this thread? If not, then everyone is using their own personal definitions, and those can vary wildly from individual to individual.
Please do not contact or message me.
And which ones do you think aren't viable?
Both terms have been well and clearly defined in the hobby at large for over 2 decades (almost 3) now. You failing to stay abreast of developments outside of an isolated sphere does not invalidate their usages.
Me personally? None.
but which are perceived as such?
Have you not been paying attention to the threads on just the DDB boards for the past 8 or so years? Ranger (universally), Sorcerer, Warlock, every caster class, etc... Unless you multi-class that is.
The perception is all casters must dip 2 levels of fighter to remain viable. (I see that one all the time at my tables from newbies).
Hell, there is a thread here in the UA forum over the viability of the armor feat where one of the arguments against it is a dip into fighter for the armor proficiency.
I am not going to judge it on people being overly dramatic, Ranger as a class needed some buffs and we are seeing some in one D&D but I wouldn't say it wasn't viable, the issue was how situational half their shit was, so it could be either A) really good or be B) completely useless, and nothing inbetween. Warlock is like the benchmark for damage output, they just get a bad rap because they're aren't as abusively overpowered as sorcerer and wizard. Sorcerer has some of the highest damage potential in the game, above Wizard in that regards. Anybody who claims any of the casters aren't viable is straight up lying. There might be things casters can get from multiclassing but literally none of the casters need to multiclass and what gains they get from multiclassing are usually barely a break even, since they are slowing spell progression in doing so.
Action surge is over-rated, again, the cost of taking action surge is you'll be a spell level behind and 2 character classes behind with less overall spell slots. Action surge is nice on fighter because they get it as part of their own leveling but to get two levels of fighter as a caster, it's not worth the investment.
From my observation, the issue with Warlock I've seen expressed isn't that they can't dish out damage. It's that they're repetitive in how they do it, and the few slots they have at any given time means they can't diversify nearly as much in how they contribute in combat. Sorcerer and Wizard don't have these problems.
That's why Hexblade stands out, because it actually makes melee fighting more viable. Even then though, half the time you hear about Hexblade, it's as a dip for Sorcerer or Paladin.
I never said the thoughts on it were logical or even justified.
Just that they are far too prevalent.
And perception is often stronger than reality.
And rules that make MC easier?
What perception is that putting forth?
That is very game dependent. Take the whole Sneak Attack thing going on. There are literally people who claim rogue is not a viable class to play without finding someway to hit BB + double SA. There are plenty who claim Monk isn't a viable single class in their games. Or sorcerer.
Perception is reality. If you beleive something strongly, that belief becomes reality for you, irregardless of what others think. And, given that games vary between tables, they might very well be correct. The default assumptions that WotC offers for balance are kinda ... almost never used, so they're meaningless.
Psi knight / soul knife is a popular multiclass in no small part due to the fact that both classes have separate die pools that grow based on proficency bonus, not class level. So not entirely true that cantrips are unique here.
Nah. They're the same thing, a distinction without meaning. The so-called difference is that people try to use the word optimizer to mean "good, non-disruptive min-maxer." But ultimately what's good or not is subjective between groups and, in the end, its just an evolution of the same concept. Did you know they did the same thing with munchkin and min-maxer, where the latter had the same meaning as optimizer? Then min-maxer got the bad rep, so optimizer came about? It'll keep going until optimizer is a dirty word and a new one will arise.
And I remember when people tried to claim they were clearly defined, and then had an entire thread filled with people argauing over the definitions. Clearly defined they are not. Slang rarely is.
And yet a great many people on this board use the two interchangeably, and always targeted at the negative connotation you provided. The idea that anyone who makes good mechanical decisions for a character are doing so purely out of smug spite, with the conscious and explicit desire to degrade the experience of everyone else at the table. Why is that, if 'the hobby at large' has settled so conclusively on fixed definitions for the two terms?
Might it be that the rapid influx of new players has upset what some folks consider to be norms, and not everyone who's part of these ongoing 'discussions' is a three-decade hobby veteran?
Please do not contact or message me.
It isn't an answer, those abilities are also detailed in their in-game profile; the teleportation is the reason why Okita Alter's Agility is only describe to be A rank in the game when the regular Okita has an A+ in agility despite Alter supposedly being stronger in every way, it's because when teleportation is involved their actual speed is no longer relevant.
It is also noted in the description of their abilities:
The regular Okita has the skill "Reduced Earth B" which is described as: "A technique to instantly reduce the distance between herself and the opponent. The ultimate walking tecnique many martial arts try to achieve. It’s not pure quickness, it’s a perfect combination of multiple phenomena, like walking techniques, defensive body movement, Breathing and blind spots. If it reached it’s highest rank (A), it would no longer be a simple technique, it would become dimension hopping, something on the realm of Xianshu (Senjutsu)."
Whereas Alter has the skill "Furthest Earth A" which is described as: "The ultimate stepping technique which enables perfect movement through any space." This is the A rank version of the regular Okita's Reduced Earth, meaning Okita Alter is teleporting.
There is also plenty to indicate teleportation, as she is seen in the demo to be instantaneously moving from point a to point b. In FGO, you tend to see them actually move if they aren't teleporting.
Rather instead of even considering that it was her inherent ability, you just went it's the weapon's ability (which is false) and just delegated everything into the weapon, which is a cop out.
The cost of multiclassing is delaying and missing out on other features, including Feats/ASI's. What was suggested in this thread is just punishing the player for multiclassing.
In modern usage, both of the terms Min/Maxer and Optimizer are used interchangably. The term you are describing is munchkin which doesn't even need any level of system mastery. Min/Maxers and optimizers see the rules as a puzzle to be solved while a munchkin sees the rules as something to be ignored until it benefits them.
As someone who min/maxes|optimizes, no one who actually does proper optimization or min/maxing thinks you need to take 2 levels of fighter to be viable as a caster. Honestly, that 2 level dip in fighter probably hurts more than it helps because you are delaying spell progression AND spell slot progression by 2 levels. Those newbies of yours are looking at the wrong places or are not properly comprehending what they read.
Rangers have been observed to be rather lacking in their PHB incarnation, with many of their features being heavily dependent on the campaign being played and the beast master subclass just being mechanically bad. Warlock suffered in how Pact of the Blade worked pre-Hexblade and how people seemed to prefer long rests of short rests, which heavily gimps warlocks. Sorcerer, especially when compared to Wizards, just suffered from a small number of spells known and a spell list that could use more utility; which was why in Tasha's their subclasses gave them so many extra spells. However, Wizard, Paladin, Bard, Cleric, etc. Essentially every other class worked perfectly single classed, and the ones that had issues before were basically patched in the newer books (namely Tasha's).
Reality should matter more and those thoughts aren't really prevalent from my experience. Also, no one is asked for rules to make MC easier; someone asked for a rule that punished multiclassing in order to make it harder, which most people in this thread are against.
No it is not a cop out. You provided a link to a 15 min vid of what amounts to a fight scene from an 8-bit JRPG gussied up with images for a cell phone. Nothing in the data provided even hints at what you claim it does. I saw a character make Multi-attacks and then an anime uber critical. The vid made it a point to concentrate on the sword for said anime style attack so what else can someone unfamiliar with the game conclude? the weapon is the source of the beam attack. You are calling it a cop out because my conclusion did not match yours. Twice you linked the same vid. If there was additional lore I needed to be aware of maybe you should have linked to that instead?
Delays that are not impactful until later levels. Levels that (as the companies own metrics tell us) are seldom if ever reached. A cost delayed and never paid is not a valid cost.
Reality should matter but as any politician can tell you "Perception is reality."
While your experiences do not show you those thoughts as prevalent.
Mine and the experiences of others says otherwise.
The number of threads not just here but on other sites asking about the ideal multiclass build for class XYZ over the last 8 plus years; says it is that prevalent.