# How to fix multiclassing?



## Horwath (Nov 15, 2022)

Multiclassing is in theory an optional rule, but I have seen it at 100% of games that I played.
So, in my experience it's a core rule. Same as feats.

Problem with multiclassing is that classes need to be defined early on.
That is have lot's of features at levels 1-3.

early on, that is not a problem, most of the time 6th level single class is better than 3/3 split. but 5/1 could be "cheesed" into some OP combo.
at 10th level 5/5 split will mostly be horrible compared to 10th level character, but 8/2 or 9/1 or 7/3 could again be a problem.

also, to me, even split of two classes would be perfect representation for multiclassing.
And only two classes.

within one level of eachother.

But, how to deal with the power problem of missing higher level features?

solution could come from 3.5e multiclass feats from Complete adventurer/scoundrel.

I.E.
feat: raging shifter:
requires 3 levels in barbarian and druid.
+1 ASI,
Your barbarian and druid levels stack for calculating rage damage and number of usages.
Your barbarian and druid levels stack for calculating wild shape CR and types used.
You can enter rage and wild shape as a same Bonus action if you are moon druid.

some class feature might be too strong so classes could only add half(round up) of their level to other class faetures.

I.E.
Feat: martial stalker:
requires 3 levels in fighter and rogue.
+1 ASI,
Half your fighter levels(round up) add to your sneak attack progression.
half your rogue levels(round up) add to your fighters Extra attack progression.


feat: mystic theurge:
+1 ASI
requires 3 levels in two full casting classes:
Half levels in one class adds to levels in other class for availability of spell levels.
Spells prepared and known stay the same.

that is 6th level wizard/6th level cleric with this feat would both have available 5th level spells as both classes would count as 9th level(6+3) for access to spells.
both classes could still prepare only 6 spells plus their respective casting modifier.
Spell slots would be of a 12th level caster per normal multiclass rules.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 15, 2022)

I think that the fact that multiclassing is so widely used is probably a sign that it is working as intended.   The fact that some people want class features available only to single classed characters is a level of overpowered wish fulfilment that we should approach with caution.

And let's not forget that 1e multi classing wasn't well designed either, balanced by race themed level limits. 

I think a feat that let's you learn a higher level spell than you could otherwise cast feels worth it (balanced against feats granting 2 low level spells).  I'm quite nervous about providing massive scaling benefits for both classes for the cost of a single feat.  Purchasing certain level dependent class features with a feat might be doable but tbh buying 1d6 extra sneak attack is comparable to Martial Adept.   Three attacks must remain high level fighter only though IMO but I appreciate that you would only qualify at levels 16-20.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 15, 2022)

I'd like to see something like 2e multi/dual clsssing as an option.  Maybe with a penalty to proficiency & exp gain.


----------



## Horwath (Nov 15, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I'd like to see something like 2e multi/dual clsssing as an option.  Maybe with a penalty to proficiency & exp gain.



Since many people do milestone leveling and collective XP, any penalty for XP is a nonstarter.
And I really would like to avoid tampering with proficiency bonus, since it's advancement is cornerstone of 5E.
having classes forced into being within one level of each other mimics dualclassing together with feat "tax" to have classes gain some features faster like in dual classing.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Since many people do milestone leveling and collective XP, any penalty for XP is a nonstarter.



How dare an option not be compatible with anything that "many people" might possibly do.  5e needs to shed the one true way that strips the GM toolbox as it moves forward to one d&d


Horwath said:


> And I really would like to avoid tampering with proficiency bonus, since it's advancement is cornerstone of 5E.



That's exactly why a hit to proficiency bonus is one that will really set apart a multiclassed hybrid from a straight single class build.


Horwath said:


> having classes forced into being within one level of each other mimics dualclassing together with feat "tax" to have classes gain some features faster like in dual classing.



Not always & the other penalties make up for that.  Take the stacking spell slot progression & upcasting of spells for example


----------



## TheSword (Nov 15, 2022)

I find with this system the majority of key abilities stack between classes.


Proficiency (the big one!)
HP
Spells per day (another big one that opens up many builds)
Proficiencies (acknowledged by multiclassing or gained by class abilities)
Subclasses

What are the scaling class abilities above 5th level that don’t stack with other class abilities or feats?


Attacks (fighter class only)
Highest level of spell known (Spellcasting classes)
Sneak attack (rogues)
Wildshape power (Druids)
Size of die for boosting abilities (bard, Battlemaster etc)
Rage damage (Barbarian)
Speed (Barbarian, Monk)

It seems to me that the class abilities that you get from levels 1-5 more the make up for the difference in the abilities above.

Maybe highest level spells known is the most painful but look what you gain. In exchange for that 10th level character losing knowledge for 2 5th level slots and 3 4th level slots (that can be filled will upcasted spells - so not a complete waste) the character could be getting a wealth of additional abilities many of which can complement the spellcasters style.

To me it is simple that a multiclass character should not be as affective at a single class ability as a single class character is… that’s the down side to diversifying. The advantage is a wider range of powers.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Nov 15, 2022)

Multiclassing is fine just the way it is in 5e. It provides a lot of flexibility to make the character you want, and it's also remarkably balanced. Both single class and multi class characters are perfectly viable in actual play.

The one change I'd like to see is a way for 50/50 split casters to get a bit more than half the spell progression of either class. Taking more than 1 or 2 levels in a different class is too punishing for casters.


----------



## aurvay (Nov 15, 2022)

The ultimate fix would be making all classes gain subclass features at the same levels (like once in each tier of play for a total of 4 subclass features), so they could create multiclassing subclasses (instead of multiclassing with, say, sorcerer, you take the sorcerer subclass on top of whatever your base class is, at level 1) and be done with multiclassing entirely.


----------



## Horwath (Nov 15, 2022)

aurvay said:


> The ultimate fix would be making all classes gain subclass features at the same levels (like once in each tier of play for a total of 4 subclass features), so they could create multiclassing subclasses (instead of multiclassing with, say, sorcerer, you take the sorcerer subclass on top of whatever your base class is, at level 1) and ban multiclassing entirely.



that could also work.

but that approach maybe would be better worked with feats.

feats.
rogue training: 4th level, 
+1 ASI
gain +1d6 sneak attack, gain one expertise.
you can gain this multiple times, but only once by rogue

Extra attack: requires 8th level
+1 ASI
gain Extra attack feature, this does not stack with extra attack gained from class.

healing hands: 4th level, 
+1 ASI
gain lay on hands, but only 3HP per character level if taken by paladin

practiced spellcaster: 4th level, cannot be full spellcaster
pick a full spellcasting class.
+1 ASI
gain 2 levels of spellcasting in that class.
you can gain this feat multiple times

metamagic adept: 4th level
+1 ASI
learn one metamagic
gain sorcery points equal to your proficiency bonus.
can be taken two times. But only once by sorcerer.


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 15, 2022)

Here is an idea: multiclass is subclass. If you want to multiclass you are taking a version of the other class as your subclass.


----------



## Corinnguard (Nov 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Multiclassing is in theory an optional rule, but I have seen it at 100% of games that I played.
> So, in my experience it's a core rule. Same as feats.
> 
> Problem with multiclassing is that classes need to be defined early on.
> ...



Interesting. Now I know where Level Up: A5e got the idea behind it's multiclass Synergy feats.   From 3.5's Complete Adventurer/Complete Scoundrel. I'll have to revisit my copy of Complete Adventurer now.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Nov 15, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Here is an idea: multiclass is subclass. If you want to multiclass you are taking a version of the other class as your subclass.



Exactly this. 

works pretty well, does not slow the character progression, prevents dips etc


----------



## Corinnguard (Nov 15, 2022)

One D&D could borrow this idea from 1st Edition Pathfinder: Hybrid Classes – d20PFSRD


----------



## Horwath (Nov 15, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> One D&D could borrow this idea from 1st Edition Pathfinder: Hybrid Classes – d20PFSRD



this is certainly a solution but it requires a bunch of new classes to create.


----------



## aco175 (Nov 15, 2022)

I would be onboard with making the classes a subclass.  At 3rd level, my fighter wants to take wizard as a subclass instead of champion.  He gets some stuff but keeps his 2 attacks at 5th level and such.  If he wanted to cast more spells, he could have taken wizard as his class and at 3rd level taken fighter as his subclass.  

The problem is that we want to give cool stuff at low levels to make a class and then penalize/reward (depending on your perspective) people that take the cool stuff from a couple classes and are sitting at 3/3 instead of 6th level.


----------



## OB1 (Nov 15, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Here is an idea: multiclass is subclass. If you want to multiclass you are taking a version of the other class as your subclass.



I get the sense that this is where the PHB subclasses are going in 2024.  Each class will have it's first subclass be in the same class group, and then the other three subclasses for that class will be from the other three class groups.  IE  Rogue (Expert), Rogue (Priest), Rogue (Warrior), Rogue (Mage).


----------



## aco175 (Nov 15, 2022)

OB1 said:


> I get the sense that this is where the PHB subclasses are going in 2024.  Each class will have it's first subclass be in the same class group, and then the other three subclasses for that class will be from the other three class groups.  IE  Rogue (Expert), Rogue (Priest), Rogue (Warrior), Rogue (Mage).



I was thinking that they would go with allowing certain abilities to stack if you multiclass in the same group.  For instance, if you take wizard and sorcerer from the mage group, then tour levels stack for highest spell level known.  A fighter/barbarian would still get 2 attacks at 5th level even if he split 2/3.


----------



## TwoSix (Nov 15, 2022)

I think the first part of adjusting multiclassing is recognizing some of the narrative complications.

First, you have the people who want multiclassing right out of the gate, because their character is someone who doesn't color within the lines and doesn't follow a normal class progression.  So for that narrative, you need something like AD&D gestalt multiclassing or 4e hybrids.

Then, you have the characters who want to switch gears during the course of play because they're pursuing a new path.  I'm a ranger, but I want to focus more on primal magic, so I decide to multiclass to druid.  Or I picked up a spellbook from that evil necromancer, and now my rogue wants to learn magic and multiclass to wizard.  For that kind of narrative, you need something like 2e "dual-classing" or 3e/5e level-by-level class choice.

And then, you have the training complication for the "switch gears" narrative, what I like to call the "multiclass wizard" problem.  This case is where a character wants to take a class that has an assumed narrative of years of training.  This complication primarily impacts wizards, but sometimes other classes that often carry narratives of in-game membership in an organization, such as druids.  

How would I handle it while still keeping to paradigm that resembles 5e:

1)  Something like 4e hybrid is the standard class design.  Classes are thinner, but everyone picks 2.  Instead of class/subclass, characters are all class 1/class 2.  You might pick Fighter/Eldritch Knight if you want to be a warrior with some spell tricks, or Wizard/Eldritch Knight if you want to be a caster that's a bit more front-line.

2)  Backgrounds give more oomph, and 1st level class picks give less.  Your training time as an apprentice mage is explained by your Sage background, not your wizard class.  A 1st level Sage background wizard might know 4-5 spells and have proficiency in Arcana thanks to their background; a 1st level Charlatan wizard might only know 1 spell from their class, but has Stealth and Deception proficiency and some other roguish tricks.


----------



## TheSword (Nov 15, 2022)

For the record we already have multi-class subclasses - the Arcane Trickster and the Eldritch Knight. I don’t think there is enough power in subclasses to provide the kind of punch that people seem to want from the multiclass options. A 5/5 sorcerer/fighter has substantially more spellcasting chops than a level 10 Eldritch knight. Not to mention the fact that the level 5 fighter can also be an eldritch knight and so gain 7th level spell casting power.

It seems that the new feats in 1D&D are linked to a character stat increase so I would be very surprised if they had the punch to fill that gap. Let’s reiterate - Multiclass characters that are as good at spell casting as single class characters is not a virtue!


----------



## payn (Nov 15, 2022)

No to all of this. MC works fine with the exception of warlock. Maybe tune things there and most cheese goes away.


----------



## Amrûnril (Nov 15, 2022)

There are definitely some balance issues with a la carte multiclassing. Some abilities are too strong as a one or two level dip (eldritch blast, rage). Some higher level abilities are too painful to forgo (extra attack, high level spellcasting). But the system gives an amazing level of customizability, and I think that getting rid of it instead of refining it would be a huge mistake.

Sometimes a player has in-character reasons to add a class they weren't planning on, or to stop taking levels in a previous class. Any system that requires a fixed choice at early levels of that requires an even division of levels isn't going to work in those cases. And the process itself of combining levels from multiple sources to realize a distinct character concept is fun for a lot of players.. 

I also think that finding compelling combinations of subclasses is one of the most interesting elements of multiclassing. A Moon Druid multiclass and a Wildfire Druid multiclass are completely different, both mechanically and thematically, and a system that didn't allow that sort of choice would be a huge step backwards.

All that said, I think providing multiclass-like options through feats or subclasses is a great idea, I just think it's important that these be alternatives to the current multiclassing system, rather than replacements.


----------



## Horwath (Nov 15, 2022)

payn said:


> No to all of this. MC works fine with the exception of warlock. Maybe tune things there and most cheese goes away.



1 or 2 levels of warlock is the main offender here.
but there is quite a lot of 1-3 level dips that are cheese here.

fighter: 1 or 2 levels with full caster. heavy armor, con saves, possible 2 spell casting actions in 1st round.

paladin 2 with full Cha caster or warlock, keep those smites coming

various level 1 or maybe 2 levels of cleric, depending on subclass

some sorcerers give good 1st level bonuses, especially to a another full caster, after that you can forget that you are 1st level sorcerer.

barbarian level 2 for any melee build, possible 3rd level for bear totem.

ranger is meh, probably only 3rd level for Gloomstalker

rogue is great as 1st level starter for many combos, 2nd level only if you REALLY need that cunning action. 3rd level Assassin only for some unholy Assassin/gloomstalker/battlemaster alpha striker abomination.


----------



## payn (Nov 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> 1 or 2 levels of warlock is the main offender here.
> but there is quite a lot of 1-3 level dips that are cheese here.
> 
> fighter: 1 or 2 levels with full caster. heavy armor, con saves, possible 2 spell casting actions in 1st round.
> ...



None of that bothers me. I think you have a real hang up about anything that isnt a strict 1 for 1 class spilt. Which is fine, but not what most folks want.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 15, 2022)

I think, it is a soultion wanting for a problem...

Most people agree, that a 3/X split is usually neither overpowered nor underpowered. 1/X splits are only problems in a few cases, where the subclass at level 1 is way over the top.

Most people agree, that even splits are usually horrible.

So why not just leave it be and put subclass choice at level 3 to preven 1 or 2 level dips that are over the top.

With 3/x splits, you can usually build any concept. And if you really want a 3 or more class split, it is mostly for flavour, not for power.

So, please no. Don't invent a problem and fix it with feats... This is what 3.0 did...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> 1 or 2 levels of warlock is the main offender here.
> but there is quite a lot of 1-3 level dips that are cheese here.
> 
> fighter: 1 or 2 levels with full caster. heavy armor, con saves, possible 2 spell casting actions in 1st round.
> ...




Eldritch blast will surely get fixed.
Double spellcasting with actions surge will probably also go.
Bear totem barbarian is great, but there are other barbarian subclasses that are equally good (including other totems). 
Paladin + warlock is already not intended by the rules and by strict reading of the rules not working: look at treant monks video about trdsic vs raw. The first printing of the PHB used the phrase: "paladin spell slots", which telegraphed the intention. That just leaves hexblades, which will in some form will be errated, even if it is just pushing it back to level 3, at which point you can as well just increase str.


----------



## mellored (Nov 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> 1 or 2 levels of warlock is the main offender here.



Is it though?

Is a Paladin with a decent ranged attack that much better than a paladin 10 with aura of courage and revivify?  Is it worth giving up summon celestial?

Is a Bard with a better contrip going to outshine one that has an extra spell level?

Is a Sorcerer with at-will damage better than one who has wish for 2 extra levels?


Horwath said:


> but there is quite a lot of 1-3 level dips that are cheese here..



There is also a lot of sacrifice.

I'm sure you can pick a certain level where multi-class is more powerful.  But a level before or after later and the straight class is better again.

IMO, that means it's balanced.


Moon druid just needs fixed in general.  Not an issue with multi-class.
My house rule for it is to do double the CR of other druids, and elemental form just takes 1 wild shape.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 15, 2022)

mellored said:


> Is it though?
> 
> Is a Paladin with a decent ranged attack that much better than a paladin 10 with aura of courage and revivify?  Is it worth giving up summon celestial?
> 
> ...



1-2 levels of warlock gives the paladin/sorcerer a 120ft range force damage charisma based attack that scales as the fighter extra attack.  In the case of paladin/hexblade it also likely allows them to use charisma for weapons so they can mostly dump strength & go cha/con/whatever.  That's not simply "a decent _ranged_ attack".  Likewise for the sorcerer it's not simply "a _better _cantrip" at the cost of a _single_ spell level.  If the game goes far enough into tier2 or into tier3+ the  sorcerer gets that relabeled charisma based fighter extra attack with free knockback that converts royghly to an at will 4th or 5th level spell at the forgettable price of what is likely a single _spell_ slot too.


----------



## Gadget (Nov 15, 2022)

I never been a fan of al a carte multi-classing since its introduction in 3e.  It is an example of D&D, as a class based system at its core, both wanting its cake and eating it too.  More 'point by' type systems allow far more flexibility and mix and matching when building a character, but at the cost of some complexity and balance problems.  I would say that most of the 'broken' or 'over-powered' builds/exploits I have seen have had some form of multi-classing as part of their issue.  

I would like to have some combination of feats, sub-classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, etc. give us most of what multi-classing can do, but without the balance problems.  It probably won't satisfy everyone, but I don't think anything will.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 15, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Eldritch blast will surely get fixed.
> Double spellcasting with actions surge will probably also go.
> Bear totem barbarian is great, but there are other barbarian subclasses that are equally good (including other totems).
> Paladin + warlock is already not intended by the rules and by strict reading of the rules not working: look at treant monks video about trdsic vs raw. The first printing of the PHB used the phrase: "paladin spell slots", which telegraphed the intention. That just leaves hexblades, which will in some form will be errated, even if it is just pushing it back to level 3, at which point you can as well just increase str.



Eldritch Blast was taken off the arcane spell list, and making this a class feature might help some of the cheese.  The could even make it a standard cantrip with an invocation that allows you to split the dice into multiple bolts, so a 2 invocation dip is needed to score multiple stat bonuses on blasts.  

I think converting spell slots to smites should be removed entirely or linked to channel divinity but if they keep the rule that crits only affect weapon dice, not additional dice, doesn't most of the cheese go away?  Did the first packet address crits on spell attacks?


----------



## aurvay (Nov 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that could also work.
> 
> but that approach maybe would be better worked with feats.
> 
> ...



yes.

this would also work. like that feat in Tasha’s that grants metamagic ability.

anything would actually work better than the actual multiclassing rules to curb power gaming at the table.


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 15, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> 2)  Backgrounds give more oomph, and 1st level class picks give less.  Your training time as an apprentice mage is explained by your Sage background, not your wizard class.  A 1st level Sage background wizard might know 4-5 spells and have proficiency in Arcana thanks to their background; a 1st level Charlatan wizard might only know 1 spell from their class, but has Stealth and Deception proficiency and some other roguish tricks.



For this how about a time requirement based on the new class you want to take a level in?

Say to mc into fighter takes a year full time training with a good instructor.
Mc into wizard takes 2 years.
Mc into warlock takes about 5min, a conversation, and a few poor life choices


----------



## teitan (Nov 15, 2022)

Multiclassing isn’t in theory an optional rule. It is an optional rule. One way to fix it though is subclasses rather than the multiclassing system as is. What currently exists punishes PCs as they level up and making full casters out of classes that were originally partial casters like rangers, paladins, bards isn’t a good answer either. This is the one area where D&D has flailed since 3.x era because it has yet to be fully thought out. Moving away from “build mentality” would be a huge boon to correcting the issue.


----------



## Amrûnril (Nov 15, 2022)

Gadget said:


> I never been a fan of al a carte multi-classing since its introduction in 3e.  It is an example of D&D, as a class based system at its core, both wanting its cake and eating it too.  More 'point by' type systems allow far more flexibility and mix and matching when building a character, but at the cost of some complexity and balance problems.  I would say that most of the 'broken' or 'over-powered' builds/exploits I have seen have had some form of multi-classing as part of their issue.
> 
> I would like to have some combination of feats, sub-classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, etc. give us most of what multi-classing can do, but without the balance problems.  It probably won't satisfy everyone, but I don't think anything will.




Current multi-classing gives us all of what current multi-classing can do. It can cover a much broader array of thematic concepts and create far more interesting character-building decisions than any of the proposed alternatives. I'd love to see balance improved, but the current "problem-cases" are really only marginally better than strong single class builds, and most of them involve abilities that are arguably imbalanced independent of multi-classing.


----------



## mellored (Nov 15, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> 1-2 levels of warlock gives the paladin/sorcerer a 120ft range force damage charisma based attack that scales as the fighter extra attack.



fighter has +2 to hit, action surge, and sharpshooter, and extra asi.  Hardly the same scaling.


tetrasodium said:


> In the case of paladin/hexblade it also likely allows them to use charisma for weapons so they can mostly dump strength & go cha/con/whatever.



i agree hexblade is a bit too strong.  It should of always been 3rd level pact of the blade.

But if you dump Str, you lose your AC.  Overall it's a little over powered, not game breaking (like moon druid at level 2, or twilight cleric).


tetrasodium said:


> That's not simply "a decent _ranged_ attack".  Likewise for the sorcerer it's not simply "a _better _cantrip" at the cost of a _single_ spell level.  If the game goes far enough into tier2 or into tier3+ the  sorcerer gets that relabeled charisma based fighter extra attack with free knockback that converts royghly to an at will 4th or 5th level spell at the forgettable price of what is likely a single _spell_ slot too.



Do you think a straight warlock is overpowered?
Because a straight warlock 17 with foresight is going to do more damage than your multiclass.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 15, 2022)

mellored said:


> fighter has +2 to hit, action surge, and sharpshooter, and extra asi.  Hardly the same scaling.
> 
> i agree hexblade is a bit too strong.  It should of always been 3rd level pact of the blade.
> 
> ...



"fighter extra attack"  shouldn't be confused with "a couple levels of fighter"



Spoiler: fighter extra attack PHB pg72



Beginning at *5th level*, you can *attack twice*, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to *three when you reach 11th level* _*in this class*_ and to* four when you reach 20th* leve_*l in this class.[*_/spoiler]



Spoiler: agonizing repelling EB



Agonizing Blast
Prerequisite: eldritch blast cantrip 
When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit.
Repelling Blast 
Prerequisite: eldritch blast cantrip
When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line.
Eldritch Blast
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action 
Range: 120 feet 
Components: V, S 
Duration: Instantaneous
A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1dlO force damage. The spell creates m ore than one beam w hen you reach higher levels: t*wo beams at 5th* level, *three beam s at 11th* level, and* four beam s at 17th* level. You can direct the beam s at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam.
Given that the 4th attack comes at 17 rather than 20 & it doesn't include "in this class" type wording it's better than fighter's extra attack in some ways relevant to multiclassing.


----------



## mellored (Nov 15, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> "fighter extra attack"  shouldn't be confused with "a couple levels of fighter"



I'm not confusing them.  Fighter does more damage, more accurately, and from further away.

And all contrips scale.  So your spending 2 levels to up your minimum damage, but lose your maximum damage.

Again, do you think straight warlocks are overpowered?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 15, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> "fighter extra attack"  shouldn't be confused with "a couple levels of fighter"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So instead of fixing the cause of the issue (eldritch blast), you want to fix something that works well in most other cases?


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 15, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> So instead of fixing the cause of the issue (eldritch blast), you want to fix something that works well in most other cases?



I want them to fix both.  Someone earlier noted that the 3.x style MC that 5e has is d&d wanting to have its cake & eat it too for the ease guidance of a class based system as well as the flexibility of a pointbuy system while just ignoring the problems it brings.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 15, 2022)

mellored said:


> I'm not confusing them.  Fighter does more damage, more accurately, and from further away.
> 
> And all contrips scale.  So your spending 2 levels to up your minimum damage, but lose your maximum damage.
> 
> Again, do you think straight warlocks are overpowered?



I don't think the issue is that warlocks are overpowered but it's more that Eldritch Blast is often so good compared to the other things they can do, there is little point in doing anything else.  So taking Eldritch Blast and slapping it onto other classes who have better alternate options just makes the multiclass that much more potent.  I would prefer that Eldritch Blast did less and the other options did more.


----------



## mellored (Nov 15, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I don't think the issue is that warlocks are overpowered but it's more that Eldritch Blast is often so good compared to the other things they can do, there is little point in doing anything else.  So taking Eldritch Blast and slapping it onto other classes who have better alternate options just makes the multiclass that much more potent.  I would prefer that Eldritch Blast did less and the other options did more.



I agree.  But warlocks are boring is a different subject than multiclassing is bad.

IMO: Giving them an extra invocations (free agonizing blast), and letting them change it every long rest would help.  Something they did with the ranger spells (free hunters mark, prepared spells) and that worked well.

Maybe have a few different Eldritch Blast shapes too.  Eldritch Cone, Eldritch Burst, Eldritch Line...  3.5 had a big list.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 15, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I want them to fix both.  Someone earlier noted that the 3.x style MC that 5e has is d&d wanting to have its cake & eat it too for the ease guidance of a class based system as well as the flexibility of a pointbuy system while just ignoring the problems it brings.




I disagree. The multiclass system is inherently fun. I am glad it is there.
It is one way to allow a level by level choice without overloading a single class with needless complexity.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 15, 2022)

mellored said:


> I agree.  But warlocks are boring is a different subject than multiclassing is bad.
> 
> IMO: Giving them an extra invocations (free agonizing blast), and letting them change it every long rest would help.  Something they did with the ranger spells (free hunters mark, prepared spells) and that worked well.
> 
> Maybe have a few different Eldritch Blast shapes too.  Eldritch Cone, Eldritch Burst, Eldritch Line...  3.5 had a big list.



That warlocks are more boring than multiclass warlocks could well be a multi-class issue if one is arguing for extra abilities for multiclass characters.  I played in a group with two multi-class warlocks and one monk with Eldritch Blast from the Magical Adept feat.  I found it so boring that my Rogue/Warlock just stopped using Eldritch Blast and I eventually multiclassed again into Sorcerer.  I think the problem for me was that even a tome warlock doesn't have the option to gain enough magical ability.  Warlocks need to get to 3 spell slots at a much lower level and have invocations to enhance more cantrips than just Eldritch Blast.  Potential multiclass abuse might well be why this didn't happen.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 15, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I disagree. The multiclass system is inherently fun. I am glad it is there.
> It is one way to allow a level by level choice without overloading a single class with needless complexity.



I agree that it can be fun.  Ive never said it should be removed.  What I said is that there should be printed options for 2e style dualclassing & 2e style multi classing that a gm can point to & say "use this"


----------



## mellored (Nov 15, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I agree that it can be fun.  Ive never said it should be removed.  What I said is that there should be printed options for 2e style dualclassing & 2e style multi classing that a gm can point to & say "use this"



More ways to multiclass would be good.

And really, a 13/13 class would probably be less powerful than a 20 class.
Maybe only get 1 feat at level 4, 8, etc..  or skip the subclasse levels (which they seem to be lining up at standard levels).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 15, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I agree that it can be fun.  Ive never said it should be removed.  What I said is that there should be printed options for 2e style dualclassing & 2e style multi classing that a gm can point to & say "use this"




Another option like that woud be something I like. 2e multiclassing was also fun. 3e had gestalt characters. They were efectively 2e multiclass characters without xp penalties. Someone here had a  level progression for those characters, increasing classes alternately and then gaining a bonus level when certain levels were reached.

1/0
1/1
1/2
2/2
3/3 
and so on or something like that.

I think this would be a good beginning. Maybe the idea of the opening post is not bad if it is an add on:

Change the feats to more generic:
Prereqisite: 2 character classes of equal level.
Benefit: you gain a level in both classes, but don't gain any hp or hit dice.

So your progression would be:

0/1
1/1
1/2
2/2
2/3
3/3
3/4
5/5
5/6
6/6
6/7
7/7
7/8
9/9
9/10
10/10
10/11
11/11
11/12
13/13

You still have 3 feats + 1 first level feat.

Not perfect but workable.

Then I thought: we probably should think about giving a few feats at total character levels. Maybe call them boons.
Would help all multiclass characters.


----------



## mellored (Nov 15, 2022)

Dual class (in addition to regular multiclas, can't do both)

1: 1/0, just 1 level in your first class
2: 1/1
3: 2/2
4: feat
5: 3/3, no subclasses
6: 4/4, just one feat
7: 5/5
8: feat
9: 6/5
10: 6/6
11: 7/7
12: 8/8, just one feat
13: 9/8
14: 9/9
15: 10/10
16: feat
17: 11/11
18: 12/11
19: feat
20: 12/12

Or something like that.


----------



## aurvay (Nov 15, 2022)

Another possible solution would be this: "Your proficiency bonus is not determined by your total character level, but by the class that you have the fewest levels in." Either get them class levels next to each other or get rekt. I'm also ok with granting feats at every 4th level by total character class in this method.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 16, 2022)

aurvay said:


> Another possible solution would be this: "Your proficiency bonus is not determined by your total character level, but by the class that you have the fewest levels in." Either get them class levels next to each other or get rekt. I'm also ok with granting feats at every 4th level by total character class in this method.




Why punish people for multiclassing?
Whith this idea, you can never say: hey, I was a wizard for 11 levels, now I want a level in fighter, because then your prof bonus goes down...
Also, even splits are also heavily punished. Thisbwould just kill multiclassing. 

More options: cool. Taking away options: uncool...


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 16, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Why punish people for multiclassing?
> Whith this idea, you can never say: hey, I was a wizard for 11 levels, now I want a level in fighter, because then your prof bonus goes down...
> Also, even splits are also heavily punished. Thisbwould just kill multiclassing.
> 
> More options: cool. Taking away options: uncool...



"punish"?  Who decides if the "optional" multiclassing rules are allowed or not?  Is it Alice the gm who can choose to aow them or not?  Is it Bob the player who  complains Alice is "punishing" him to force her hand with peer pressure if she says no or only allows a more restrictive version of the "optional" rule she as gn seems to have no say over for eight or so years now?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 16, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> "punish"?  Who decides if the "optional" multiclassing rules are allowed or not?  Is it Alice the gm who can choose to aow them or not?  Is it Bob the player who  complains Alice is "punishing" him to force her hand with peer pressure if she says no or only allows a more restrictive version of the "optional" rule she as gn seems to have no say over for eight or so years now?




What?
This is not what I said...

I said: why do you want to restrict a perfectly fine rule by adding needlessly punishing rules. PB was deliberatley dependend on total character level to allow freedom of multiclassing.
Why are you so mad that people don't do even splits. Is your play rstricted by people who just use multiclassing as is?


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 16, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> What?
> This is not what I said...
> 
> I said: why do you want to restrict a perfectly fine rule by adding needlessly punishing rules. PB was deliberatley dependend on total character level to allow freedom of multiclassing.
> Why are you so mad that people don't do even splits. Is your play rstricted by people who just use multiclassing as is?



_Again_, the different forms of MC can exist side by side in the rules for the GM to choose from what is allowed & what is not if they are _actually_ "optional".  WRT your "punish" comment though,  *who decides if an "optional" rule is allowed in a game,* the gm or a player who wants to use it?  If it's the GM then allowing a more restrictive version of multiclassing rather than simply saying "no MC is not allowed" then how is anyone being "punished" when restrictive MC is less restrictive than no MC?  If it's the player then is the "optional" rule optional at all?

3.x/5e style multiclassing _does_ create problems for the gm where Alice finds a build that with a small dip allows far greater power than bob who is playing one of the classes Alice is using.  Now Bob feels pressured to do the same & the GM needs to somehow handle both players on very different power scales but needs to do so in a way that won't be problematic if bob takes his new toys & does what Alice did in a level or two.

With a more restrictive version like is being discussed both Alice & Bob have very different needs & Bob can't take the fancy treasure he got to instantly do what Alice did.  If Cindy wants to do a 3.x/5e style MC build for flavor rather than power she can talk to the GM & make her case for an exception by explaining why xyz is more flavor than power or how it's just filling a need the group has.  In a case like Cindy's the GM even has a strong case for pulling cindy aside for a talk if it turns out that N levels later there's a big problem that wasn't noticed or discussed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 16, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> _Again_, the different forms of MC can exist side by side in the rules for the GM to choose from what is allowed & what is not if they are _actually_ "optional".




Snip. 

I don't object optional rules. 
My answer was specifically to the idea that when you multiclass you should only get your prof bonus for your lowest class level. 

This is what I meant with needlessly punishing people who multiclass, just because someone thinks you should split evenly. 
If you object the word "punishing", use needlessly penalizing. If you as DM don't want people to not use the optional multiclass rule, just disallow multiclassing and don't add so many penalties that it equals outright not allowing it. 
One is honest, one is not.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Nov 16, 2022)

The way I solved it in my system was to remove direct multiclassing and then having feats to let you steal another class's stuff; spells known, sneak attack dice, evasion, smites, the fighters'..., bardic inspiration, the ranger's...., expertise, etc.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 16, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Multiclassing is in theory an optional rule, but I have seen it at 100% of games that I played.
> So, in my experience it's a core rule. Same as feats.
> 
> Problem with multiclassing is that classes need to be defined early on.
> ...



I almost always multiclass and in general like the system as is.  I've never really ran into the situation where a split was horrible.  Other players I play with never mutliclass.  Multiclassing can offer some huge synergies but doing things like delaying ASIs and spell slot progression evens that out I think.

I had a 14th level character who was 6 Fighter (arcane Archer), 7 Rogue (Arcane Trickster) 1 Sorcerer (Shadow).  She was pretty awesome in play I thought and each class brought some huge capabilities.  A 14th level Sorcerer would have been more powerful in combat (if I had focused on Charisma) but I am not sure a 14th level Fighter or Rogue would have been, especially in the party we had and especially since she was a human and would not have had darkvision.

I am playing a 12th level Enchantment Wizard 4/Order Cleric 8 and she is pretty awesome.  She is a Mountain Dwarf so she can wear plate with an 8 strength, has a +2 shield and has lots of spell slots for shield spell, so she is rocking like an effective 27AC.  Embodiment of Law and plate is the perfect match with Hypnotic Gaze.  When I have played enchantment wizards before Hypnotic Gaze was tough because you had to get within 5 feet of the target and stay there.  So if he saved you were getting wailed on, if not you had to use your action to maintain it so you really couldn't do anything else.  This multiclass character can get within 5 feet because she has a great AC and she can use hypnotic gaze and then upcast Hold Person, Command or Mind Whip as a bonus action.  Being able to have a spiritual weapon going around banging things with a bonus action while I hold someone with hypnotic Gaze using an action is pretty cool too.  Overall I would say this is probably the most powerful 12th level character I have played and much better than a single class Enchantment Wizard or Order Cleric.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 17, 2022)

Current multi-class system feels like it works pretty well.

Side note: your cleric is a dwarf with plate and a strength of 8? Jeebus...how do they get within 5' of the target when you can only move at 15'? If I was your DM I would have the mobs maneuvering around your slow butt all day long! And what do you do when your party has to move quickly? That just seems like a massive handicap!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 17, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Current multi-class system feels like it works pretty well.
> 
> Side note: your cleric is a dwarf with plate and a strength of 8? Jeebus...how do they get within 5' of the target when you can only move at 15'? If I was your DM I would have the mobs maneuvering around your slow butt all day long! And what do you do when your party has to move quickly? That just seems like a massive handicap!



Dwarves don´t reduce movement speed for low strength in armor.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 17, 2022)

Right - nice catch.

Dumb rule, though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 17, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Right - nice catch.
> 
> Dumb rule, though.




It is no longer in OneDnd (for now).


----------



## aurvay (Nov 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> The way I solved it in my system was to remove direct multiclassing and then having feats to let you steal another class's stuff; spells known, sneak attack dice, evasion, smites, the fighters'..., bardic inspiration, the ranger's...., expertise, etc.



This is definitely the best solution, I believe. 


ECMO3 said:


> I almost always multiclass and in general like the system as is.  I've never really ran into the situation where a split was horrible.  Other players I play with never mutliclass.  Multiclassing can offer some huge synergies but doing things like delaying ASIs and spell slot progression evens that out I think.
> 
> I had a 14th level character who was 6 Fighter (arcane Archer), 7 Rogue (Arcane Trickster) 1 Sorcerer (Shadow).  She was pretty awesome in play I thought and each class brought some huge capabilities.  A 14th level Sorcerer would have been more powerful in combat (if I had focused on Charisma) but I am not sure a 14th level Fighter or Rogue would have been, especially in the party we had and especially since she was a human and would not have had darkvision.
> 
> I am playing a 12th level Enchantment Wizard 4/Order Cleric 8 and she is pretty awesome.  She is a Mountain Dwarf so she can wear plate with an 8 strength, has a +2 shield and has lots of spell slots for shield spell, so she is rocking like an effective 27AC.  Embodiment of Law and plate is the perfect match with Hypnotic Gaze.  When I have played enchantment wizards before Hypnotic Gaze was tough because you had to get within 5 feet of the target and stay there.  So if he saved you were getting wailed on, if not you had to use your action to maintain it so you really couldn't do anything else.  This multiclass character can get within 5 feet because she has a great AC and she can use hypnotic gaze and then upcast Hold Person, Command or Mind Whip as a bonus action.  Being able to have a spiritual weapon going around banging things with a bonus action while I hold someone with hypnotic Gaze using an action is pretty cool too.  Overall I would say this is probably the most powerful 12th level character I have played and much better than a single class Enchantment Wizard or Order Cleric.



You realize that this is the prime example of having your cake and eating it too, and you just confessed to it being your most powerful build so far, right?

Your pro-MC argument is exactly why multiclassing leaves a bad taste in most DMs mouths.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 17, 2022)

aurvay said:


> This is definitely the best solution, I believe.
> 
> You realize that this is the prime example of having your cake and eating it too, and you just confessed to it being your most powerful build so far, right?
> 
> Your pro-MC argument is exactly why multiclassing leaves a bad taste in most DMs mouths.




No. It is just an argument that non-casters are underpowered. It just means, that non-casters should have worthwhile options at higher character levels. 

Your best solution is my worst fear.
So why not have both as optional rules and all people are happy?


----------



## Amrûnril (Nov 17, 2022)

aurvay said:


> Your pro-MC argument is exactly why multiclassing leaves a bad taste in most DMs mouths.




I don't see any evidence that this is the view of "most DMs". Some certainly feel as you do, but this thread is also full of DMs who love the current system.

For my part, I'd say @ECMO3 's experience here is an example of the system working as intended. A player who enjoys the system of customization combining subclasses I never would have thought of combining to create a character with clear strengths (AC, effective use of Hypnotic Gaze) and clear weaknesses (no access to 5th or 6th level spells).


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 17, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Snip.
> 
> I don't object optional rules.
> My answer was specifically to the idea that when you multiclass you should only get your prof bonus for your lowest class level.
> ...



I think this reveals a second pretty significant disconnect over function of the rules  this discussion.  The rules should not present players with a 5e style madmax free for all  & should at least have occasional limits like the prerequisites 3.x had the exp multiplier like  2ekinda* had or something else like a hit to proficiency bonus.  Too often 5e chooses to balance the "_maximum fun_"<-->"_good for gamist or balance reasons_"  spectrum with "ask your gm" and/or by placing a not really optional at all "optional" footnote on it in  like was done with 5e's multiclassing.  

Dismissing one end of that spectrum too often creates a situation of the very dishonesty you tossed out because the GM is now forced to be the bad guy & act as the fun police to reimplement basic rules structures & limitations the rules didn't bother to present. In the process of doing those things the GM is subjected to accusations along the lines of of "punishing" their players or getting told that they should just ban the not at all optional thing rather than placing restrictions that might stop it from being most optimal.  

The trick in avoiding that problem is for the rules to start with a point where multiclassing has gone too far.  Sorlock & hexadin are probably a bridge too far for that  & some of those builds have already been called out as such in the thread so they make a good point of being "too far". In keeping with 5e's self wounding simplicity at all costs  it's simple enough to just assign each class a multiclassing penalty of 1-N points & apply that penalty to the character's proficiency when they make a multiclass build using that class.   The penalty could even be designed in such a way that it only applies if the lower class is more than a specific number of levels behind the higher or so that it changes after some class specific number of levels have been reached.  That's the job of a rulebook not punishing the "ask your gm" with a _totally_ "optional" not at all optional rule.

o show how not "optional" the MC rules are


Spoiler: here's PHB164 multiclassing



Multiclassing
Multiclassing allows you to gain levels in multiple classes. D oing so lets you m ix the abilities of those classes to realize a character concept that might not be reflected in one of the standard class options.

With this rule, you have the option of gaining a level in a new class whenever you advance in level, instead of gaining a level in your current class. Your levels in all your classes are added together to determine your character level. For example, if you have three levels in wizard and two in fighter, you’re a 5th-level character.

As you advance in levels, you might primarily remain a member of your original class with just a few levels in another class, or you might change course entirely, never looking back at the class you left behind. You might even start progressing in a third or fourth class. Com pared to a single-class character of the same level, you’ll sacrifice some focus in exchange for versatility
Prerequisites 
To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score prerequisites for both your current class and your new one, as show n in the Multiclassing Prerequisites table. For example, a barbarian w ho decides to multiclass into the druid class must have both Strength and W isdom scores of 13 or higher. Without the full training that a beginning character receives, you must be a quick study in your new class, having a natural aptitude that is reflected by higher-than-average ability scores.


You might have noticed that at no point does it present the option to use MC or not as a topic where the GM should be consulted.  For that you need to look above the great big 30ish point Multiclassing header... 


Spoiler: here



THE COMBINATION OF ABILITY SCORES, RACE,class, and background defines your character’s capabilities in the game, and the personal details you create set your character apart from every other character. Even within your class and race, you have options to fine-tune what your character can do. But this chapter is for players who—with the DM ’s permission—want to go a step further. This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you com bine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign.


Which goes back to the "dishonest" label that you raised... There's a famous quote about Lies, damned lies, and statistics... layout could fit in there.

*multi/dual classing was straight even split yes but different classes used wildly different exp tables.  It's not a perfect 1:1 so much as an example


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 17, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think this reveals a second pretty significant disconnect over function of the rules  this discussion.  The rules should not present players with a 5e style madmax free for all  & should at least have occasional limits like the prerequisites 3.x had the exp multiplier like  2ekinda* had or something else like a hit to proficiency bonus.  Too often 5e chooses to balance the "_maximum fun_"<-->"_good for gamist or balance reasons_"  spectrum with "ask your gm" and/or by placing a not really optional at all "optional" footnote on it in  like was done with 5e's multiclassing.




If you prefer boring instead of fun, that is on you.
I have yet to see something as imbalanced as 3.x.
I for my part have not seen a single combination where barring intentional misreading of the multiclass rules or using classes that are imbalanced themselves have created a problem in my games.

The only thing that created problems were the rest rules, as my games tend to not have that many encounters in a single day. Thus, any multiclass that relies on few powerful daily spells are better than martials... but they paled in comparison to full casters...

To the rest of your post: do as you wish. If you think penalizing people arbitrarily is the way to go... do it... but let me play as I wish...

Edit: and I don't see how any of your quotes prove that multiclassing is not optional.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 17, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think this reveals a second pretty significant disconnect over function of the rules  this discussion.  The rules should not present players with a 5e style madmax free for all  & should at least have occasional limits like the prerequisites 3.x had the exp multiplier like  2ekinda* had or something else like a hit to proficiency bonus.  Too often 5e chooses to balance the "_maximum fun_"<-->"_good for gamist or balance reasons_"  spectrum with "ask your gm" and/or by placing a not really optional at all "optional" footnote on it in  like was done with 5e's multiclassing.
> 
> Dismissing one end of that spectrum too often creates a situation of the very dishonesty you tossed out because the GM is now forced to be the bad guy & act as the fun police to reimplement basic rules structures & limitations the rules didn't bother to present. In the process of doing those things the GM is subjected to accusations along the lines of of "punishing" their players or getting told that they should just ban the not at all optional thing rather than placing restrictions that might stop it from being most optimal.
> 
> ...



The 1e mutliclass rules had all sorts of limitations that current power gamers would find unpalatable.  Level limits, hit points averaged and rounded down, variable xp tables and hard racial restrictions on certain combinations.  Maybe there is an element of 'make multiclassing great again' that has no basis in reality.


----------



## BlackSeed_Vash (Nov 17, 2022)

The only thing I'd change is decoupling ASI from class level and return it to character level.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 17, 2022)

Perhaps the reason that the current rules is fine with me is that I don't really do power gaming, and strongly discourage it at my tables. I can see that the current system allows for some powerful combinations, but frankly the alternatives being mooted also allow for some powerful combinations, maybe more so. Any complex system is going to offer opportunities for optimizers to optimize.

And for some folks, that's super fun. So I don't wanna harsh their vibe at their games.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 17, 2022)

I wonder if changing the way crits work is one of the key limiters on power combinations.  That and paladin smites.


----------



## mellored (Nov 17, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I wonder if changing the way crits work is one of the key limiters on power combinations.  That and paladin smites.



They changed them back.

And no, even if you got advantage and crit on 19, it's still not a huge boost.  Especially since they are random.
People remember the time you crit the big bad on turn one.  But forget the time you crit the minions that had 2HP left.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 17, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> The 1e mutliclass rules had all sorts of limitations that current power gamers would find unpalatable.  Level limits, hit points averaged and rounded down, variable xp tables and hard racial restrictions on certain combinations.  Maybe there is an element of 'make multiclassing great again' that has no basis in reality.



I agree (and remember) that they were built for a very different game even in 2e so a new version  would need some fairly significant changes to shift away from the combo specific rules & maintain the benefits of existing MC without giving up the benefits of an alternate method people might actually use.


Spoiler: For example



My rough draft "this looks maybe more solid than jello" stab at it is this.   Dual classed characters can take levels in two different classes. Once doing so they are subject to the following mathy shifts:

1: The experience required for either class is multiplied by 2.5
2:The hit points gained at each level for each class are halved(this is retroactive. Both classes get to start with max hp at their L1 before the total is halved just because it will start working out after that first session
3: Proficiency bonus is equal to the bonus for the highest class minus the gap between it & the bonus for the lowest class.
4:gaining additional levels in the first class after dual classing with a second requires you to gain the 2.5x cost for the next level PLUS the missing part of the 2.5x multiplier for ALL prior levels.  The alternative is dual classing can only be done at first level or if the back cost is ignored munchkiny incentives are introduced. 
For example: A lice has a level 10 PC with 64,000xp & would need an additional 21,000 to reach level 11.  She instead decides to take 6 levels of a second class for 35000xp as a goal. In order to resume taking levels in the first class she would need to gain an additional 147,000xp. 
Bob chooses to dual class at level 1 & begins with the usual +2 proficiency  but half the max HD hit points hit points of both classes.  He will need 450xp to get 2/1 2250xp for 3/1 or 900xp for 2/2

5: [*edit:* not sure about spell slots: My first thought is prep & cast them separate 3.x style.  The alternatives of no dual classing casters & stacking both sides seem needlessly restrictive & inviting problems from the pressure to dual class for max gain returning]



and *here* is an interactive spreadsheet doodle with vlookups for seeing it inaction.  The 2.5 multiplier might be a bit high but lowering it starts introducing extreme incentive to dual class & a need to go back towards the 2e style combo specific rules because of how the unmodified exp targets grow so quickly as levels advance. Yes these rules could result in a lot of saves but it seemed like leaving them _might_ be a fair trade, I'm not sure what to do about skills but allowing both might be ok given the reduced rate of advancememt & reduced proficiency bonus over a single class pc


The current MC system of extreme permissive extreme flexibility that 5e has in place as the exclusive method is a big part of the reason why suggesting or attempting to alter it results in phrases like like "Punish" "dishonest" "boring instead of fun" being hurled at a GM, having an alternate method would change that and _gasp_ open up new routes for character customization.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 17, 2022)

mellored said:


> They changed them back.
> 
> And no, even if you got advantage and crit on 19, it's still not a huge boost.  Especially since they are random.
> People remember the time you crit the big bad on turn one.  But forget the time you crit the minions that had 2HP left.



When did they change them back?  We have only been doubling damage from class features and not item damage.  The main problem is the damage spike from paladins but I think that can be overcome by applying a flat +4 damage instead of +1d8 so that only the initial 2d8 is doubled, which is still decent.  I think casting the spells should be more effect and more fun than damage layering so reduction of damage to +3 per level might be enough.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 17, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Current multi-class system feels like it works pretty well.
> 
> Side note: your cleric is a dwarf with plate and a strength of 8? Jeebus...how do they get within 5' of the target when you can only move at 15'? If I was your DM I would have the mobs maneuvering around your slow butt all day long! And what do you do when your party has to move quickly? That just seems like a massive handicap!



Dwarf has a racial ability so her move is 25:

*Speed.*_ Your base walking speed is 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor._

I could not have done the build effectively with any other race.  What really drove me to this is I LOVE Hypnotic Gaze thematically. It is so cool and running around with an at will "gaze attack" makes me feel like a medusa or vampire or something.  It is extremely powerful too completely immobilizing a foe for as long as you want on one failed save with no opportunity to make another save, there is no duration to run out, no concentration to fail and no save after every turn.  The low wizard AC/hps and not being able to take actions really made it a drag and very situational.   So I decided to figure out how to build a character so it was less situational.  Dwarf in heavy armor with at least 6 levels in order cleric to cast effective combat spells as a bonus was the answer and it is a heck of a solution!  The fact that oder cleric works on enchantment spells only is also thematic as it is an enchantment wizard, but mechanically I would have done it even if it was another school, as long as it was a school with decent spells.

Since she has more cleric levels than Wizard I did have to adjust my tactics some from what I would normally do with a Cleric.  Spirit Guardians for example is an awesome cleric spell and the default 3rd level spell.  It does not play well with HG though, it took me a couple fights to  figure that out, but I just went with cause fear (upcast) or slow (order cleric spell) as my default 3rd level concentration spell .... or upcast hold person if they were humanoids.   I also had to really focus on enchantment spells so I have Charm Person, Suggestion and calm emotions while I normally might not take those.  Also Tahsa's Mind Whip, but I take that a lot anyway.


----------



## mellored (Nov 17, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> When did they change them back?  We have only been doubling damage from class features and not item damage.  The main problem is the damage spike from paladins but I think that can be overcome by applying a flat +4 damage instead of +1d8 so that only the initial 2d8 is doubled, which is still decent.  I think casting the spells should be more effect and more fun than damage layering so reduction of damage to +3 per level might be enough.



The first play test was 1 extra weapon damage only.
The second one was back to double all dice.  "critical hits found in the 2014 Player’s Handbook."

But yea.  Smite can switch to 1d8+cha on smite if needed.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 17, 2022)

aurvay said:


> Another possible solution would be this: "Your proficiency bonus is not determined by your total character level, but by the class that you have the fewest levels in." Either get them class levels next to each other or get rekt. I'm also ok with granting feats at every 4th level by total character class in this method.



I would not be a fan of this.   I think the way proficiency scales is one of the best things compared to the older game,

I don't get what the negative is if someone wants to play a level 1 sorcerer, level 12 Fighter.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 17, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think this reveals a second pretty significant disconnect over function of the rules  this discussion.  The rules should not present players with a 5e style madmax free for all  & should at least have occasional limits like the prerequisites 3.x had the exp multiplier like  2ekinda* had or something else like a hit to proficiency bonus.  Too often 5e chooses to balance the "_maximum fun_"<-->"_good for gamist or balance reasons_"  spectrum with "ask your gm" and/or by placing a not really optional at all "optional" footnote on it in  like was done with 5e's multiclassing.




I would strongly disagree with doing this.  As both a DM and a player I much prefer the simpler 5E system.  When I was playing 3.5E we eventually houseruled away the favored class restriction because it was just too restrictive to building the character you wanted to build.  That guy can play a wizard 1-warlock 10 because he is an elf, but I can't because I am a Dwarf?

There are some extremely powerful combos in 5E, but I have not found them to be a problem.  We have played with both Sorlocks and Hexadins and they have not been a problem.   On the other hand other "optional" rules have actually been a problem.  Specifically the rules on flanking and marking have been issues at several tables and led to a ban (in one case after the campaign had started and been using the rule).

You talk about the DM being put in a tough spot, but IME that is not usually the case.  Usually these kinds of questions are addressed and negotiated by the entire table before play starts so the DM is not the bad guy and the DM and players are usually on the same page with it.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 18, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I would not be a fan of this.   I think the way proficiency scales is one of the best things compared to the older game,
> 
> I don't get what the negative is if someone wants to play a level 1 sorcerer, level 12 Fighter.



The problem is rarely something like fighter12/wizard 1.  It's things like 5e hexadin sorlock or 3.5 lion totem bull rush great cleave monkey grip etc fighter at the same table with a completely overshadowed "this looks fun"



ECMO3 said:


> I would strongly disagree with doing this.  As both a DM and a player I much prefer the simpler 5E system.  When I was playing 3.5E we eventually houseruled away the favored class restriction because it was just too restrictive.
> 
> There are some extremely powerful combos in 5E, but I have not found a problem.  We have played with Sorlocks and Hexadins and they have not been a problem.   On the other hand other "optional" rules have been a problem.  Specifically rules on flanking and marking have been issues at several tables and led to a ban (in one case after the campaign had started and been using the rule).
> 
> You talk about the DM being put in a tough spot, but IME that is not usually the case.  Usually these kinds of questions are addressed and negotiated by the entire table before play starts so the DM is not the bad guy and the DM and players are usually on the same page.



I didn't reven recall that being a thing until you mentioned it so think we probably got rid of it too. In doing so we had the ability to say "_we don't use that but  we require x y & z so lets start talking about your character_" or "_Yea.... Alice you are kind of completely overshadowing Bob & Dave combined, lets talk about your PC_". There were always rules in 2e & 3.x that the GM said to ignore or chose to modify/restrict.  3.x _did_ have requirements on PrCs like the ability to cast certain things skill x Y or better feat Z & so forth... It was common for a gm to talk with & work with a player to modify or even remove a specific requirement  on a PrC yes, but I don't think I've ever heard of or imagined the chaos of people just blanket removing all PrC or feat prerequisites. * 3.x had prerequires on stuff, 2e is the one that had the exp rejiggering* by virtue of half exp for both sides of a dual class & classes with very different exp charts.


----------



## mellored (Nov 18, 2022)

5e classes are far more balanced than 3.5.
and that filters down to multiclass as well.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 18, 2022)

mellored said:


> They changed them back.




Technically they did not change them back. They used the original 5e rules in the second playtest. 

We won't see if they changed it back before the 3rd playtest, probably at the 4th. The 2nd playtest did not incorporate the feedback of the 1st.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 18, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It was common for a gm to talk with & work with a player to modify or even remove a specific requirement  on a PrC yes...




You forgot: and then complaining that PrC are imbalanced, not noticing that the houserule is the cause of the problem.

I have seen it often enough, that houseruling is a double edged sword. Some prerequisites are there to delay too powerful combinations.

This does not man, that houseruling and modifying prerequesites are always bad. But you need to be very careful.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 18, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You forgot: and then complaining that PrC are imbalanced, not noticing that the houserule is the cause of the problem.
> 
> I have seen it often enough, that houseruling is a double edged sword. Some prerequisites are there to delay too powerful combinations.
> 
> This does not man, that houseruling and modifying prerequesites are always bad. But you need to be very careful.



Yea you needed to be super careful when allowing those loopholes because it was so easy to take one & run to something crazy because they usually existed with good reason. I usually only did it as a concession to incentivize a player away from something crazy to a different niche they weren't specialized enough to abuse when it was a situation where a player was overshadowing the group too much from charop.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 18, 2022)

The wrong end of the problem with 5e multiclassing is being looked at IMO. With very rare exceptions (like the Paladin dipping Hexblade 1 to use Cha on weapon attacks and Sorcerers dipping Warlock 2 for Eldritch Blast/Agonizing Blast plus Quicken Spell)* the problem isn't that the level dips are too good. It's that classes, especially martial classes, scale badly.

The two obvious case studies are the Fighter who gets nothing new and meaningful between level 11 and level 20, and the Barbarian who gets almost nothing new and meaningful after level 6 (undying rage is a lot better on paper than in play). Of course they dip.

Meanwhile over in wizard land it's an open question as to whether a level of cleric or artificer is worth it for armour and shield proficiency plus healing magic.

* Both simple fixes. Eldritch Blast becomes a class feature that scales by warlock level (and subclasses get their own versions) and onto Pact of the Blade


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 18, 2022)

By splitting the features at level 1 into level 0 features + level 1 features, a multiclassing character can take the level 0 features when starting a secondary class, before later leveling up to level 1 and beyond.

Starting with level 0 helps a smoother incremental improvement when gaining the features of different class.

Dipping requires an additional level of investment, whence more narrative description of improvement when learning a new class.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> By splitting the features at level 1 into level 0 features + level 1 features, a multiclassing character can take the level 0 features when starting a secondary class, before later leveling up to level 1 and beyond.
> 
> Starting with level 0 helps a smoother incremental improvement when gaining the features of different class.
> 
> Dipping requires an additional level of investment, whence more narrative description of improvement when learning a new class.



It doesn't seem like many classes get a whole lot of things at level one that could be easily split, what would that look like? Is level 0 just a hit die?


----------



## mellored (Nov 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> By splitting the features at level 1 into level 0 features + level 1 features, a multiclassing character can take the level 0 features when starting a secondary class, before later leveling up to level 1 and beyond.
> 
> Starting with level 0 helps a smoother incremental improvement when gaining the features of different class.
> 
> Dipping requires an additional level of investment, whence more narrative description of improvement when learning a new class.



They did this with giving everyone a level 1 feat.

So a fighter 1 might have more fighter stuff than a Sorcerer 3/fighter 1.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 18, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It doesn't seem like many classes get a whole lot of things at level one that could be easily split, what would that look like? Is level 0 just a hit die?



Where each new level has about one feat worth of content, level 1 front-loads with at least four feats worth of features.

It is easy to split level 1 features into several separate levels, nevermind a single level 0 "intro" level.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Where each new level has about one feat worth of content, level 1 front-loads with at least four feats worth of features..



Maybe I was unclear because that like reads like asking for directions only to be told that the directions to arrive at your destination are to drive to your destination without actually being told anything about the route.  I'm asking what such a split would look like specifically.    What would an actual class (pick one) with it's level 1 split into level 0 & 1 abilities look like?  What specifically would that class give a player multiclassing the level 0 & level 1 abilities?


----------



## mellored (Nov 18, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I'm asking what such a split would look like specifically.    What would an actual class (pick one) with it's level 1 split into level 0 & 1 abilities look like?  What specifically would that class give a player multiclassing the level 0 & level 1 abilities?



Level 0 is a bonus feat and some skills, and a race feature.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Where each new level has about one feat worth of content, level 1 front-loads with at least four feats worth of features.
> 
> It is easy to split level 1 features into several separate levels, nevermind a single level 0 "intro" level.



I really disagree that each level has about one feat worth of power even if it might have a feat's worth of description. For example for any primary casting class (i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Druid, Cleric, and arguably Warlock) every odd numbered level up is really powerful compared to first level in another class. More powerful spells are (unsurprisingly) more powerful than less powerful spells.

For the more martial characters levels that are almost certainly more powerful than another first level class are 3 (for your subclass assuming you aren't e.g. a Champion) and 5 (for the extra attack) and frequently 11. 

For Paladins I'd throw in 2 (spells, smite), 6 (cha to all saves), 9 (2 third level spells), 13 (your first 4th level spell - the most arguable case), 17 (+1 4th level, your first fifth level), and 14th (Cleansing touch). Oh, and more lay on hands. For Tasha's Rangers again I can throw in 2, 9, 13, and 17 for the magic (including the extra free beast-themed spell), and 10 for nature's veil. And paladins and rangers already have pretty complete kits. Of course I'm not looking at subclasses here which may add things.

However. Not all feats are equal, and class features are even more uneven. To take one example Savage Attacker is an absolutely bargain basement level feat (and there are only a tiny handful of feats taken ahead of ASIs anyway). But if it's a choice between Savage Attacker and Brutal Critical (as the barbarian gets at 9, 13, and 17) give me Savage Attacker. Alert is obviously better than Feral Instinct. (And almost every _even_ barb level 4-16 is either an AS/feat or a subclass feature). There's a reason barbs bail at 6. The fighter gets the equally disappointing Indomitable at 9, 13, and 17 - and generally 2 ASIs and 2 feats are full build so the ASIs at 14 and16 are less useful. There's a reason fighters often bail at 13.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Nov 20, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I think that the fact that multiclassing is so widely used is probably a sign that it is working as intended.




I don't think that logic follows. After all, what sees a lot of play is often what is overpowered, and few developers intentionally create things to be overpowered.

IMO, I think all that can be said is that, with enough system mastery, any designed-in drawbacks to the current multiclassing design can more than be compensated for.



Pauln6 said:


> And let's not forget that 1e multi classing wasn't well designed either, balanced by race themed level limits.




No, I think that's wrong. The racial level limits were intended to make humans more appealing because Gygax wanted the game to be human-centric. The multiclassing rules _give back_ to those races, allowing them to do something humans couldn't and allowing them to spend more XP than they would single-classed. Remember, the racial level limits apply to single class characters, too. This means that a single classed elven fighter can only take advantage of 70,000 XP (lvl 7), and an elven magic-user can use up to 375,000 XP, but an elven fighter/magic user can use up to 750,000 XP, even though 300,000 of it literally does nothing at all.

The real trouble with multiclassing in AD&D was because of the XP table.  Through name level the amount of XP you need to get to level N usually equals twice the amount of XP you needed to get to level N-1. This meant that while it took 70,000 XP to be an 7th level elven fighter, a fighter/thief with 70,000 total earned XP would be a level 6 fighter. Being single class was just a terrible value proposition in AD&D if you had MC access. The tables weren't 100% lock-step like that, but they were close. The 375,000 XP vs 750,000 XP in the prior paragraph sounds absurdly different, but the 750,000 XP is what makes a fighter 7/magic-user 11 _or..._ a single-classed magic-user 12 or single-classed fighter 11.




aurvay said:


> The ultimate fix would be making all classes gain subclass features at the same levels (like once in each tier of play for a total of 4 subclass features), so they could create multiclassing subclasses (instead of multiclassing with, say, sorcerer, you take the sorcerer subclass on top of whatever your base class is, at level 1) and be done with multiclassing entirely.




I think that could work, but it would require a vastly different design than the one in place. It would also _only_ support dipping multiclass.



payn said:


> No to all of this. MC works fine with the exception of warlock. Maybe tune things there and most cheese goes away.




I think you're ignoring the biggest cost of MC in the rules: The fact that classes don't get going until level 3. If there were no multiclassing, then the game would just start at level 3. Level 1 and 2 wouldn't exist. Level 3 would be level 1. You'd maybe even start with 3 HD for survivability, and you'd go from there. That's why character level 1 takes exactly 1 adventuring day to complete, and character level 2 takes 2 adventuring days to complete. Both character levels 1 and 2 are meant to be over with _immediately_. Class levels 1 and 2 are designed to be a multiclassing tar pit. This is all so that the game can let you do a la carte multiclassing, and punish you by making it cost 2 null levels to do it. The problem with 5e is that some classes (Warlock, Paladin) are still too front-loaded. Warlock is even worse because the class feature table feels empty from level 4 to about level 11.

Personally, I think I would be happier with multiclassing if there were benefits to keeping the classes within 1 level of each other. I'd even be a fan of making all the classes 10-12 levels long and then requiring multiclassing to progress past level 10-12. Given that most features you gain at those levels seem to be either wildly useful or completely pointless or else totally broken (e.g., 7th-9th level spells). With each class capped, the optional multiclassing rule becomes whether you require players to complete the first class before beginning the second, or else if you allow players to start swapping back and forth immediately. Unfortunately, I don't think it would be accepted as D&D.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 20, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> I don't think that logic follows. After all, what sees a lot of play is often what is overpowered, and few developers intentionally create things to be overpowered.
> 
> IMO, I think all that can be said is that, with enough system mastery, any designed-in drawbacks to the current multiclassing design can more than be compensated for.
> 
> ...



100% on all of this,  especially the bolded bit. I find that a 2.5x multiplier on both sides of the exp track makes it work out okish compared to single class.  Testing the old 2e style works really well since we have ~8years of seeing how multiclass combos play out at the table & just need to scale the costs so a single class PC outpaces the combo MC/DC PC at a rate that should keep both players happy with their choice rather than feeling pressured to choose otherwise


----------



## MGibster (Nov 20, 2022)

I was hoping Backgrounds would lead to less of a desire to multiclass, but, alas, that appears not to have been the case.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 20, 2022)

If they are making the subclasses match then I think the obvious first multiclassing option would be that you keep your base class but each class offers a subclass for people multiclassing into it.


----------



## payn (Nov 20, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> I think you're ignoring the biggest cost of MC in the rules: The fact that classes don't get going until level 3. If there were no multiclassing, then the game would just start at level 3. Level 1 and 2 wouldn't exist. Level 3 would be level 1. You'd maybe even start with 3 HD for survivability, and you'd go from there. That's why character level 1 takes exactly 1 adventuring day to complete, and character level 2 takes 2 adventuring days to complete. Both character levels 1 and 2 are meant to be over with _immediately_. Class levels 1 and 2 are designed to be a multiclassing tar pit. This is all so that the game can let you do a la carte multiclassing, and punish you by making it cost 2 null levels to do it. The problem with 5e is that some classes (Warlock, Paladin) are still too front-loaded. Warlock is even worse because the class feature table feels empty from level 4 to about level 11.
> 
> Personally, I think I would be happier with multiclassing if there were benefits to keeping the classes within 1 level of each other. I'd even be a fan of making all the classes 10-12 levels long and then requiring multiclassing to progress past level 10-12. Given that most features you gain at those levels seem to be either wildly useful or completely pointless or else totally broken (e.g., 7th-9th level spells). With each class capped, the optional multiclassing rule becomes whether you require players to complete the first class before beginning the second, or else if you allow players to start swapping back and forth immediately. Unfortunately, I don't think it would be accepted as D&D.



Nope, I just dont have an issue with any of that. I guess we will see if they have any changes in the playtest.


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 20, 2022)

I don't think any rule in the PHB can be considered "optional". It just turns the DM into the bad guy if they don't allow it.

Optional rules belong in the DMG.

Personally I would prefer all MCing be handled by feats. Simple, straightforward, and difficult to abuse.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 20, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> I don't think any rule in the PHB can be considered "optional". It just turns the DM into the bad guy if they don't allow it.
> 
> Optional rules belong in the DMG.
> 
> Personally I would prefer all MCing be handled by feats. Simple, straightforward, and difficult to abuse.




I don't want to miss following:

https://ddb.ac/characters/88338030/CgRutK
Is that character overpowered? I don't think so. Is it thematic? Probably.
Fun to play? Surely.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 20, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> I don't think that logic follows. After all, what sees a lot of play is often what is overpowered, and few developers intentionally create things to be overpowered.
> 
> IMO, I think all that can be said is that, with enough system mastery, any designed-in drawbacks to the current multiclassing design can more than be compensated for.
> 
> ...



It is true, it wasn't until Unearthed Arcana that single-classed character got a 2 level boost to their limit and high ability scores could give you a bit more of a bump to the cap.  Female halfling fighters, also hemmed in by strength caps, topped out at level 7, I think.  That said, at the time, with the exception of elven wizards, and half-orc and dwarf fighters, it largely made sense, being based broadly off what we saw in Tolkien but with de-powered elves.  Demi-humans did get front loaded benefits to attack rolls or saves that gave them advantages plus single class weapon specialisation, helped balance things for fighters.  The power curve was so much shallower for non-casters that demi-humans managed just fine and we saw maybe a 60/40 split in favour of multi-classing in our games, albeit many single classed builds were thieves or half-orc assassins who were not limited by caps.  The power curve for casters was so much broader but in reality, almost no campaign even got to level 18 let alone 29.  We never got beyond 12.

Obviously, the game is so much better balanced, and world logic, such as no 20 strength halflings, has given way to game mechanics to avoid limiting the fun of 'weird' people who think a halfling with strength 20 is 'cool' ;-p.  So we now need to oscillate within that framework.

I feel strongly that multi-class characters SHOULD balance power for versatility and in that respect the system isn't bad and anyone who thinks multiclass characters should have cost-free access to everything a single cIassed character can have should and play in a corner with their own house rules where they are monarch of the universe.  That said, I do think trade-offs should be available at a cost (such as feat buys). 

I think it would be easier to fix overpowered synergies by adding specific caveats in the multiclassing rules, feats, or spell descriptions, and to fix underpowered combos via feats than to try and re-design the whole system.  There are far fewer power combos that need to be tweaked than the other way round. The problem for spell conversion to smite damage is a problem with that class feature altogether rather than a multi-classing issue and even then, the issue is more about crit fishing, which can be resolved by adding a flat bonus to damage rather than extra dice.

For sneak attack cantrip stacking, could this be tackled by changing the spell description of Booming Blade to making it a melee spell attack with a weapon rather than a weapon attack [actually I think Tasha's already did this] and either adding caveats to the multi-classing rules for rogues that sneak attack damage to spell attacks with weapons is halved or possibly a feat?  Similarly (although this maybe not be a problem if Eldritch Blast is now a class feature) cantrips obtained via a feat could have a slower damage progression for anyone who doesn't have levels in the class list from which that spell was taken?

For multi-class warlocks you could rule that paladin smite damage cannot be added to attacks with a weapon being used specifically as a pact blade (as opposed to a weapon that is also a pact blade being used as a weapon) which would lead to no multiple attacks unless you also have 5 levels of paladin and either charisma to attack with no smite damage vs strength to attack with smite damage?

I do think that there should be an alternate class feature to choose a skill and tool proficiency instead of multiple attacks at level 5 - not comparable but better than nothing.

I do think there should be feats to let (multiclass) casters (including warlocks - particularly pact of the tome warlocks - possibly even including mystic arcarnum) to learn/add a spell from their cast list of a level they can cast but no more than one per spell level.

I might even be down with feats that gives you access to specific class feature as if you were a higher level in one of your classes as long as your character level is high enough but I think that needs to apply to specific class features.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 20, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> I don't think that logic follows. After all, what sees a lot of play is often what is overpowered, and few developers intentionally create things to be overpowered.




This is not true IME.  While powerful options see a lot of play, so do a lot of weak options and while some players like me multiclass often, the majority do not multiclass.

Right now I am playing a Shadow Sorcerer 1-Undying Warlock 3.  She is ok but Undying is widely regarded as the weakest Warlock and Shadow Sorcerer is middle of the road.  They do have some complimentary abilities and those are both thematic and boost the character from where either would be individually, but it is hardly OP.  That is representative of most of the multiclass builds I see.  She was also a level late getting Invocations and Pact and I think she was weaker at level 2 and 3 compared to a single class Warlock.



Bacon Bits said:


> IMO, I think all that can be said is that, with enough system mastery, any designed-in drawbacks to the current multiclassing design can more than be compensated for.




Not at every level.  For example if you multiclass a character with extra attack you will have to wait at least a level for extra attack then have to  wait at least a level for more powerful abilities.  The multiclass options do not account for that.

I mentioned my Dwarf 8 Order Cleric/4 Enchantment Wizard and I said she was the most powerful character I played at 12th level because of the interplay between abilities from Dwarf, Order Cleric and Hypnotic Gaze.  Those three really do boost this character.  But she also gets no good opportunity attack (Dex and Str are 8) and something like Warcaster is not a great option because she has two casting stats to boost.  Also while she is very powerful at 12th level, she did not even have Embodiment of Law  until 8th level.  So from 1st-7th level I would argue she was weaker than a straight Dwarf Wizard in medium armor or Cleric would have been, she was stronger from 8th-12th, but going forward she is going to fall behind again because she only has 2nd level Wizard spells and that will never get higher.  In cleric spells she is 2 spells levels behind.  While something like Tasha's Mind Whip upcast at 9th level is ok it is not the equivalent of actual 9th level spells she will miss out on.

Another crazy powerful build is Fey Wanderer Ranger with a 1st level Undead Warlock dip.  The Fey Wanderer interplay with Charisma skills along with the Ranger expertise make this the best social class in the game along with being good at exploration as a Ranger and crazy in combat with the Form of Dread-Beguiling Twist combo.  But that is not all in util 8th level.  There are a lot of different ways to work in the Warlock subclass - 1st level, 2nd level, at 4th level, 5th level, 6th level or at 8th level.  All of  these have compromises.  To start with to get the bonus from form of dread you should be running at least a 14 charisma.  This is a big tradeoff on a Ranger that wants max Wisdom, Dexterity and a decent Constitution.    So your combat stats are behind a Ranger early on to make room for Warlock.  This is countered by the fact you are frightening some enemies if you take Warlock early, so we will call your lower abilities awash with your temp hps and frightening ability.  However if you take Warlock at 2nd level you are going to be behind a Ranger at level 2 (no fighting style), level 3 (no Ranger subclass), level 4 (no ASI/feat), level 5 (no extra attack) and level 7 (no beguiling Twist).  So through level 8 a single class Ranger with stats optimized for a Ranger is better at every level except 6th Level and 8th Level.   Going forward from Level 8 you have a really powerful combo, but you are a level late getting all your Ranger abilities.  Overall you will be ahead most of the time after this but you will get Fey Reinforcements a level later and that ability works better with Beguling Twist than Form of Dread does and while things like Nature's Veil and Evasion are not as great as Form of Dread-Beguiling Twist combo, they are substantial and you are getting them a level later.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 20, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> This is not true IME.  While powerful options see a lot of play, so do a lot of weak options and while some players like me multiclass often, the majority do not multiclass.
> 
> Right now I am playing a Shadow Sorcerer 1-Undying Warlock 3.  She is ok but Undying is widely regarded as the weakest Warlock and Shadow Sorcerer is middle of the road.  They do have some complimentary abilities and those are both thematic and boost the character from where either would be individually, but it is hardly OP.  That is representative of most of the multiclass builds I see.  She was also a level late getting Invocations and Pact and I think she was weaker at level 2 and 3 compared to a single class Warlock.
> 
> ...



Yes I think it is easier to build an 'overpowered' combination on paper at a particular level.  In play it's more of a rollercoaster ride.


----------



## FrogReaver (Nov 20, 2022)

The true fix for 'hybrid' multiclassing is creating new classes what capture the hybrid capabilities you desire and then balancing those abilities within that class structure.  So to me the best product they could produce would be a guided walkthrough of creating classes, with examples, tips, etc.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 20, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> This is not true IME.  While powerful options see a lot of play, so do a lot of weak options and while some players like me multiclass often, the majority do not multiclass.
> 
> Right now I am playing a Shadow Sorcerer 1-Undying Warlock 3.  She is ok but Undying is widely regarded as the weakest Warlock and Shadow Sorcerer is middle of the road.  They do have some complimentary abilities and those are both thematic and boost the character from where either would be individually, but it is hardly OP.  That is representative of most of the multiclass builds I see.  She was also a level late getting Invocations and Pact and I think she was weaker at level 2 and 3 compared to a single class Warlock.
> 
> ...



5e rejected the slower power for greater eventual power elements once present in d&d.  Using it to justify unrestricted no cost multiclass rules  calls into question the wisdom of _both_ choices.  Even beyond that though the GM at the table needs to handle a problem wotc deliberately created when faced with a table where Alice just got or lost the one big distinction setting her single class apart from bob's MC dip on top of her same class  with the game expected to continue.  I've seen this regularly  where Alice has a sorcerer & bob has a sorcerer with 2 levels of warlock...


Spoiler: stuff Bob has over Alice from 11




an at will 120ft  (1d10+5)*3 
Hex to often make that (1d10+5+1d6)*3  whenever the damage is important enough to matter.
either each of those 3 blasts include a 5 foot no save knockback rider or bob is probably sporting devils sight.  Given 5e's efforts to obliviate the impact of darkness it's probably going to be the knockback from repelling unless as a GM I've done things to somehow make the darkness bob now obliviates have an even greater impact for Alice to feel
3 warlock spells
two 2nd level pact slots
A warlock patron boon like an at will invisible imp or the ability to cast ritual spells from a book.






Spoiler: Stuff Alice has over Bob from 11




Two sorcerer spells known (one less than the 3 warlock ones Bob got)
A single metamagic choice (till Bob has one more level
Two sorcerer spells known (1 less than bob got from his warlock dip)
A single level 6 spell slot
Two sorcery points/long rest (this is four less than the _six_ bob can pull from those pact slots each long or short rest)



As levels continue Alice will continue seeing very little gain over Bob's loss & certainly nothing that makes up for the massive gains  Bob already collected


----------



## mellored (Nov 20, 2022)

Combo's existing is a good thing.

As long as they don't make other players feel bad about their character.


----------



## Scott Christian (Nov 20, 2022)

I personally like the idea that multi-classing slows you down via experience. The fact that PCs are almost superhero like in many descriptions (not your average person is how it is often described) shows that they are hyper-focused - a person born with the right attitude, genes, and luck to become this great (fill in your class). But also a person who is intensely focused on their craft, like Serena Williams or Tiger Woods. Make them study soccer as well at a high level, and, well, things slow down.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 20, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> 5e rejected the slower power for greater eventual power elements once present in d&d.  Using it to justify unrestricted no cost multiclass rules  calls into question the wisdom of _both_ choices.  Even beyond that though the GM at the table needs to handle a problem wotc deliberately created when faced with a table where Alice just got or lost the one big distinction setting her single class apart from bob's MC dip on top of her same class  with the game expected to continue.  I've seen this regularly  where Alice has a sorcerer & bob has a sorcerer with 2 levels of warlock...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: stuff Bob has over Alice from 11
> ...




With a 2-level dip I disgree with this on many levels. Obviously specifics matter but in General at 11th level I think Alice will be about as powerful as Bob, less in a couple combinations, more in a couple others.  Not all the stuff you list for Bob is accurate though for a 2-level dip (see below).

To start with at level 11 Alice has 6th level spells, but Alice also got 3rd level spells 2 levels earlier, she also got her 6th level subclass ability 2 levels earlier.  Having Hound of Ill Omen for example at 6th and 7th level puts her well ahead of Bob at those levels as does having access to Fear, Haste or Fireball at levels 5 and 6 instead of waiting to level 7. 

When you make it to 11th level Hex is generally a poor use of concentration.  Yes you are multiclassed, so you can use 1st level slots on it, so it is probably worth keeping on the list but an extra 1d6 per attack is not nearly as powerful as say Animate Objects or Summon Fey (which the 11th level character can upcast to 6th level) or even a lower level concentration spell like Fear or Wall of Fire.

Let's go through this point by point:

Bob

_*an at will 120ft  (1d10+5)*3*_
_*Hex to often make that (1d10+5+1d6)*3  whenever the damage is important enough to matter.*_
This is really the best thing Bob has but EB/AB and Hex is most effective at tier 1 and tier 2  but tier 1 and tier 2 is when you are also paying the highest price for being behind in spell level and sorcerer subclass abilities.  Eldritch blast/Agonizing Blast are an extra 15 DPR (25 with Hex) but that is not very relevant at 11th level unless you were trying to build a blaster and then you would have been better off staying Warlock and getting a bunch of other invocations to enhance EB


_*either each of those 3 blasts include a 5 foot no save knockback rider or bob is probably sporting devils sight.  Given 5e's efforts to obliviate the impact of darkness it's probably going to be the knockback from repelling unless as a GM I've done things to somehow make the darkness bob now obliviates have an even greater impact for Alice to fee*_
You only have 2 invocations, you spent one on Agonizing Blast so it is either devils sight or Repelling Blast, not both.

_*3 warlock spells*_
Three more first level spells known.

*two 2nd level pact slots*
INCORRECT!  You have two 1st level pact slots on a 2-level Warlock Dip

*A warlock patron boon like an at will invisible imp or the ability to cast ritual spells from a book.*
INCORRECT!  You do not get this on a 2-level Warlock dip.  Pact Boon comes at 3rd level.  Additionally to cast rituals from a book requires both a Pact Boon and the Book of Shadows Invocation which means a 5-level Warlock dip if you want to do this and also have agonizing blast and repelling blast or Devils Sight.  Having all 4 of  these things (Rituals, Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, Devils Sight) requires 7 levels in Warlock which would make you a Warlock 7/Sorcerer 4

Alice

*Two sorcerer spells known (one less than the 3 warlock ones Bob got)\*
Yes one less total spell known, but Alice's two extra Sorcerer spells are 6th level spells, Bob's three Warlock spells are 1st level spells.  Alice also has 2 more 5th level spells known than Bob has.

*A single metamagic choice*
*A single level 6 spell slot*
*Two sorcery points/long rest (this is four less than the six bob can pull from those pact slots each long or short rest)*
Yes, but only if Bob does not use those slots to cast 1st level spells.

So when you get down to it to simplify this discussion Bob has a better at will damage option in exchange for a 6th level spell slot and another metamagic option.  He also has either 4 more SPs or 2 less SPs and 6 more 1st level spell casting.  That is all, and he either waited late to bring this online or he was well behind Alice at 3rd-8th levels.

Finally a single-class optimized 11th level Wizard, Fey Wanderer Ranger or a number of Cleric options will still blow this multiclassed character out of the water.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 20, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> With a 2-level dip I disgree with this on many levels. Obviously specifics matter but in General at 11th level I think Alice will be more powerful than Bob, less in a couple combinations, more in a couple others.  Not all the stuff you list for Bob is accurate though for a 2-level dip (see below).
> 
> To start with at level 11 Alice has 6th level spells, but Alice also got 3rd level spells 2 levels earlier, she also got her 6th level subclass ability 2 levels earlier.  Having Hound of Ill Omen for example at 6th and 7th level puts her well ahead of Bob at those levels as does having access to Fear, Haste or Fireball at levels 5 and 6 instead of waiting to level 7.
> 
> ...




Interesring to see how "overpowered" combinations are just as powerful as straight classes if calculated correctly and looked at different levels, not just the perfect one, where all abilities align.

On top, multiclass rules don't explicitely allow to convert pact magic slots into sorcery points. The paragraph only explicitely allows cross casting between pact magic and spellcasting.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 21, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> With a 2-level dip I disgree with this on many levels. Obviously specifics matter but in General at 11th level I think Alice will be more powerful than Bob, less in a couple combinations, more in a couple others.  Not all the stuff you list for Bob is accurate though for a 2-level dip (see below).
> 
> To start with at level 11 Alice has 6th level spells, but Alice also got 3rd level spells 2 levels earlier, she also got her 6th level subclass ability 2 levels earlier.  Having Hound of Ill Omen for example at 6th and 7th level puts her well ahead of Bob at those levels as does having access to Fear, Haste or Fireball at levels 5 and 6 instead of waiting to level 7.
> 
> ...



I think you are dramatically underselling the value of an at will  ability that clocks in around a 4th or 5th level spell according to dmg 284. There's also the huge overselling of a couple L6 spells in a 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  Don't forget the tutut about how a statement of bob likely having x _or_ y invocation was given a note about how he could only have x _or_ y rather than both. The point was not that Bob is "overpowered", the point was that Alice is not able to meaningfully feel like her choice to not MC mattered as much as Bob's choice to MC.  At lower levels there's a gap yes but in late tier2 or tier3 that gap is more of a technicality & rarely meaningful during play.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 21, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think you are dramatically underselling the value of an at will  ability that clocks in around a 4th or 5th level spell according to dmg 284. There's also the huge overselling of a couple L6 spells in a 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  Don't forget the tutut about how a statement of bob likely having x _or_ y invocation was given a note about how he could only have x _or_ y rather than both. The point was not that Bob is "overpowered", the point was that Alice is not able to meaningfully feel like her choice to not MC mattered as much as Bob's choice to MC.  At lower levels there's a gap yes but in late tier2 or tier3 that gap is more of a technicality & rarely meaningful during play.



No I am not underselling and I have played this multiclass.  I have also played at a table where we had multiclass on an Abberant Mind/Genie along with a single class Divine Soul.  We went level 1-14 and the Divine Soul had plenty of meaningful moments.  Honestly the sorcerer had more "significant moments" that I can recall than the multiclass did. 

Moreover if you really want the at-will Eldritch Blast this is weaker than a single class Warlock or a Sorlock with fewer sorcerer levels as you can get more invocations to further enhance your at will damage and Eldritch Blast.   

I also think you are undervaluing a 6th level spell slot.  You are talking about spells like Eyebite, Disintegrate, Heal (on a DS) or perhaps most significant - Globe of Invulnerability which would make you immune to every spell the multiclass character can cast.  Regardless of what level you are at, this 2-level dip will always be missing significant spell upgrades.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 21, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think you are dramatically underselling the value of an at will  ability that clocks in around a 4th or 5th level spell according to dmg 284. There's also the huge overselling of a couple L6 spells in a 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  Don't forget the tutut about how a statement of bob likely having x _or_ y invocation was given a note about how he could only have x _or_ y rather than both. The point was not that Bob is "overpowered", the point was that Alice is not able to meaningfully feel like her choice to not MC mattered as much as Bob's choice to MC.  At lower levels there's a gap yes but in late tier2 or tier3 that gap is more of a technicality & rarely meaningful during play.




The problem is, you only think in DPR, which at higher levels is nice, but you delay really world altering spells by 2 levels.
Our druid has 2 wizard levels, which he started his career with. We are currently level 11 and we feel the loss of 6th level spells. We love the fact that on good days, the diviner knows that the enemy will be polymorphed with no chance of success.

Of course, with the sorcerer, who is a known spellcaster, the loss of 6th level spells is not that dramatic, and the warlock level 2 is the best multiclass you can get. But this shows again, that the problem lies in class design, not in the multiclass rules per se.
I really loved that eldritch blast is missing from the spell list. This will provbably be great for the game, as not every "optimized" build is a warlock... although selling one's soul is thematic...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 21, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I also think you are undervaluing a 6th level spell slot.  You are talking about spells like Eyebite, Disintegrate, Heal (on a DS) or perhaps most significant - Globe of Invulnerability which would make you immune to every spell the multiclass character can cast.  Regardless of what level you are at, this 2-level dip will always be missing significant spell upgrades.




I think, to really understand how disintegrate belongs to the list of good spells, you need to mention, that it is a "get out of "force" jail" spell.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 21, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> With a 2-level dip I disgree with this on many levels. Obviously specifics matter but in General at 11th level I think Alice will be about as powerful as Bob, less in a couple combinations, more in a couple others.  Not all the stuff you list for Bob is accurate though for a 2-level dip (see below).
> 
> To start with at level 11 Alice has 6th level spells, but Alice also got 3rd level spells 2 levels earlier, she also got her 6th level subclass ability 2 levels earlier.  Having Hound of Ill Omen for example at 6th and 7th level puts her well ahead of Bob at those levels as does having access to Fear, Haste or Fireball at levels 5 and 6 instead of waiting to level 7.



To clarify the build unless you are desperately interested in the survivability offered by medium armour and a shield from Hexblade the optimal route to Sorcerer 9/Warlock 2 is 9 levels of sorcerer then 2 of warlock. And what makes the build arguably broken wasn't actually mentioned by @tetrasodium; it's that you get to mix Quicken Spell with a three (or four) beam Eldritch Blast that adds your Cha modifier for six beams in a turn for two sorcery points. Meanwhile the cost is currently two spell slots and from level 12 onwards will only be a single slot even if a high level one.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 22, 2022)

Still, the issue is warlock and eldritch blast, not multiclassing in general. Tie eldritch to warlock level, and you are good.
Also, even if 6d10+6d6+30 (84) looks like a lot, it is only damage (and pushback) on single targets. Inflicting status effects or just throwing a fireball and a sunbeam (after setting it up) be more useful.
Not to speak of globe of invulnerability which reduces your damage to zero in a duel. Mental prison will catch you by surprise and since you took sorcerer first, your will save against mass suggestion won't help you a lot.
If I feel like it, I upcast shadow blade and attack twice with greenflame blade (although this is not allowed strictly by RAW after the last errata). 

That does not mean, that the multiclass character is in any way underpowered, but there are also big downsides to give up your highest spell level nilly willy.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 22, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> No I am not underselling and I have *played* this multiclass.  I have also played at a table where we had multiclass on an Abberant Mind/Genie along with a single class Divine Soul.  We went level 1-14 and the Divine Soul had plenty of meaningful moments.  Honestly the sorcerer had more "significant moments" that I can recall than the multiclass did.
> 
> Moreover if you really want the at-will Eldritch Blast this is weaker than a single class Warlock or a Sorlock with fewer sorcerer levels as you can get more invocations to further enhance your at will damage and Eldritch Blast.
> 
> I also think you are undervaluing a 6th level spell slot.  You are talking about spells like Eyebite, Disintegrate, Heal (on a DS) or perhaps most significant - Globe of Invulnerability which would make you immune to every spell the multiclass character can cast.  Regardless of what level you are at, this 2-level dip will always be missing significant spell upgrades.



You *played* it, the GM needs to *run* the game for _all_ of their players.  That includes aquaman  getting "plenty of meaningful moments" and disguising when they are a job for aquaman so nobody notices or mentions that the GM is doing just that.  2e style & PF2 style feat based  variants mitigate these issues better than 5e's.


ECMO3 said:


> I also think you are undervaluing a 6th level spell slot.  You are talking about spells like Eyebite, Disintegrate, Heal (on a DS) or perhaps most significant - Globe of Invulnerability *which would make you immune to every spell the multiclass character can cast.  *Regardless of what level you are at, this 2-level dip will always be missing significant spell upgrades.





UngeheuerLich said:


> I think, to really understand how disintegrate belongs to the list of good spells, you need to mention, that it is a "get out of "force" jail" spell.



If a GM's players are making build decisions for these kind of reasons it sounds like they are running a wildly different game sporting a level of knock down dragout pvp than any I've ever heard of. Very few monsters cast wall/cube of force making it an extreme edge case.

No it's not just a warlock thing.  Warlock was rarely if ever even considered for great multiclass builds back in 3.5 yet it too had pages & pages of great MC builds.  The big difference though is that the GM had many more tools & dials they could massage to discretely adjust the relative power between players when needed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You *played* it, the GM needs to *run* the game for _all_ of their players.  That includes aquaman  getting "plenty of meaningful moments" and disguising when they are a job for aquaman so nobody notices or mentions that the GM is doing just that.  2e style & PF2 style feat based  variants mitigate these issues better than 5e's.
> 
> 
> If a GM's players are making build decisions for these kind of reasons it sounds like they are running a wildly different game sporting a level of knock down dragout pvp than any I've ever heard of. Very few monsters cast wall/cube of force making it an extreme edge case.
> ...




I am really confused, why you bring up 3.5...
... I mean, if every broken build in 5e involves the warlock and eldritch blast, it seems that the warlock is the offender, not multiclass in general.

And going from your comments, your game is just about beating a big bag of hps... probably not, but it is a bit much to draw conclusions from a few statements about other people's games.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 22, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am really confused, why you bring up 3.5...
> ... I mean, if every broken build in 5e involves the warlock and eldritch blast, it seems that the warlock is the offender, not multiclass in general.
> 
> And going from your comments, your game is just about beating a big bag of hps... probably not, but it is a bit much to draw conclusions from a few statements about other people's games.



You keep saying that MC is only an issue in 5e because of eldritch blast so there is no issue with MC in general.  _Why_ would you be confused when it's demonstrated that there  also were MC builds that were much better than other builds back in 3.5 when EB was not an awesome MC dip thing it is in 5e?


----------



## mellored (Nov 22, 2022)

I would be fine with all 3 ways of multiclassing.
3.5 style allowing dips
2e style dual class, up to level 13/13 or so. 
And grab a feat(ure) style.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You keep saying that MC is only an issue in 5e because of eldritch blast so there is no issue with MC in general.  _Why_ would you be confused when it's demonstrated that there  also were MC builds that were much better than other builds back in 3.5 when EB was not an awesome MC dip thing it is in 5e?




Because 3.5 and 5e are differen games...


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 22, 2022)

I don't worry too much about a few arguably overpowered combinations. In a game of decent complexity, optimizers are gonna find the ways to optimize. Whatever "fix" you bring in will just create new opportunities to optimize in another way.

And that's kind of a feature, not a flaw. For some folks, optimizing is part of the fun. Not for me, I let my players know up front that it is not welcome and I have no problem altering RAW to nix that gameplay at my table. But that's just my table, and if another table loves playing tricked out combinations, then who am I to say that they are wrong? Your fun is your fun.

That's not to say that you can't tweak things here and there when they are obviously busted and not working as intended. But overall the 5e system seems to work pretty well, and whatever you replace it with (which won't happen for OneD&D anyway) is unlikely to be better and could well be worse.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 22, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Because 3.5 and 5e are differen games...



There is probably close to zero chance that one d&d is incapable of having winner dip classes  & subclasses if multiclass rules are just as permissive.   Even if the initial PHB imostly free of them it's only a matter of time


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> There is probably close to zero chance that one d&d is incapable of having winner dip classes  & subclasses if multiclass rules are just as permissive.   Even if the initial PHB imostly free of them it's only a matter of time




I think there is no point in arguing any further.
By that argumentation we can't have feats or spells or classes not even skills or stats... 

I would always take the chamce of having a winner class to not lose out on what is very fun for me.
Even with warlock, multiclassing is comparatively very balanced in 5e. So I am not as fearful as you are.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Nov 22, 2022)

IMO I’d make a character require a prerequisite feat in order to multiclass to any given class, it would provide all the proficiencies granted by multiclassing regularly (I think multiclassing in general/this feat should also provide one additional skill proficiency from the chosen class) as a ‘level 0’ bonus.

This level of investment would cut down on dipping or at least make a player consider the decision a bit more ahead of time, weighing it against another feat or ASI and with level 1 feats your ability to multiclass wouldn’t even be restricted to after 4th level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 22, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> IMO I’d make a character require a prerequisite feat in order to multiclass to any given class, it would provide all the proficiencies granted by multiclassing regularly (I think multiclassing in general/this feat should also provide one additional skill proficiency from the chosen class) as a ‘level 0’ bonus.
> 
> This level of investment would cut down on dipping or at least make a player consider the decision a bit more ahead of time, weighing it against another feat or ASI and with level 1 feats your ability to multiclass wouldn’t even be restricted to after 4th level.




You can't probably give all proficiencies, but some.
Probably just have each class have certain requirements like armor and weapon training or some cantrips.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Nov 23, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You can't probably give all proficiencies, but some.
> Probably just have each class have certain requirements like armor and weapon training or some cantrips.



Sorry was i unclear or am I misunderstanding you? i was referring to the proficiencies that multiclassing into a class will automatically provide you, suggesting that taking a class’s multiclass feat would provide you with those proficiencies (but none of the class’s 1st level features) i was also suggesting it would provide a choice of one of the class’s base skill proficiencies to compensate slightly the cost of using a feat (class’s that already provides proficiencies would just provide one more)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 23, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Sorry was i unclear or am I misunderstanding you? i was referring to the proficiencies that multiclassing into a class will automatically provide you, suggesting that taking a class’s multiclass feat would provide you with those proficiencies (but none of the class’s 1st level features)
> View attachment 267612View attachment 267613




I think these feats are too good. It is also questionable why a fighter need the feat.

Why not say: to qualify for multiclassing into fighter, you need training in 2 martial weapons and light and medium armor. The fighter mutliclass feat might give exactly that, but a barbarian would qualify automatically, while a wizard had to take a few feats.
an alternate Idea wluld be just having fighters upgrade armor proficiency by one step. So as a wizard you only gain light armor, if you did not somehow gain light armor proficiency first.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Nov 23, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think these feats are too good. It is also questionable why a fighter need the feat.
> 
> Why not say: to qualify for multiclassing into fighter, you need training in 2 martial weapons and light and medium armor. The fighter mutliclass feat might give exactly that, but a barbarian would qualify automatically, while a wizard had to take a few feats.
> an alternate Idea wluld be just having fighters upgrade armor proficiency by one step. So as a wizard you only gain light armor, if you did not somehow gain light armor proficiency first.



Why are they too good? As it stands to my understanding multiclassing into a class already provides what the feat is providing and more with the 1st level features (minus my proposed single skill), in the scenario I’m proposing multiclassing would not be allowed without first taking a specific class’s multiclass feat so all it is doing is providing an advance on features you would already be getting down the line when you actually multiclassed.


----------



## mellored (Nov 23, 2022)

Another idea.  (In _addition_ to the normal way).

Multiclass as a subclass.

Bard subclass: prerequisite, 13 Cha, not a bard.
3: bardic inspiration, cast a level 1 bard spell once per short rest
6: expertise, cast a bard spell 2 bard spells once per short rest.
10: jack of all trades, font of inspiration
14: expertise, cast a level 3 bard spell once per short rest.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 23, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Why are they too good? As it stands to my understanding multiclassing into a class already provides what the feat is providing and more with the 1st level features (minus my proposed single skill), in the scenario I’m proposing multiclassing would not be allowed without first taking a specific class’s multiclass feat so all it is doing is providing an advance on features you would already be getting down the line when you actually multiclassed.




Because if you take the feat and just don't multiclass, they are better than other feats.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 23, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Because if you take the feat and just don't multiclass, they are better than other feats.




Surely there are already multiclass feats that provide a flavour of a second class if not actual class features?  Skilled, Magical Adept, Armour feats, Weapon Master, Martial Adept, etc.  The list could be widened to include missing classes but there is already huge scope if half feats are generally allowed at level 1.  A high elf Fighter-Mage could have 3 cantrips and a level 1 spell.  That's not bad.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 23, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Surely there are already multiclass feats that provide a flavour of a second class if not actual class features?  Skilled, Magical Adept, Armour feats, Weapon Master, Martial Adept, etc.  The list could be widened to include missing classes but there is already huge scope if half feats are generally allowed at level 1.  A high elf Fighter-Mage could have 3 cantrips and a level 1 spell.  That's not bad.




I don't disagree... this is exactly what I was thinking. Make 2 arcane cantrips and a level 1 arcane spell the prerequisite of wizard multiclass.
You could get it by being a bard, an arcane trickster, by being a high elf of high enough level maybe or justvby taking the magic initiate spell.
So to become a level 1 wizard, you need to bring some talent for the arcane woth you and not gain everything after taking a level 1 wizard multiclass.
As a fighter the prerequisites could be light armor training and a martial weapon proficiency. So the rogue can quite easily become a fighter, a wizard has to work a bit for it. And the fighter multiclass upgrade armor proficiencies by one step.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 23, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't disagree... this is exactly what I was thinking. Make 2 arcane cantrips and a level 1 arcane spell the prerequisite of wizard multiclass.
> You could get it by being a bard, an arcane trickster, by being a high elf of high enough level maybe or justvby taking the magic initiate spell.
> So to become a level 1 wizard, you need to bring some talent for the arcane woth you and not gain everything after taking a level 1 wizard multiclass.
> As a fighter the prerequisites could be light armor training and a martial weapon proficiency. So the rogue can quite easily become a fighter, a wizard has to work a bit for it. And the fighter multiclass upgrade armor proficiencies by one step.



That's not really stopping much in the way of cherry picking though.  Sure it might stop an extreme edge case like hexadin, but those prerequisite hurdles are likely to be about as high a bar to meet as the existing "13 x or y attribute [which anyone considering this almost certainly has]“


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 24, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> That's not really stopping much in the way of cherry picking though.  Sure it might stop an extreme edge case like hexadin, but those prerequisite hurdles are likely to be about as high a bar to meet as the existing "13 x or y attribute [which anyone considering this almost certainly has]“




Exactly. This is more than enough.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Exactly. This is more than enough.



No it's not accomplishing anything but making it seem as if there is a cost in order to resist any effort to spotlight or correct problems that arise.  Exactly how is it "more than enough?"


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 24, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> No it's not accomplishing anything but making it seem as if there is a cost in order to resist any effort to spotlight or correct problems that arise.  Exactly how is it "more than enough?"




Because the system as is, barrng a few exception, works extremely well. And most of those exceptions are already depending on a certain reading of the mutlticlass rules, which is probably wrong: being able to use warlock spells for smite or sorcery points.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Because the system as is, barrng a few exception, works extremely well. And most of those exceptions are already depending on a certain reading of the mutlticlass rules, which is probably wrong: being able to use warlock spells for smite or sorcery points.



Multiclassing at its strongest is about setting up synergies... Those tend to involve similarities.  If wotc does anything to "fix Multiclassing"  it's self defeating in that goal to begin with the idea that "Multiclassing works extremely well" or embrace the self congratulating idea it would take for them to think one d&d won't wind up with edge cases that a more robust subsystem than a self defeating one less in need of "fixing" could mitigate.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 24, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Multiclassing at its strongest is about setting up synergies... Those tend to involve similarities.  If wotc does anything to "fix Multiclassing"  it's self defeating in that goal to begin with the idea that "Multiclassing works extremely well" or embrace the self congratulating idea it would take for them to think one d&d won't wind up with edge cases that a more robust subsystem than a self defeating one less in need of "fixing" could mitigate.




I think there needs something to be done with magic/pact magic and cantrips/extra attacks.

But there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which some people suggest.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think there needs something to be done with magic/pact magic and cantrips/extra attacks.
> 
> But there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which some people suggest.



You aren't talkies out that though, just praising and excusing  the problem inviting version present in 5e


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 24, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You aren't talkies out that though, just praising and excusing  the problem inviting version present in 5e




So you are just making a problem of a molehill, not understanding the scope of the problem, trying to fix things that don't need fixing and just letting things that are a problem remain?


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> So you are just making a problem of a molehill, not understanding the scope of the problem, trying to fix things that don't need fixing and just letting things that are a problem remain?



Not at all. There will always be classes that are going to wind up unusually good combos for dipping & those will leave the gm stuck trying to handle both that and the single classed pc.  Rather than dismissing that problem or pretending that every one of the symptoms should be addressed with one off a class  specific fixes I'm suggesting that as the root cause of all the problem combos the multiclass rules themselves should be fixed and it seems like . Every time that discussion resumes you jump in to tell us all how the multiclassing subsystem is perfection.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 24, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Not at all. There will always be classes that are going to wind up unusually good combos for dipping & those will leave the gm stuck trying to handle both that and the single classed pc.  Rather than dismissing that problem or pretending that every one of the symptoms should be addressed with one off a class  specific fixes I'm suggesting that as the root cause of all the problem combos the multiclass rules themselves should be fixed and it seems like . Every time that discussion resumes you jump in to tell us all how the multiclassing subsystem is perfection.




If you read it that way, so be it.
But you come in and say all is bad. So who is right?
Your fixes will either make everything bad or will still have some too good combinations. As I said, every feat, every subclass can be rated. Some will be too god. Some will be too bad.

Multiclassing has its root problems in the lack of good abilities of some classes at high level and the overpowerdness of some low level abilities of a few classes or subclasses... 

The 3 offenders are sorlock, hexadin and sorcadin...
The rest is in line with single classes. So again. Why do you insist of "fixing" a system that has worked for us for 10 years now and replace it with an untested system that will most pobably also have issues.
Why not fix the root of the problem, changing the wording of a few abilities and making it clear, that warlock slots can not be used for class abilities.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If you read it that way, so be it.
> But you come in and say all is bad. So who is right?
> Your fixes will either make everything bad or will still have some too good combinations. As I said, every feat, every subclass can be rated. Some will be too god. Some will be too bad.
> 
> ...



I think this is largely correct.  You would not even need to plug every gap to bring these combos in line, presumably just tighten up the wording in the multiclass section.  So specifically, if we are going to target just these combos, what additional sentence could be added to the multiclass section to bring these combos into line?

Sorlock: Warlock spell slots may not be converted into spell points.  Sorcerer spells may not be converted into Warlock Smite damage. 
Hexadin: Warlock spells may not be converted into Paladin Smite damage.
Sorcadin: Paladin spell slots may not be converted into spell points.  Sorcerer spells may not be converted into Paladin Smite damage. 

Looks like Eldritch Blast is becoming a class feature, which might fix some issues there regarding multiple beams and level dips/feats.

Anything else?

NB: This is to reign in overpowered combos.  I think Smite damage needs to be fixed more generally.  It doesn't preclude feats that enhance multiclassing in some way.


----------



## mellored (Nov 24, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Sorlock: Warlock spell slots may not be converted into spell points.  Sorcerer spells may not be converted into Warlock Smite damage.
> Hexadin: Warlock spells may not be converted into Paladin Smite damage.
> Sorcadin: Paladin spell slots may not be converted into spell points.  Sorcerer spells may not be converted into Paladin Smite damage.



That doesn't stop a Paladin from going wizard, Cleric, bard, and constantly smiting that way.

Just change smite to +1d8, usable a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus.  (Maybe turn down the +Cha to saves as well).

Also, I suggest Warlocks lose spell slots, and turn pact magic into an invocation.  Solves a number of interactions.

Pact magic
Select a spell, you can cast it once per short rest.  You need to be a minimum level... it scale by Warlock level...


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 24, 2022)

mellored said:


> That doesn't stop a Paladin from going wizard, Cleric, bard, and constantly smiting that way.
> 
> Just change smite to +1d8, usable a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus.  (Maybe turn down the +Cha to saves as well).
> 
> ...



Obviously, you could apply the same limitations to other spell-casting classes and/or add the caveat to the paladin and warlock classes.  I do also agree that the paladin boost to saves should be half Charisma bonus (minimum +1).  A daily limit smiting is also not a bad idea but the issue for me is crit-fishing.  There needs to be a way to reign in damage - possibly 1d8 damage plus 4 damage per spell level spent.

Are you proposing drastically reducing the number of warlock spells known but potentially increasing the number of spells you can cast per short rest by just picking pact magic multiple times?  Even if you allow the warlock to know all the spells on their subclass list, that still sounds very limiting.  Or are you suggesting keeping the warlock progression exactly the same but just changing the name of the spell slots to pact magic? If the latter, would you still allow them to cast spells from their other classes using the warlock pact magic slots?  If not, it does become harder to see any synergy with other caster classes. 

I think my experience of warlocks is that it's only when they get to 3 spells per short rest that they start to feel magical enough.  Personally I would like to advance their progression so that the hit that sweet spot a bit faster.


----------



## mellored (Nov 24, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Obviously, you could apply the same limitations to other spell-casting classes and/or add the caveat to the paladin and warlock classes.  I do also agree that the paladin boost to saves should be half Charisma bonus (minimum +1).  A daily limit smiting is also not a bad idea but the issue for me is crit-fishing.  There needs to be a way to reign in damage - possibly 1d8 damage plus 4 damage per spell level spent.



Maybe
Smite: +Cha damage to smite, a number of times equal to you proficiency bonus
Aura of protection: +3 to savings throws.


Pauln6 said:


> Are you proposing drastically reducing the number of warlock spells known but potentially increasing the number of spells you can cast per short rest by just picking pact magic multiple times?



Yes, they can take it multiple times.

And they get more invocations of course.  Properly level locked.


Pauln6 said:


> would you still allow them to cast spells from their other classes using the warlock pact magic slots?



No.  Because not all spells are not balanced for short rest casting.  Like healing, or ones that last for more than an hour like Aid.

But no reason why short rest spells can be cast with long rest slots. Wording like that exsist in several places already.

_Once you cast the Spell with this trait, you can’t cast that Spell with it again until you finish a Short Rest; however, you can cast the spell using any  spell Slots you have of the appropriate level._


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 25, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I think this is largely correct.  You would not even need to plug every gap to bring these combos in line, presumably just tighten up the wording in the multiclass section.  So specifically, if we are going to target just these combos, what additional sentence could be added to the multiclass section to bring these combos into line?
> 
> Sorlock: Warlock spell slots may not be converted into spell points.  Sorcerer spells may not be converted into Warlock Smite damage.
> Hexadin: Warlock spells may not be converted into Paladin Smite damage.
> ...




I have never seen a problem with any of those things in play.  I have seen a lot of theories on how bad they are, but we have seen those class combos in play and never had a problem.  Part of the reason why is smites are generally a weak use of a spell slot compared to what you can get out of an actual spell of that level.   

I also think there are many single class Wizard builds and a few Cleric builds that are quite a bit more powerful than those "OP" combos.

Multiclassing Sorlock for sorcerery points is a particularly bad idea.  You would actually have more Sorcery points if you just were a single-class Sorcerer and used the higher level slots you don't have with the multiclass for sorcery points.  For example using a 2-short rest day on an 8th level character:

*Warlock Dip-Level 6 Sorc/Level 2 Warlock:*  Your Warlock slots will give you 6 SPs per day, but if you were a single class Sorc you would have 2 more to start with and 2 4th level slots that could give you 8 more on top of that.

*Sorcerer Dip - Level 3 Sorc/Level 5 Warlock:  *Your Warlock gives you 18 more Sorcery Points (assuming 2 short rests) assuming you never want to cast a spell higher than 2nd level, but if you were a single class sorcerer you would start with 5 more and your extra spell slots (1-2nd, 3-3rd, 2-4th) are worth 19 Sorcery points.  So casting the same spells, the single class character has 6 more SPs.

*Equal Multiclass - Level 4 Sorc/Level 4 Warlock:  *Your Warlock slots can be converted into 12 more SPs, but a single-class Sorc would start with 4 more and have extra sorcerer slots worth 17 more.

In all 3 of these examples you are losing SPs per day with the multiclass and that assumes an ideal 2 short rests a day.

Also. RAW Sorcerer spell slots can not be used for Eldritch Smite.  That can only be done with Pact Slots:

_"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."_

I really hope they do not make EB a class feature for two reasons.  First I don't use it on all my Warlock builds and second, it is nice to have it as an option on things like Magic Initiate.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 25, 2022)

mellored said:


> Maybe
> Smite: +Cha damage to smite, a number of times equal to you proficiency bonus
> Aura of protection: +3 to savings throws.
> 
> ...



Short rest spell-casting is usually balanced by level.  Low level sorcerers will only be able to cast low level spells in their higher level warlock slots and vice versa plus upscaling lower level spells in higher warlock slots is generally viewed as a weaker option than casting higher level spells.  I don't think this is an issue that needs fixing.  Many people think that invocations giving the option to cast certain spells once per long rest at the cost of a spell slot are quite weak.

Changing the invocation dynamic could create unintentional imbalances without a lot of careful consideration and playtesting.  I think most players of classes who who function with known spells would say the problem is not knowing enough spells (without the burden of knowing every spell on the list).  A slight increase here might be more popular than changing the way pact spells work.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 25, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Also. RAW Sorcerer spell slots can not be used for Eldritch Smite.  That can only be done with Pact Slots:
> 
> _"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."_
> 
> I really hope they do not make EB a class feature for two reasons.  First I don't use it on all my Warlock builds and second, it is nice to have it as an option on things like Magic Initiate.



Yes I think you are correct to say that technically, the cross class smiting already shouldn't work.  That so many think it should is perhaps why they need to repeat that in the multiclassing section.  

I think the problem with EB from Magic Initiate is the scaling.  Giving a single blast with Charisma bonus to damage might be fine for a feat - decent range, better damage than an arrow, no ammunition concerns.  Maybe that's the middle ground.  Save the scaling for actual warlocks and while they are at it, give us some little tweaks in other cantrips.  Would a Firebolt that pushes people back be so terrible?


----------



## mellored (Nov 25, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Short rest spell-casting is usually balanced by level.



Primarily, yes.  But some spells just aren't designed to be spammed.
Again, Aid last 8 hours.  Do it 2 or 3 times before you head in to a cave could be a problem.


Pauln6 said:


> Low level sorcerers will only be able to cast low level spells in their higher level warlock slots and vice versa plus upscaling lower level spells in higher warlock slots is generally viewed as a weaker option than casting higher level spells.



sorcerers can also just dump them for SP.


Pauln6 said:


> Many people think that invocations giving the option to cast certain spells once per long rest at the cost of a spell slot are quite weak.



Long rest spells are not great.
Short rest is twice as good.
And again, you'll have more of them.


Pauln6 said:


> Changing the invocation dynamic could create unintentional imbalances without a lot of careful consideration and playtesting.



Good thing there is a play test.
If it's terrible, then they can change it back.


Pauln6 said:


> I think most players of classes who who function with known spells would say the problem is not knowing enough spells



Seems like they are giving evey one the ability to change their spells daily.

Swapping invocations would be good too.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 25, 2022)

mellored said:


> Primarily, yes.  But some spells just aren't designed to be spammed.
> Again, Aid last 8 hours.  Do it 2 or 3 times before you head in to a cave could be a problem.
> 
> sorcerers can also just dump them for SP.
> ...



Twice as good does not automatically equal so good it needs to be nerfed.  Spells that last an hour are not necessarily broken if you get spell slots back on a short rest either.  That multiclass cleric also has daily slots they can use for the spell plus one cannot automatically take short rests. Circumstances, including location or other players, may prevent this.  I'm not a fan of casters knowing every spell on their list. I'm not a fan of warlocks or fighters being able to retrain class features after a simple rest.  It makes it feel less immersive and helps strip flavour from character builds.  I'm more in favour of retraining when they gain a level or on downtime or having a ritual with a time and monetary cost attached that lets you entreat your master for an amendment to your pact involving one invocation.  A list of possible invocations that are swappable with a ritual for each pact might be a cool way to add flavour and versatility.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 25, 2022)

I think removing divine smite would be the correct way and just improving the smite spells and adding prof bonus per level smites on top.


----------



## mellored (Nov 25, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Twice I'm as good does not automatically equal so good it needs to be nerfed.



I don't see how it's a nerf, except for sorlock and hexadins.


Pauln6 said:


> Spells that last an hour are not necessarily broken if you get spell slots back on a short rest either.



Not automatically broken no.  But the 8 hour spells definitely have more issues.  But there is the potential for them to be.
Warlock/crono wizard 10 + catnap = everyone in the party casts firewall at the start of the fight.  Then use repelling blast...


Pauln6 said:


> That multiclass cleric also has daily slots they can use for the spell plus one cannot automatically take short rests. Circumstances, including location or other players, may prevent this.



And they still can cast them with the cleric slots.  Just not short rest spam.


Pauln6 said:


> A list of possible invocations that are swappable with a ritual for each pact might be a cool way to add flavour and versatility.



Sure. A ritual is more flavorful.  And I do agree you shouldn't be able to swap everything all the time (except tome warlocks and scribe wizards).  Though more often than one per level.

Maybe swap one invocation/spell per long rest as a nice middle ground.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 25, 2022)

mellored said:


> I don't see how it's a nerf, except for sorlock and hexadins.
> 
> Not automatically broken no.  But the 8 hour spells definitely have more issues.  But there is the potential for them to be.
> Warlock/crono wizard 10 + catnap = everyone in the party casts firewall at the start of the fight.  Then use repelling blast...
> ...



I think if a spell is still active, a warlock (or anyone else for that matter) should only be able to regain that spell slot if the spell is dismissed.  If they want to make an exception to that rule put it in the spell description.  Sorcery points should only be allowed from sorcerer spell slots.


----------



## MoonSong (Nov 25, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I think if a spell is still active, a warlock (or anyone else for that matter) should only be able to regain that spell slot if the spell is dismissed.  If they want to make an exception to that rule put it in the spell description.  Sorcery points should only be allowed from sorcerer spell slots.



But once a sorcerer multiclasses, they no longer have any "sorcerer slots" only slots (because they meld together from all classes) Unless you propose that multiclass spellcasters should all go abck to keeping track of slots separately by class?


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 26, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> But once a sorcerer multiclasses, they no longer have any "sorcerer slots" only slots (because they meld together from all classes) Unless you propose that multiclass spellcasters should all go abck to keeping track of slots separately by class?



Are you sure that's right?  The actual wording says, "you can use *spells slots you gain from the Pact Magic *Class feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the spellcasting feature."  That explicitly states the spell slots remain warlock spell slots.  The issue is actually that the font of magic class feature applies to any spell slot.  It just needs to be limited to sorcerer spell slots or spell slots gained from the multiclass spellcaster spell slot table, which would exclude warlock spell slots.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Are you sure that's right?  The actual wording says, "you can use *spells slots you gain from the Pact Magic *Class feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the spellcasting feature."  That explicitly states the spell slots remain warlock spell slots.  The issue is actually that the font of magic class feature applies to any spell slot.  It just needs to be limited to sorcerer spell slots or spell slots gained from the multiclass spellcaster spell slot table, which would exclude warlock spell slots.




And it explicitely say, what you can do with them: casting spells.

What is not stated? That you can use them to fuel class abilities that rely on spell slots.

So it is TRDSIC, not RAW that you can use warlock spells for smites...

and then, it is only a few more d8's per day, which you pay with later access to high level powers like improved divine smite.
Multiclass combos just peak at certain levels as do single classes. Go one level down or up, and the other character has the upper hand.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> And it explicitely say, what you can do with them: casting spells.
> 
> What is not stated? That you can use them to fuel class abilities that rely on spell slots.
> 
> ...



The issue is with smites generally doing too much damage for me.  Paladin damage spikes, save bonuses and laying on of hands strain bounded accuracy a bit too much.

It is the class features themselves which state that spell slots fuel those class features as oppoosed to class spell slots because multiclass spell slots are not class spell slots.  What's equally clear is that warlock spell slots are also not multiclass spell slots and so that tiny clarification in a simple sentence is all that is needed. 

As an alternative, give multiclass warlocks an additional sentence that lets them convert a warlock spell slot into a class feature or vice versa once per long rest to overcome the short rest issue.

FYI My own PC is a sorcerer warlock multiclass and if anything, she needs a boost, not a nerf, but that might be because she's a Tome Warlock and not optimised for damage dealing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> The issue is with smites generally doing too much damage for me.  Paladin damage spikes, save bonuses and laying on of hands strain bounded accuracy a bit too much.
> 
> It is the class features themselves which state that spell slots fuel those class features as oppoosed to class spell slots because multiclass spell slots are not class spell slots.  What's equally clear is that warlock spell slots are also not multiclass spell slots and so that tiny clarification in a simple sentence is all that is needed.
> 
> ...




I also think, clarification is needed more than everything else. Funnily, the original first printing explicitely calls out paladin spells slots for divine smite. It was changed, because there are no paladin spell slots. But eldritch smite uses warlock spell slots. 

The correct way to discern them would have been: pact magic spell slot vs spellcasting spell slot. 

The change to reliable talent and jack of all trades seems to indicate, that they are willing to put in some extra words for clarification. So I am optimistic that we will see a better wording which prevents multiclassing abuse.


----------



## Pauln6 (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I also think, clarification is needed mkre than everything else. Funnily, the original first printing explicitely calls out paladin spells slots for divine smite. It was changed, because there are no paladin spell slots. But eldritch smite uses warlock spell slots.
> 
> The correct way to discern them would have been: pact magic spell slot vs spellcasting spell slot.
> 
> The change to reliable talent and jack of all trades seems to indicate, that they are willing to put in some extra words for clarification. So I am optimistic that we will see a better wording which prevents multiclassing abuse.



Yes I think that additional words are the most likely fix.

The Rogue sneak attack spell stacking clarification would not impact a rogue paladin sneak smite but would the assumption be there that even an arcane trickster is going to have a limited number of spell slots to call on?


----------

