It's like the content creation team just can't win.
Adam/James/Lauren/Todd quit and moved to bigger(and better?) things, either I'm hyperfocused on the new content because it's not just class 101s and encounters. I, personally, didn't like James' articles, but I thought he was a good content creator. His style just wasn't my style. There was one article he did that I commented on in Barbarian 101 that it was just incoherent toward the end, but the rest were fine. Pointing out typos or things against the rules(in the books) I'm down for, but that's really it. I think the discussion should be on the article's content and how to apply it.
I don't know, I just don't understand it. The newest one is a good example. There are posts that are crying about telling people about Sorlocks, how multiclassing certain characters are bad, etc.
It's like the content creation team just can't win.
Adam/James/Lauren/Todd quit and moved to bigger(and better?) things, either I'm hyperfocused on the new content because it's not just class 101s and encounters. I, personally, didn't like James' articles, but I thought he was a good content creator. His style just wasn't my style. There was one article he did that I commented on in Barbarian 101 that it was just incoherent toward the end, but the rest were fine. Pointing out typos or things against the rules(in the books) I'm down for, but that's really it. I think the discussion should be on the article's content and how to apply it.
I don't know, I just don't understand it. The newest one is a good example. There are posts that are crying about telling people about Sorlocks, how multiclassing certain characters are bad, etc.
Why? What's the point?
I read those articles. I seldom comment on them. James is an adequate writer, who was clearly a rah rah type of guy. The new article of Saige's was flawed from the get go.The quality of the writing is solid, the mechanics as described is fine. But no article should ever have "Multi-classing", "Beginners", and 101 in the title. Multi-classing is the same as playing a Warlock. No one should try it until they have an expert grasp on the game mechanics. And at that point, they don't need a tutorial on how to do it.
The drawbacks of spell casters MC'ing MUST be carefully understood, and only a ton of game experience does that. Saige barely scratches on that. Right now I am playing in a campaign where all 5 of the players have some level of spell-casting, and we are 14th level. We should be able to handle just about anything. No so. Two of the players MC'ed as Arcane Tricksters/Artificers, with the predicted results of incredibly low levels only to cast. I am playing a pure Hexblade, and have the 2nd best set of spells next to the Storm Sorcerer. We are weak in so many ways for a 14th level crew.
My guess is that DDB does not pay particularly well, and once writers gain some experience, they move on to better jobs. Do I have proof of that? Not really. But the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong.
I genuinely don't get it either. As much as I hate using this word, it's like there is a sense of entitlement that some of these people have. "This article doesn't cater to my personal and specific interests, therefore that makes it bad!"
Like, chill the **** out. Not everything revolves around you people. There was PLENTY I didn't like about the old articles, but I sure as shit didn't throw a hissyfit like some of those babypeople do...
It's like the content creation team just can't win.
Adam/James/Lauren/Todd quit and moved to bigger(and better?) things, either I'm hyperfocused on the new content because it's not just class 101s and encounters. I, personally, didn't like James' articles, but I thought he was a good content creator. His style just wasn't my style. There was one article he did that I commented on in Barbarian 101 that it was just incoherent toward the end, but the rest were fine. Pointing out typos or things against the rules(in the books) I'm down for, but that's really it. I think the discussion should be on the article's content and how to apply it.
I don't know, I just don't understand it. The newest one is a good example. There are posts that are crying about telling people about Sorlocks, how multiclassing certain characters are bad, etc.
Why? What's the point?
I read those articles. I seldom comment on them. James is an adequate writer, who was clearly a rah rah type of guy. The new article of Saige's was flawed from the get go.The quality of the writing is solid, the mechanics as described is fine. But no article should ever have "Multi-classing", "Beginners", and 101 in the title. Multi-classing is the same as playing a Warlock. No one should try it until they have an expert grasp on the game mechanics. And at that point, they don't need a tutorial on how to do it.
The drawbacks of spell casters MC'ing MUST be carefully understood, and only a ton of game experience does that. Saige barely scratches on that. Right now I am playing in a campaign where all 5 of the players have some level of spell-casting, and we are 14th level. We should be able to handle just about anything. No so. Two of the players MC'ed as Arcane Tricksters/Artificers, with the predicted results of incredibly low levels only to cast. I am playing a pure Hexblade, and have the 2nd best set of spells next to the Storm Sorcerer. We are weak in so many ways for a 14th level crew.
My guess is that DDB does not pay particularly well, and once writers gain some experience, they move on to better jobs. Do I have proof of that? Not really. But the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong.
Saiges article isn't flawed. It's not. It speaks to multiclassing from a flavor perspective and how that can be used to really enhance a character's backstory. It's a 101. Hey, did you know this option exists? No? Let's talk about it. Ok, here are some flavor options.
Your personal table issues with multiclassing are irrelevant to this thread.
It's like the content creation team just can't win.
Adam/James/Lauren/Todd quit and moved to bigger(and better?) things, either I'm hyperfocused on the new content because it's not just class 101s and encounters. I, personally, didn't like James' articles, but I thought he was a good content creator. His style just wasn't my style. There was one article he did that I commented on in Barbarian 101 that it was just incoherent toward the end, but the rest were fine. Pointing out typos or things against the rules(in the books) I'm down for, but that's really it. I think the discussion should be on the article's content and how to apply it.
I don't know, I just don't understand it. The newest one is a good example. There are posts that are crying about telling people about Sorlocks, how multiclassing certain characters are bad, etc.
Why? What's the point?
I read those articles. I seldom comment on them. James is an adequate writer, who was clearly a rah rah type of guy. The new article of Saige's was flawed from the get go.The quality of the writing is solid, the mechanics as described is fine. But no article should ever have "Multi-classing", "Beginners", and 101 in the title. Multi-classing is the same as playing a Warlock. No one should try it until they have an expert grasp on the game mechanics. And at that point, they don't need a tutorial on how to do it.
The drawbacks of spell casters MC'ing MUST be carefully understood, and only a ton of game experience does that. Saige barely scratches on that. Right now I am playing in a campaign where all 5 of the players have some level of spell-casting, and we are 14th level. We should be able to handle just about anything. No so. Two of the players MC'ed as Arcane Tricksters/Artificers, with the predicted results of incredibly low levels only to cast. I am playing a pure Hexblade, and have the 2nd best set of spells next to the Storm Sorcerer. We are weak in so many ways for a 14th level crew.
My guess is that DDB does not pay particularly well, and once writers gain some experience, they move on to better jobs. Do I have proof of that? Not really. But the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong.
Saiges article isn't flawed. It's not. It speaks to multiclassing from a flavor perspective and how that can be used to really enhance a character's backstory. It's a 101. Hey, did you know this option exists? No? Let's talk about it. Ok, here are some flavor options.
Your personal table issues with multiclassing are irrelevant to this thread.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
It's like the content creation team just can't win.
Adam/James/Lauren/Todd quit and moved to bigger(and better?) things, either I'm hyperfocused on the new content because it's not just class 101s and encounters. I, personally, didn't like James' articles, but I thought he was a good content creator. His style just wasn't my style. There was one article he did that I commented on in Barbarian 101 that it was just incoherent toward the end, but the rest were fine. Pointing out typos or things against the rules(in the books) I'm down for, but that's really it. I think the discussion should be on the article's content and how to apply it.
I don't know, I just don't understand it. The newest one is a good example. There are posts that are crying about telling people about Sorlocks, how multiclassing certain characters are bad, etc.
Why? What's the point?
I read those articles. I seldom comment on them. James is an adequate writer, who was clearly a rah rah type of guy. The new article of Saige's was flawed from the get go.The quality of the writing is solid, the mechanics as described is fine. But no article should ever have "Multi-classing", "Beginners", and 101 in the title. Multi-classing is the same as playing a Warlock. No one should try it until they have an expert grasp on the game mechanics. And at that point, they don't need a tutorial on how to do it.
The drawbacks of spell casters MC'ing MUST be carefully understood, and only a ton of game experience does that. Saige barely scratches on that. Right now I am playing in a campaign where all 5 of the players have some level of spell-casting, and we are 14th level. We should be able to handle just about anything. No so. Two of the players MC'ed as Arcane Tricksters/Artificers, with the predicted results of incredibly low levels only to cast. I am playing a pure Hexblade, and have the 2nd best set of spells next to the Storm Sorcerer. We are weak in so many ways for a 14th level crew.
My guess is that DDB does not pay particularly well, and once writers gain some experience, they move on to better jobs. Do I have proof of that? Not really. But the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong.
Saiges article isn't flawed. It's not. It speaks to multiclassing from a flavor perspective and how that can be used to really enhance a character's backstory. It's a 101. Hey, did you know this option exists? No? Let's talk about it. Ok, here are some flavor options.
Your personal table issues with multiclassing are irrelevant to this thread.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
I have an 8 year old MC'ing a Circle of Moon Druid / Drakewarden Ranger. Vince, you realize 5e and much of the prior editions were written for the 11-13 y.o. demographic, right?
The WandaVision article didn't ring right. There was too much of an assumption that we're all binging the Disney+ when we're not playing D&D in that one. I liked the adapting the game to varying age groups, and the Twitch chat on the article I thought was well done and good comment side scroll on that too. I also found the ooze article a fun read so much I may humor a friends out of game hinting that he'd like to see more, that is some, gelatinous cube action in our game. I think I'm actually going to revisit OotA to frame a ooze invasion arc. Haven't read the MC one yet, but multi classing isn't the "challenge" it used to be with required achievements and hurdles etc to be granted a multiclass character back in AD&D just isn't the way anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's like the content creation team just can't win.
Adam/James/Lauren/Todd quit and moved to bigger(and better?) things, either I'm hyperfocused on the new content because it's not just class 101s and encounters. I, personally, didn't like James' articles, but I thought he was a good content creator. His style just wasn't my style. There was one article he did that I commented on in Barbarian 101 that it was just incoherent toward the end, but the rest were fine. Pointing out typos or things against the rules(in the books) I'm down for, but that's really it. I think the discussion should be on the article's content and how to apply it.
I don't know, I just don't understand it. The newest one is a good example. There are posts that are crying about telling people about Sorlocks, how multiclassing certain characters are bad, etc.
Why? What's the point?
I read those articles. I seldom comment on them. James is an adequate writer, who was clearly a rah rah type of guy. The new article of Saige's was flawed from the get go.The quality of the writing is solid, the mechanics as described is fine. But no article should ever have "Multi-classing", "Beginners", and 101 in the title. Multi-classing is the same as playing a Warlock. No one should try it until they have an expert grasp on the game mechanics. And at that point, they don't need a tutorial on how to do it.
The drawbacks of spell casters MC'ing MUST be carefully understood, and only a ton of game experience does that. Saige barely scratches on that. Right now I am playing in a campaign where all 5 of the players have some level of spell-casting, and we are 14th level. We should be able to handle just about anything. No so. Two of the players MC'ed as Arcane Tricksters/Artificers, with the predicted results of incredibly low levels only to cast. I am playing a pure Hexblade, and have the 2nd best set of spells next to the Storm Sorcerer. We are weak in so many ways for a 14th level crew.
My guess is that DDB does not pay particularly well, and once writers gain some experience, they move on to better jobs. Do I have proof of that? Not really. But the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong.
Saiges article isn't flawed. It's not. It speaks to multiclassing from a flavor perspective and how that can be used to really enhance a character's backstory. It's a 101. Hey, did you know this option exists? No? Let's talk about it. Ok, here are some flavor options.
Your personal table issues with multiclassing are irrelevant to this thread.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
I have an 8 year old MC'ing a Circle of Moon Druid / Drakewarden Ranger. Vince, you realize 5e and much of the prior editions were written for the 11-13 y.o. demographic, right?
The WandaVision article didn't ring right. There was too much of an assumption that we're all binging the Disney+ when we're not playing D&D in that one. I liked the adapting the game to varying age groups, and the Twitch chat on the article I thought was well done and good comment side scroll on that too. I also found the ooze article a fun read so much I may humor a friends out of game hinting that he'd like to see more, that is some, gelatinous cube action in our game. I think I'm actually going to revisit OotA to frame a ooze invasion arc. Haven't read the MC one yet, but multi classing isn't the "challenge" it used to be with required achievements and hurdles etc to be granted a multiclass character back in AD&D just isn't the way anymore.
I really didn't have an issue with the WandaVision article either. It's a popular show. Plenty of D&D games out there are some form of weird homebrew setting of a TV show. I thought it was a very detailed take on one specific show which is very weird, but while system do exist for superhero themed games, plenty of people use D&D for it instead.
As the person who commented about Sorlocks, for the record, it was a snarky joke comment that also pointed out the fact that a lot of DMs don’t allow them, so maybe don’t lead new players into building a character that they’ll be disappointed when they find it doesn’t work as intended. I wasn’t trashing the writer.
I dunno, I read maybe, 2 or 3 of the articles. They were... articles. 🤷♂️ The only one I can specifically remember reading was WotFE, and that was because of synchronicity thing since I was in a campaign with someone who was playing one at the time. (His ideas to improve the subclass, in that one that were, well let’s face it “lower the Ki coasts for the powers” is not the most inspired of concepts, but his numbers were about right. I honestly don’t really remember anything else in the article.
To be honest I almost never look at the front page at all. I mean I see it, but rarely actually look at it. You know when you want something to nosh so you look in the fridge but then don’t see anything that you want so you just meh? That’s kinda how I feel whenever I look at the front page.
Maybe if there was a “201” series or something?
Edit: And if it hadn’t taken me 2 weeks to figure out how the heck to unsubscribe from an article the first time I posted in one I would likely have had a better association with them.
As the person who commented about Sorlocks, for the record, it was a snarky joke comment that also pointed out the fact that a lot of DMs don’t allow them, so maybe don’t lead new players into building a character that they’ll be disappointed when they find it doesn’t work as intended. I wasn’t trashing the writer.
Then that's a question for the DM and that player. That being said, RAW, the option exists. It's valid, and if a player is going to make that choice that's fine. There are plenty of ways to DM and adjudicate and get around the "UNLIMITED POWER" that you keep stating. If a Sorcerer is really going to invest the time into going into Warlock, which is going to inhibit all normal spell progression with the exception of some extra cantrips? That isn't an issue. If you have a player who is trying to abuse the short rest mechanic, then inhibit them or impose a short rest limit. Things to always remember are that Sorcerers can only have as many Sorc Points equal to their Sorcerer level, so if a character is say, level 6, and now wants to take that 3 level dip into warlock? They'll be able to burn those two warlock slots for a 4th level spell slot, which they can't even cast yet. They took THREE levels of a class to do that. They lost an ASI, spell progression on sorcerer side to do this. All so they could what, Eldritch Blast on a bonus action Quickened Spell with Hex? As a Sorcerer? If that's what that player finds enjoyable, sure.
RAW, it's an easy multiclass and the flavor is great. A Sorcerer has the innate ability for magic, but now they're enlisting some "higher power" for it, but it's not your standard 5e Deity so the interaction is different. I love when players make multiclass decisions from a roleplay perspective. That's what the article is impressing.
It's like the content creation team just can't win.
Adam/James/Lauren/Todd quit and moved to bigger(and better?) things, either I'm hyperfocused on the new content because it's not just class 101s and encounters. I, personally, didn't like James' articles, but I thought he was a good content creator. His style just wasn't my style. There was one article he did that I commented on in Barbarian 101 that it was just incoherent toward the end, but the rest were fine. Pointing out typos or things against the rules(in the books) I'm down for, but that's really it. I think the discussion should be on the article's content and how to apply it.
I don't know, I just don't understand it. The newest one is a good example. There are posts that are crying about telling people about Sorlocks, how multiclassing certain characters are bad, etc.
Why? What's the point?
I read those articles. I seldom comment on them. James is an adequate writer, who was clearly a rah rah type of guy. The new article of Saige's was flawed from the get go.The quality of the writing is solid, the mechanics as described is fine. But no article should ever have "Multi-classing", "Beginners", and 101 in the title. Multi-classing is the same as playing a Warlock. No one should try it until they have an expert grasp on the game mechanics. And at that point, they don't need a tutorial on how to do it.
The drawbacks of spell casters MC'ing MUST be carefully understood, and only a ton of game experience does that. Saige barely scratches on that. Right now I am playing in a campaign where all 5 of the players have some level of spell-casting, and we are 14th level. We should be able to handle just about anything. No so. Two of the players MC'ed as Arcane Tricksters/Artificers, with the predicted results of incredibly low levels only to cast. I am playing a pure Hexblade, and have the 2nd best set of spells next to the Storm Sorcerer. We are weak in so many ways for a 14th level crew.
My guess is that DDB does not pay particularly well, and once writers gain some experience, they move on to better jobs. Do I have proof of that? Not really. But the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong.
Saiges article isn't flawed. It's not. It speaks to multiclassing from a flavor perspective and how that can be used to really enhance a character's backstory. It's a 101. Hey, did you know this option exists? No? Let's talk about it. Ok, here are some flavor options.
Your personal table issues with multiclassing are irrelevant to this thread.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
I have an 8 year old MC'ing a Circle of Moon Druid / Drakewarden Ranger. Vince, you realize 5e and much of the prior editions were written for the 11-13 y.o. demographic, right?
The WandaVision article didn't ring right. There was too much of an assumption that we're all binging the Disney+ when we're not playing D&D in that one. I liked the adapting the game to varying age groups, and the Twitch chat on the article I thought was well done and good comment side scroll on that too. I also found the ooze article a fun read so much I may humor a friends out of game hinting that he'd like to see more, that is some, gelatinous cube action in our game. I think I'm actually going to revisit OotA to frame a ooze invasion arc. Haven't read the MC one yet, but multi classing isn't the "challenge" it used to be with required achievements and hurdles etc to be granted a multiclass character back in AD&D just isn't the way anymore.
I really didn't have an issue with the WandaVision article either. It's a popular show. Plenty of D&D games out there are some form of weird homebrew setting of a TV show. I thought it was a very detailed take on one specific show which is very weird, but while system do exist for superhero themed games, plenty of people use D&D for it instead.
Most of D&D is appropriated from somewhere else. There are literally hours of YouTube footage of folks pontificating on how to do it. Frankly it rang more of an article assigned via Search Engine Optimization than anything else. And as I put in my comment in that article I think, it's problematic for someone to hold forth on how to run a Hex in their game, when Hex already means something in the game. I think some comments go across the line, but this seemed more SEO bloggery than on target writing, and I really wouldn't want DDB creative going in that direction (which is a common maneuver for a publishing outlet to do after they found their prior content stable empty).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Edit: And if it hadn’t taken me 2 weeks to figure out how the heck to unsubscribe from an article the first time I posted in one I would likely have had a better association with them.
I just figured that out too! No more "Dude, Way of Shadows rock, I'm totally making a ninja for my game" comments showing up in my comment subscription queue x months later.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Edit: And if it hadn’t taken me 2 weeks to figure out how the heck to unsubscribe from an article the first time I posted in one I would likely have had a better association with them.
It is literally the worst part about them. Takes me ******* days to figure it out every time...
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To be honest I almost never look at the front page at all. I mean I see it, but rarely actually look at it. You know when you want something to nosh so you look in the fridge but then don’t see anything that you want so you just meh? That’s kinda how I feel whenever I look at the front page.
This is how I have felt about DDB articles all along, not just with the new batch of writers. Perfectly describes it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Panjurgan, I think we agree that D&D is NOT an easy game to master. Anything with over 500 pages of core rules can't be easy. Multi-classing takes the experience of playing before it should be tried. If you have new players trying out this delicate thing, you end up with chaos at a table. I don't know how many times I have had to correct players that completely misunderstood how many skills could be added when a new class was added, and oh man, when combining third caster and full caster classes. New players simply can't get that right. Same goes for Warlocks, whether played as a pure class, or worse, multi-classed with something like a Sorcerer. New players invariably get the set up wrong, and the entire table then pays as the DM either has to educate the player, or the player has super-powers as they take all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks.
I read some of the old articles like 2 years ago and quickly decided they weren't for me - so I set my My Notifications page as my DNDBeyond homepage - and have probably visited the front page maybe two or three times since then. If they're still making 101 articles then I don't think that's likely to change.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Panjurgan, I think we agree that D&D is NOT an easy game to master. Anything with over 500 pages of core rules can't be easy. Multi-classing takes the experience of playing before it should be tried. If you have new players trying out this delicate thing, you end up with chaos at a table. I don't know how many times I have had to correct players that completely misunderstood how many skills could be added when a new class was added, and oh man, when combining third caster and full caster classes. New players simply can't get that right. Same goes for Warlocks, whether played as a pure class, or worse, multi-classed with something like a Sorcerer. New players invariably get the set up wrong, and the entire table then pays as the DM either has to educate the player, or the player has super-powers as they take all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks.
Considering my goal for new players is to have them playing in 45 mins to an hour without necessarily having to have read a single page of the rules, I think we very likely don't agree on quite a lot of things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Panjurgan, I think we agree that D&D is NOT an easy game to master. Anything with over 500 pages of core rules can't be easy. Multi-classing takes the experience of playing before it should be tried. If you have new players trying out this delicate thing, you end up with chaos at a table. I don't know how many times I have had to correct players that completely misunderstood how many skills could be added when a new class was added, and oh man, when combining third caster and full caster classes. New players simply can't get that right. Same goes for Warlocks, whether played as a pure class, or worse, multi-classed with something like a Sorcerer. New players invariably get the set up wrong, and the entire table then pays as the DM either has to educate the player, or the player has super-powers as they take all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks.
Considering my goal for new players is to have them playing in 45 mins to an hour without necessarily having to have read a single page of the rules, I think we very likely don't agree on quite a lot of things.
I see what you are going for and I think that its a not a bad idea in theory but I do think you should at least read the combat section of the basic rules (Chapter 9) which is about 8 pages.
If you are only planning on doing a one shot then yeah you can likely walk people through the process no problem and that would be just fine.
If you are planning on doing a full campaign then I would expect people to read a good chunk of the basic rules as they will be married to this character for some time and should understand its basics at least.
DnD is a game that does require more commitment from those playing it and in my opinion you as a player should realize this and likely put more effort in to understand it if you are signing up for a full on campaign.
One shots though I rarely have people read the rules so we are on the same page there.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Panjurgan, I think we agree that D&D is NOT an easy game to master. Anything with over 500 pages of core rules can't be easy. Multi-classing takes the experience of playing before it should be tried. If you have new players trying out this delicate thing, you end up with chaos at a table. I don't know how many times I have had to correct players that completely misunderstood how many skills could be added when a new class was added, and oh man, when combining third caster and full caster classes. New players simply can't get that right. Same goes for Warlocks, whether played as a pure class, or worse, multi-classed with something like a Sorcerer. New players invariably get the set up wrong, and the entire table then pays as the DM either has to educate the player, or the player has super-powers as they take all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks.
Considering my goal for new players is to have them playing in 45 mins to an hour without necessarily having to have read a single page of the rules, I think we very likely don't agree on quite a lot of things.
Based on that comment, Dungeon World is that way ----->. D&D is a rules based game. To have people dive in without a clue of what they are doing.......
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's like the content creation team just can't win.
Adam/James/Lauren/Todd quit and moved to bigger(and better?) things, either I'm hyperfocused on the new content because it's not just class 101s and encounters. I, personally, didn't like James' articles, but I thought he was a good content creator. His style just wasn't my style. There was one article he did that I commented on in Barbarian 101 that it was just incoherent toward the end, but the rest were fine. Pointing out typos or things against the rules(in the books) I'm down for, but that's really it. I think the discussion should be on the article's content and how to apply it.
I don't know, I just don't understand it. The newest one is a good example. There are posts that are crying about telling people about Sorlocks, how multiclassing certain characters are bad, etc.
Why? What's the point?
I read those articles. I seldom comment on them. James is an adequate writer, who was clearly a rah rah type of guy. The new article of Saige's was flawed from the get go.The quality of the writing is solid, the mechanics as described is fine. But no article should ever have "Multi-classing", "Beginners", and 101 in the title. Multi-classing is the same as playing a Warlock. No one should try it until they have an expert grasp on the game mechanics. And at that point, they don't need a tutorial on how to do it.
The drawbacks of spell casters MC'ing MUST be carefully understood, and only a ton of game experience does that. Saige barely scratches on that. Right now I am playing in a campaign where all 5 of the players have some level of spell-casting, and we are 14th level. We should be able to handle just about anything. No so. Two of the players MC'ed as Arcane Tricksters/Artificers, with the predicted results of incredibly low levels only to cast. I am playing a pure Hexblade, and have the 2nd best set of spells next to the Storm Sorcerer. We are weak in so many ways for a 14th level crew.
My guess is that DDB does not pay particularly well, and once writers gain some experience, they move on to better jobs. Do I have proof of that? Not really. But the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong.
I genuinely don't get it either. As much as I hate using this word, it's like there is a sense of entitlement that some of these people have. "This article doesn't cater to my personal and specific interests, therefore that makes it bad!"
Like, chill the **** out. Not everything revolves around you people. There was PLENTY I didn't like about the old articles, but I sure as shit didn't throw a hissyfit like some of those babypeople do...
Saiges article isn't flawed. It's not. It speaks to multiclassing from a flavor perspective and how that can be used to really enhance a character's backstory. It's a 101. Hey, did you know this option exists? No? Let's talk about it. Ok, here are some flavor options.
Your personal table issues with multiclassing are irrelevant to this thread.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
I have an 8 year old MCing a Circle of Moon Druid / Drakewarden Ranger playing for her first time.
I have an 8 year old MC'ing a Circle of Moon Druid / Drakewarden Ranger. Vince, you realize 5e and much of the prior editions were written for the 11-13 y.o. demographic, right?
The WandaVision article didn't ring right. There was too much of an assumption that we're all binging the Disney+ when we're not playing D&D in that one. I liked the adapting the game to varying age groups, and the Twitch chat on the article I thought was well done and good comment side scroll on that too. I also found the ooze article a fun read so much I may humor a friends out of game hinting that he'd like to see more, that is some, gelatinous cube action in our game. I think I'm actually going to revisit OotA to frame a ooze invasion arc. Haven't read the MC one yet, but multi classing isn't the "challenge" it used to be with required achievements and hurdles etc to be granted a multiclass character back in AD&D just isn't the way anymore.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I really didn't have an issue with the WandaVision article either. It's a popular show. Plenty of D&D games out there are some form of weird homebrew setting of a TV show. I thought it was a very detailed take on one specific show which is very weird, but while system do exist for superhero themed games, plenty of people use D&D for it instead.
As the person who commented about Sorlocks, for the record, it was a snarky joke comment that also pointed out the fact that a lot of DMs don’t allow them, so maybe don’t lead new players into building a character that they’ll be disappointed when they find it doesn’t work as intended. I wasn’t trashing the writer.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I dunno, I read maybe, 2 or 3 of the articles. They were... articles. 🤷♂️ The only one I can specifically remember reading was WotFE, and that was because of synchronicity thing since I was in a campaign with someone who was playing one at the time. (His ideas to improve the subclass, in that one that were, well let’s face it “lower the Ki coasts for the powers” is not the most inspired of concepts, but his numbers were about right. I honestly don’t really remember anything else in the article.
To be honest I almost never look at the front page at all. I mean I see it, but rarely actually look at it. You know when you want something to nosh so you look in the fridge but then don’t see anything that you want so you just meh? That’s kinda how I feel whenever I look at the front page.
Maybe if there was a “201” series or something?
Edit: And if it hadn’t taken me 2 weeks to figure out how the heck to unsubscribe from an article the first time I posted in one I would likely have had a better association with them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then that's a question for the DM and that player. That being said, RAW, the option exists. It's valid, and if a player is going to make that choice that's fine. There are plenty of ways to DM and adjudicate and get around the "UNLIMITED POWER" that you keep stating. If a Sorcerer is really going to invest the time into going into Warlock, which is going to inhibit all normal spell progression with the exception of some extra cantrips? That isn't an issue. If you have a player who is trying to abuse the short rest mechanic, then inhibit them or impose a short rest limit. Things to always remember are that Sorcerers can only have as many Sorc Points equal to their Sorcerer level, so if a character is say, level 6, and now wants to take that 3 level dip into warlock? They'll be able to burn those two warlock slots for a 4th level spell slot, which they can't even cast yet. They took THREE levels of a class to do that. They lost an ASI, spell progression on sorcerer side to do this. All so they could what, Eldritch Blast on a bonus action Quickened Spell with Hex? As a Sorcerer? If that's what that player finds enjoyable, sure.
RAW, it's an easy multiclass and the flavor is great. A Sorcerer has the innate ability for magic, but now they're enlisting some "higher power" for it, but it's not your standard 5e Deity so the interaction is different. I love when players make multiclass decisions from a roleplay perspective. That's what the article is impressing.
Most of D&D is appropriated from somewhere else. There are literally hours of YouTube footage of folks pontificating on how to do it. Frankly it rang more of an article assigned via Search Engine Optimization than anything else. And as I put in my comment in that article I think, it's problematic for someone to hold forth on how to run a Hex in their game, when Hex already means something in the game. I think some comments go across the line, but this seemed more SEO bloggery than on target writing, and I really wouldn't want DDB creative going in that direction (which is a common maneuver for a publishing outlet to do after they found their prior content stable empty).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I just figured that out too! No more "Dude, Way of Shadows rock, I'm totally making a ninja for my game" comments showing up in my comment subscription queue x months later.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It is literally the worst part about them. Takes me ******* days to figure it out every time...
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is how I have felt about DDB articles all along, not just with the new batch of writers. Perfectly describes it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Panjurgan, I think we agree that D&D is NOT an easy game to master. Anything with over 500 pages of core rules can't be easy. Multi-classing takes the experience of playing before it should be tried. If you have new players trying out this delicate thing, you end up with chaos at a table. I don't know how many times I have had to correct players that completely misunderstood how many skills could be added when a new class was added, and oh man, when combining third caster and full caster classes. New players simply can't get that right. Same goes for Warlocks, whether played as a pure class, or worse, multi-classed with something like a Sorcerer. New players invariably get the set up wrong, and the entire table then pays as the DM either has to educate the player, or the player has super-powers as they take all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks.
I read some of the old articles like 2 years ago and quickly decided they weren't for me - so I set my My Notifications page as my DNDBeyond homepage - and have probably visited the front page maybe two or three times since then. If they're still making 101 articles then I don't think that's likely to change.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Considering my goal for new players is to have them playing in 45 mins to an hour without necessarily having to have read a single page of the rules, I think we very likely don't agree on quite a lot of things.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I see what you are going for and I think that its a not a bad idea in theory but I do think you should at least read the combat section of the basic rules (Chapter 9) which is about 8 pages.
If you are only planning on doing a one shot then yeah you can likely walk people through the process no problem and that would be just fine.
If you are planning on doing a full campaign then I would expect people to read a good chunk of the basic rules as they will be married to this character for some time and should understand its basics at least.
DnD is a game that does require more commitment from those playing it and in my opinion you as a player should realize this and likely put more effort in to understand it if you are signing up for a full on campaign.
One shots though I rarely have people read the rules so we are on the same page there.
Based on that comment, Dungeon World is that way ----->. D&D is a rules based game. To have people dive in without a clue of what they are doing.......