I would like to see a every class have a really solid feature that they start with at level one that only functions if they only have levels in that class and no other.
While it doesn't apply "At level 1" the Epic Boon is basically that. You can only get it if you level a class to 20. Although with the "Boons past level 20" rules they mention players could still get them, just later, leading to my next point. I mean... most growth applies to that as well. You get X improvement sooner than if you multi classed. This is especially true as classes are looking to be more standardized, i.e. Subclasses get their stuff at the same level regardless of class. Characters also get something every level (seems to be the goal).
Also...what would it be? I mean it would have to be something that scales, since everyone would automatically get it at level 1 (since you can't multiclass at level 1) And be relevant through 19-20?
I don't see multiclassing being so common or advantageous that an extra bonus would need to apply.
So, if you multiclass, you unlearn or forget something? Bad idea. No one likes losing stuff. Loss of access to high level features is already a price enough.
This idea is terrible, there is already a cost to multi-tasking to begin with and from a optimisation point of view, multiclassing is only done when the benefits outweigh the costs. This idea would kill of multiclassing near entirely.
I might be reading this wrong but I'm taking Class Loyalty as sticking with the same class from levels 1-20 because doing 1-20 levels is just Epic Boon as Lightsmith said.
A class loyalty perk for staying that solo class could be cool. Maybe you get an extra Epic Boon tailored to that class or a bonus ASI for the dominate stats for that class? As an example a Barbarian could do a +2 or two +1s to Strength and/or Constitution.
I might be reading this wrong but I'm taking Class Loyalty as sticking with the same class from levels 1-20 because doing 1-20 levels is just Epic Boon as Lightsmith said.
A class loyalty perk for staying that solo class could be cool. Maybe you get an extra Epic Boon tailored to that class or a bonus ASI for the dominate stats for that class? As an example a Barbarian could do a +2 or two +1s to Strength and/or Constitution.
You already get an Epic Boon over a multi-class character, even a 1 level dip into another class stops you getting the level 20 epic boon. It doesn't need anything more, the cost of multiclass is that class features come online later and the benefits of multi-classing rarely actually exceed that cost, there are only a few limited cases.
So, if you multiclass, you unlearn or forget something? Bad idea. No one likes losing stuff. Loss of access to high level features is already a price enough.
I agree with Kam. Epic Boons already are a reward for "loyalty" to your class. But taking away, or making an ability only usable, if you have not multiclassed actively punishes players for making more creative builds. In addition, it means you have to remove features you already got. If you don't want people to multiclass, which I honestly don't know why you wouldn't want them to do, then reward them for "loyalty" instead of punishing or take away abilities and features just because they took a small multiclass dip,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I plan on removing many things from the class list into a level list to prevent the "focus on one class because it may make my GMing duties easier" idea that I have seen thrown around. Having to deal with issues as a GM is just as much a deal as with players walking to to unknown situations and not knowing the best course to take automatically.
Hmmm...multiclassing already delays several features, prevents you from getting capstone abilities and you have to be knowledgeable to get MCs that actually work. I mean, I've seen several suggestions that made even me think that it's not going to work.
I'm not the most perceptive when it comes to power gaming, so maybe I'm just not getting it, but it seems like MCing is already heavily penalised (except for a few builds), enough that I generally won't touch it. Does it need more deterrence?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
First, the argument that multi-classing means they opt out of the level 20 Epic Boon feat is nonsensical. They have admitted that, statistically speaking, almost nobody plays at that level. I suspect the reason they dropped the class "Capstone" features down was that as a 20th level feature they were almost completely meaningless in the game.
Second, the argument that this will just punish multi-classer is on point, in fact it is the point.
Third the argument that "taking away things is bad" needs to be better supported. When I multiclass from a Barbarian to a Wizard my d12hd gets stepped down to a d6 from that level on. I am giving something up from my old class to Multi-Class.
If as a Wizard I have a class feature that lets me add my Proficiency Bonus to spell damage because I am focused on that pursuit, and once I lose that focus by simultaneously practicing two disciplines how is that bad?
First, the argument that multi-classing means they opt out of the level 20 Epic Boon feat is nonsensical. They have admitted that, statistically speaking, almost nobody plays at that level. I suspect the reason they dropped the class "Capstone" features down was that as a 20th level feature they were almost completely meaningless in the game.
All progression is delayed. Also, I think there are quite a lot of L20 characters being played - it's an obvious power-trip oneshot level.
Second, the argument that this will just punish multi-classer is on point, in fact it is the point.
The question is more whether MCing needs punishment. Rather like the off repeated caster v martial debate where it seems a lot of people want to simply punish casters rather than actually address the problem, we need to be sure to not simply punishing MCers, but addressing an actual problem and using a solution appropriate to it. I can see some MC combos are OP, but most of the time I don't think it's worth it even as things are.
Third the argument that "taking away things is bad" needs to be better supported. When I multiclass from a Barbarian to a Wizard my d12hd gets stepped down to a d6 from that level on. I am giving something up from my old class to Multi-Class.
Taking something away is automatically bad unless it's for an ultimately good purpose. Like breaking an egg. It's not a good thing to break eggs, unless you have to in order to make an omelette.
If as a Wizard I have a class feature that lets me add my Proficiency Bonus to spell damage because I am focused on that pursuit, and once I lose that focus by simultaneously practicing two disciplines how is that bad?
See above. I'm a lot more comfortable with natural consequences than enforced ones. Delayed level progression is a natural consequence, and it sucks, but follows from choices made.. On the other hand saying "I really don't like you taking levels in anything other than this one, so I'm going to take away your toy" is something that really needs strong justification. If there needs to be a stronger incentive to stay single class, perhaps a steeper power increase in abilities where the more powerful abilities require more investment into the class than just the first couple of levels. This could be achieved either by spreading them out further so we don't have levels without abilities, or adding new ones to the ones we already have. That kind of consequence makes more sense than punishing players.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So, if you multiclass, you unlearn or forget something? Bad idea. No one likes losing stuff. Loss of access to high level features is already a price enough.
How much of a price is it really if the High Level Feature lost is at a level that seldom sees plays?
First, the argument that multi-classing means they opt out of the level 20 Epic Boon feat is nonsensical. They have admitted that, statistically speaking, almost nobody plays at that level. I suspect the reason they dropped the class "Capstone" features down was that as a 20th level feature they were almost completely meaningless in the game.
Second, the argument that this will just punish multi-classer is on point, in fact it is the point.
Third the argument that "taking away things is bad" needs to be better supported. When I multiclass from a Barbarian to a Wizard my d12hd gets stepped down to a d6 from that level on. I am giving something up from my old class to Multi-Class.
If as a Wizard I have a class feature that lets me add my Proficiency Bonus to spell damage because I am focused on that pursuit, and once I lose that focus by simultaneously practicing two disciplines how is that bad?
And this is why your idea is terrible, you just want to punish people who play in a way you don't like. That is not conductive to a good player experience and it is not conductive to a good game. There is literally no reason to punish people for multiclassing, this is just about your own personal bias and not about any fundamental issue caused by multiclassing.
The issues in multiclassing need addressing within the features that create the overpowered builds, and that is all. IIRC Jeremy Crawford said they are taking the opportunity to streamline multiclassing within one D&D. Why would WotC want to streamline multiclassing? Because the feature is popular with player but it is a little janky in implementation, multiclassing fundamentally is good for the game and trying to destroy or remove it only makes the game worse.
The issues in multiclassing need addressing within the features that create the overpowered builds, and that is all. IIRC Jeremy Crawford said they are taking the opportunity to streamline multiclassing within one D&D. Why would WotC want to streamline multiclassing? Because the feature is popular with player but it is a little janky in implementation, multiclassing fundamentally is good for the game and trying to destroy or remove it only makes the game worse.
What needs addressing is that the costs to MC need to return to the front end of the concept rather than the backend as has been the norm since 3e. As I asked up thread how much of a "price" is that OP build at lower levels if the "cost" is deferred to a level of the game the player knows they will never see?
As broken as Multi/Dual Classing was in 2e; at least the costs for the power bump were paid in the beginning. and stream line the process? dear gods please no... Pathfinder 1e shows the error of that path. Characters with more dips than a Baskin Robbins Super Sunday, that make Puffin Forrests "Abserd" look tame in comparison. If anything the process needs to be a bit more restrictive to prevent that nonsense.
How much of a price is it really if the High Level Feature lost is at a level that seldom sees plays?
Thing is, you don't get stuff from mid-levels of both classes either. If you're a martial, you gotta stick to one class to at least get an extra attack. Then if you don't continue the same class, you don't get level 11 upgrade, like a second extra attack or improved divine smite. Martial arts die stops growing rage bonus stops growing. There's enough incentives to stay with one class as it is.
How much of a price is it really if the High Level Feature lost is at a level that seldom sees plays?
Thing is, you don't get stuff from mid-levels of both classes either. If you're a martial, you gotta stick to one class to at least get an extra attack. Then if you don't continue the same class, you don't get level 11 upgrade, like a second extra attack or improved divine smite. Martial arts die stops growing rage bonus stops growing. There's enough incentives to stay with one class as it is.
Obviously not or I would not have complete newbies to the hobby STILL show up at my table thinking they have to take a two level dip in fighter to be a "viable" wizard/sorcerer/cleric etc... because the interwebs told them so.
The process is too easy and the average game according to WotCs own metrics seldom reaches level 12 and rarely exceeds level 10. Which means the broken crap everyone is after is on the front end of the game. Not at some theoretical later time in the game that we all know will never arrive. Therefore the costs for a boost in power should be incurred at the time of obtaining said boost. (2E multi/dual-classing had its flaws but at least the power boosts didn't arrive until after the costs were paid.)
Obviously not or I would not have complete newbies to the hobby STILL show up at my table thinking they have to take a two level dip in fighter to be a "viable" wizard/sorcerer/cleric etc... because the interwebs told them so.
The process is too easy and the average game according to WotCs own metrics seldom reaches level 12 and rarely exceeds level 10. Which means the broken crap everyone is after is on the front end of the game. Not at some theoretical later time in the game that we all know will never arrive. Therefore the costs for a boost in power should be incurred at the time of obtaining said boost. (2E multi/dual-classing had its flaws but at least the power boosts didn't arrive until after the costs were paid.)
Ah, the 1-2-level dips. Yes, I recognize this as a design flaw. Yet, a simplistic, up-front solution like OP suggested is not really good enough, as besides a prospect of a penalty if you go against class purism, it holds different wieght for different classes. It's going to fight a big temptation in a wizard, but a monk wouldn't really care.
WotC seems to be solving the 1-2-level dips in a more complex way across the system. Lightly armored feat now provides you with medium armor training and shield training for the price of one feat. Now casters can take that instead of one level dip in fighter to take care of their basic defenses. We'll have to wait and see how they fix hexblade to disincentivize palading from solving their MAD with hex weapon, though I suspect that given how subclass features are distributed across levels - now same across at least expert classes, they could move it to warlock level 3 as well. Time will show, but I can definitely tell WotC are moving in that direction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would like to see a every class have a really solid feature that they start with at level one that only functions if they only have levels in that class and no other.
Abide.
While it doesn't apply "At level 1" the Epic Boon is basically that. You can only get it if you level a class to 20. Although with the "Boons past level 20" rules they mention players could still get them, just later, leading to my next point.
I mean... most growth applies to that as well. You get X improvement sooner than if you multi classed. This is especially true as classes are looking to be more standardized, i.e. Subclasses get their stuff at the same level regardless of class. Characters also get something every level (seems to be the goal).
Also...what would it be? I mean it would have to be something that scales, since everyone would automatically get it at level 1 (since you can't multiclass at level 1) And be relevant through 19-20?
I don't see multiclassing being so common or advantageous that an extra bonus would need to apply.
I'm fine with trying to ensure multiclassing is a legitimate tradeoff, but spreading more power throughout levels feels like a cleaner way to do so.
Taking features away from characters almost always feels bad.
So, if you multiclass, you unlearn or forget something? Bad idea. No one likes losing stuff. Loss of access to high level features is already a price enough.
This idea is terrible, there is already a cost to multi-tasking to begin with and from a optimisation point of view, multiclassing is only done when the benefits outweigh the costs. This idea would kill of multiclassing near entirely.
Multiclassing to begin with is optional.
I might be reading this wrong but I'm taking Class Loyalty as sticking with the same class from levels 1-20 because doing 1-20 levels is just Epic Boon as Lightsmith said.
A class loyalty perk for staying that solo class could be cool. Maybe you get an extra Epic Boon tailored to that class or a bonus ASI for the dominate stats for that class? As an example a Barbarian could do a +2 or two +1s to Strength and/or Constitution.
You already get an Epic Boon over a multi-class character, even a 1 level dip into another class stops you getting the level 20 epic boon. It doesn't need anything more, the cost of multiclass is that class features come online later and the benefits of multi-classing rarely actually exceed that cost, there are only a few limited cases.
I agree with Kam. Epic Boons already are a reward for "loyalty" to your class. But taking away, or making an ability only usable, if you have not multiclassed actively punishes players for making more creative builds. In addition, it means you have to remove features you already got. If you don't want people to multiclass, which I honestly don't know why you wouldn't want them to do, then reward them for "loyalty" instead of punishing or take away abilities and features just because they took a small multiclass dip,
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I plan on removing many things from the class list into a level list to prevent the "focus on one class because it may make my GMing duties easier" idea that I have seen thrown around. Having to deal with issues as a GM is just as much a deal as with players walking to to unknown situations and not knowing the best course to take automatically.
Hmmm...multiclassing already delays several features, prevents you from getting capstone abilities and you have to be knowledgeable to get MCs that actually work. I mean, I've seen several suggestions that made even me think that it's not going to work.
I'm not the most perceptive when it comes to power gaming, so maybe I'm just not getting it, but it seems like MCing is already heavily penalised (except for a few builds), enough that I generally won't touch it. Does it need more deterrence?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Much better to have feats with specific to class and level prerequisites or (like someone else suggested) better distribution of class features.
They probably won't do class and level specific feats though.
At most they'll do the category specific. i.e. Warrior, Expert, Priest, and w/e the other one is.
First, the argument that multi-classing means they opt out of the level 20 Epic Boon feat is nonsensical. They have admitted that, statistically speaking, almost nobody plays at that level. I suspect the reason they dropped the class "Capstone" features down was that as a 20th level feature they were almost completely meaningless in the game.
Second, the argument that this will just punish multi-classer is on point, in fact it is the point.
Third the argument that "taking away things is bad" needs to be better supported. When I multiclass from a Barbarian to a Wizard my d12hd gets stepped down to a d6 from that level on. I am giving something up from my old class to Multi-Class.
If as a Wizard I have a class feature that lets me add my Proficiency Bonus to spell damage because I am focused on that pursuit, and once I lose that focus by simultaneously practicing two disciplines how is that bad?
Abide.
All progression is delayed. Also, I think there are quite a lot of L20 characters being played - it's an obvious power-trip oneshot level.
The question is more whether MCing needs punishment. Rather like the off repeated caster v martial debate where it seems a lot of people want to simply punish casters rather than actually address the problem, we need to be sure to not simply punishing MCers, but addressing an actual problem and using a solution appropriate to it. I can see some MC combos are OP, but most of the time I don't think it's worth it even as things are.
Taking something away is automatically bad unless it's for an ultimately good purpose. Like breaking an egg. It's not a good thing to break eggs, unless you have to in order to make an omelette.
See above. I'm a lot more comfortable with natural consequences than enforced ones. Delayed level progression is a natural consequence, and it sucks, but follows from choices made.. On the other hand saying "I really don't like you taking levels in anything other than this one, so I'm going to take away your toy" is something that really needs strong justification. If there needs to be a stronger incentive to stay single class, perhaps a steeper power increase in abilities where the more powerful abilities require more investment into the class than just the first couple of levels. This could be achieved either by spreading them out further so we don't have levels without abilities, or adding new ones to the ones we already have. That kind of consequence makes more sense than punishing players.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
How much of a price is it really if the High Level Feature lost is at a level that seldom sees plays?
And this is why your idea is terrible, you just want to punish people who play in a way you don't like. That is not conductive to a good player experience and it is not conductive to a good game. There is literally no reason to punish people for multiclassing, this is just about your own personal bias and not about any fundamental issue caused by multiclassing.
The issues in multiclassing need addressing within the features that create the overpowered builds, and that is all. IIRC Jeremy Crawford said they are taking the opportunity to streamline multiclassing within one D&D. Why would WotC want to streamline multiclassing? Because the feature is popular with player but it is a little janky in implementation, multiclassing fundamentally is good for the game and trying to destroy or remove it only makes the game worse.
What needs addressing is that the costs to MC need to return to the front end of the concept rather than the backend as has been the norm since 3e.
As I asked up thread how much of a "price" is that OP build at lower levels if the "cost" is deferred to a level of the game the player knows they will never see?
As broken as Multi/Dual Classing was in 2e; at least the costs for the power bump were paid in the beginning.
and stream line the process? dear gods please no... Pathfinder 1e shows the error of that path. Characters with more dips than a Baskin Robbins Super Sunday, that make Puffin Forrests "Abserd" look tame in comparison. If anything the process needs to be a bit more restrictive to prevent that nonsense.
Thing is, you don't get stuff from mid-levels of both classes either. If you're a martial, you gotta stick to one class to at least get an extra attack. Then if you don't continue the same class, you don't get level 11 upgrade, like a second extra attack or improved divine smite. Martial arts die stops growing rage bonus stops growing. There's enough incentives to stay with one class as it is.
Obviously not or I would not have complete newbies to the hobby STILL show up at my table thinking they have to take a two level dip in fighter to be a "viable" wizard/sorcerer/cleric etc... because the interwebs told them so.
The process is too easy and the average game according to WotCs own metrics seldom reaches level 12 and rarely exceeds level 10. Which means the broken crap everyone is after is on the front end of the game. Not at some theoretical later time in the game that we all know will never arrive. Therefore the costs for a boost in power should be incurred at the time of obtaining said boost. (2E multi/dual-classing had its flaws but at least the power boosts didn't arrive until after the costs were paid.)
Ah, the 1-2-level dips. Yes, I recognize this as a design flaw. Yet, a simplistic, up-front solution like OP suggested is not really good enough, as besides a prospect of a penalty if you go against class purism, it holds different wieght for different classes. It's going to fight a big temptation in a wizard, but a monk wouldn't really care.
WotC seems to be solving the 1-2-level dips in a more complex way across the system. Lightly armored feat now provides you with medium armor training and shield training for the price of one feat. Now casters can take that instead of one level dip in fighter to take care of their basic defenses. We'll have to wait and see how they fix hexblade to disincentivize palading from solving their MAD with hex weapon, though I suspect that given how subclass features are distributed across levels - now same across at least expert classes, they could move it to warlock level 3 as well. Time will show, but I can definitely tell WotC are moving in that direction.