# The state of Multiclass-Dips in One D&D



## tetrasodium (Dec 9, 2022)

In one of the recent videos Crawford mentioned that they were moving the cleric subclass choice back because it was too rewarding as a dip & that they want to incentivize players to have a little more skin in a class than just 1-2 level dips that are so good players feel like they are harmed by not taking them*.  With one version for four of twelve core classes & 4 of 48 total subclasses I think so far that goal is falling pretty far shy of the mark Crawford described to the point that people are even making videos about it.


Spoiler: the video






So here's what each class gives with a 1 level dip & how that expands beyond tier1.


Spoiler: Bard




*L1:*armor training: Light Armor.  
We don't yet have the new equipment details causing this to be a bit uncertain in value but we can make some assumptions.  If someone is going to dip another class for armor proficiency light armor is probably not going to be the goal

*L1:*One skill from the bard list & one musical instrument proficiency.
We don't yet know what (if any) changes will be made to skills

*L*two arcane cantrips [edit: they also get a level of spellcasting but that got left out initially by accident]
Currently  we don't know if cantrips will continue to scale by character level or if there will be improvements like linking them to equipment.   There are already a lot of ways to get cantrips though so this is probably just a garnish at best if we are thinking about the value with a dip

*L1*: Bardic inspiration": This is only a d6 but you have proficiency bonus uses & can use it as a reaction for guidance-type boosts or a reaction _heal_.
This is starting to look enticing as a feature that will improve the next 19 nonbard levels  but probably not yet good enough to feel forced into this dip

*L2:* Songs of restoration: Healing word is always prepared & doesn't count against your prepared spells.  Coupled with preparing three additional divination illusion enchantment or transmutation arcane spells you prepare without counting against your other 19 levels of caster prep & bardic inspiration this is starting to be a contender for a solid dip.
*L2:* Expertise:  Choose _any _two of your skills to have expertise in.
Currently expertise is double proficiency & bounded accuracy is already destroyed by scaling proficiency bonuses alone even without expertise. *This is a problem but perhaps not specifically a multiclass problem since rogue & ranger gets this at first.*




There are some questionably dip_worthy_ abilities but barring interaction with abilities from classes we do not yet have bard is _probably_ not a class that's going to make nonbards feel forced to dip.  Bard probably meets the goal Crawford laid out.


Spoiler: Rogue




*L1:*One skill from the rogue list & thieve's tool proficiency
Again we don't know what (if any) changes we can expect to skills

armor training: Light Armor
We don't yet have the new equipment details causing this to be a bit uncertain in value but we can make some assumptions.  If someone is going to dip another class for armor proficiency light armor is probably not going to be the goal

*L1:*Expertise in two of your skills
Currently expertise is double proficiency & bounded accuracy is already destrpyed by scaling proficiency bonuses alone even without expertise. *This is a problem but perhaps not specifically a multiclass problem.*

L1: Sneak attack: +1d6 on finesse & ranged weapon attacks1/round under some conditions.
The conditions are easy to meet.  Even without knowing what weapons will look like sneak attack is probably not a prime reason to dip rogue1

L2" Cunning action
Nice but barring any secondary class feature interactions dipping 2 levels of rogue for cunning action is probably not too much pressure. Rogue probably meets the goal Crawford laid out/




Expertise is a big problem if bounded accuracy is a thing wotc intends to keep.  Rogue is probably meeting the goal Crawford laid out though.


Spoiler: Ruh-roh Ranger




*L1:*armor training: light arnmor medium anmor & shields
It's hard to say how good this is but better than or equal to what 4 of the current 4 classes have

*L1: *Martial weapon proficiencies & 1 rangerskill of your choice
We don't yet have the new weapons but this may or may not be incentive to dip ranger or feel disadvantaged for not doing so.

*L1:*Expertise in two of your skills
Currently expertise is double proficiency & bounded accuracy is already destroyed by scaling proficiency bonuses alone even without expertise.  It's also worth noting that this is expertise in two of _your_ skills not two _ranger_ skills since we are talking about excessive dip incentives. *This is a problem but perhaps not specifically a multiclass problem.*

*L1*: two non-evocation primal cantrips & preparing two non-evocation 1st level primal spells without counting against the prep slots for your other 19 levels of non-ranger caster prep.
*L1:*Favored enemy: You always have hunters mark prepared & can cast it without needing to maintain concentration...
Ruh-roh: It's entirely possible hunters mark will change in a way that solves this but I think that's a stretch. This is a pretty serious bit of dip candy for any classs that makes weapon attacks& the pressure grows the more attacks a PC makes each round. We don't know what the non-light weapons will ultimately look like but this is already starting to singlehandedly pull an already questionable dip in ways that are looking like it significantly misses the mark for that goal Crawford laid out.

*2nd:*a fighting style
It's hard to say how much more valuable this is & if this with 12/18 will be more valuable than 1/19 without knowing more classes & specifics.  This is probably not a concern for dip overvalue, but ranger is already looking very sorlocky just from a one level dip.




We don't yet have enough details from the other weapon using classes to talk degrees or anything but the ranger almost certainly looking like it falls quite a bit short of the goal Crawford described


Spoiler: Cleric Red Alert




*1st:*Armor training: Light armor medium armor & shields
It's hard to say how good this is but better than or equal to what 4 of the current 4 classes have..

*1st:*No skills
Probably a good thing we should see more of.

*1st:*Channel Divinity: This is a heal or nuke that scales based with both proficiency bonus uses in addition to proficiency bonus number of dice
This is an anility that misses that goal by an extreme degree.  Any wisdom based class is going to be feeling some pressure & it could be good enough that even non-wisdom based classes start feeling pressure

*1st: *three divine cantrips: Guidance, Resistance, 1 other...
these are extremely solid additions that a character can bring to the group on top of the already bad Channel Divinity pressure.

*1st: *Two forst level divine prep slots
Again very solid additions to any caster (divine or not)

*2nd: *Holy Order:  Choice between* A:* Martial weapon proficiency &  heavy armor proficiency, B: proficiency in two skills from arcana history nature persuasion & religion _and _you add your wisdom mod to it on top of whatever you normally add, *C: *an extra divine cantrip and you regain one of those proficiency bonus/long rest proficiency bonus(d8) channel divinity uses when you take a short rest....
*A* is pretty awesome on top of everything else.  Even now it's common for characters to dip cleric just to get heavy armor proficiency
*B* is freaking amazing for a face character & further exposes how bad bounded accuracy is by making the best face character a bard X/cleric 2 leaps & bounds beyond anything else.
*C* is something that makes an already overly desirable dip pressuring ability even better and

*3rd:*  subclass features.  Currently this is disciple of life & domain spells
Those are very good but maybe not woirth going further as a dip yet.  Other cleric subtypes could add very desirable things for some classes to take





cleric misses the goal Crawford described by miles to the point where it's reasonable to wonder just how much wotc is interested in meeting that goal.

There are definitely some serious problems  with the goal that was described already & some of them need direct changes while others could be minimized by going back to 3.x style spell slots for different classes being separate rather than combining.  Going to point by point or choose N skills from this class when awarded to be proficient with every so often while leveling with the number of times a skill is chosen times proficiency bonus being how much it adds to the d20**.  Both of those & some form of dual classing with a 2.5-3x exp need multiplier (or even just the multiplier) would likewise help. [edit: going back to 3.5 style knowledge skills & divisions of them could help some areas too]


* I'm doing some paraphrasing from memory & treantmonk includes the direct quote snippet in his video so good enough.
** redo the target DCs to fit


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 9, 2022)

Not that this in any way invalidates the bulk of, nor the value or interest of your post, but in light of this comment


tetrasodium said:


> cleric misses the goal Crawford described by miles to the point where it's reasonable to wonder just how much wotc is interested in meeting that goal.



I do think it's worth mentioning that in the Crawford video, it's specifically called out "_I mentioned the *most important one of the two issues* is we're asking you to make this momentous decision before you even played the class before you even see what it's like to be just a vanilla member of the class._" Multiclassing is a major concern, but they're also trying to adjust level one to grant the base class fantasy in a better way, so sometimes those goals will conflict. 

Carry on.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> There are definitely some serious problems  with the goal that was described already & some of them need direct changes while others could be minimized by going back to 3.x style spell slots for different classes being separate rather than combining.  Going to point by point or choose N skills from this class when awarded to be proficient with every so often while leveling with the number of times a skill is chosen times proficiency bonus being how much it adds to the d20**.  Both of those & some form of dual classing with a 2.5-3x exp need multiplier (or even just the multiplier) would likewise help. [edit: going back to 3.5 style knowledge skills & divisions of them could help some areas too]




While treantmonks really makes good points, the ideas you present here are the worst ideas for OneDnD I have read in a while.

Edit: 
I think someone mentioned, that you could just use prof bonus as printed int the class table to determine uses and power of class abilities when you multiclass.

A different solution could just be having a shared pool of pb uses per level for class based abilities.

Maybe even a combination of both. So you can only use 2 uses of pb times per day of class abilities until you reach lvl 5 in that class. And so on.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 9, 2022)

Xamnam said:


> Not that this in any way invalidates the bulk of, nor the value or interest of your post, but in light of this comment
> 
> I do think it's worth mentioning that in the Crawford video, it's specifically called out "_I mentioned the *most important one of the two issues* is we're asking you to make this momentous decision before you even played the class before you even see what it's like to be just a vanilla member of the class._" Multiclassing is a major concern, but they're also trying to adjust level one to grant the base class fantasy in a better way, so sometimes those goals will conflict.
> 
> Carry on.





That bold bit was not unnoticed but it certainly does not obliviate the other... Someone just walking into the game for the first time can be given a pregen & make a new character later when they are more experienced.   As someone who mostly GMs the other one is quite a bit more irksome the longer a game goes on because a player can choose to MC at any time but the GM is expected to be fair with the spotlight across all players including the newbie once covered under that bold bit weeks months or even years ago.



UngeheuerLich said:


> While treantmonks really makes good points, the ideas you present here are the worst ideas for OneDnD I have read in a while.
> 
> Edit:
> I think someone mentioned, that you could just use prof bonus as printed int the class table to determine uses and power of class abilities when you multiclass.
> ...



Nah, 5e skill system is terrible & the way knowledge skills fit into it is especially awful.  copying it into one d&d as the exclusive set of skills would be awful.  The 3.x style multiclass but without 3.x style prerequisites of 5e likewise creates lots of issues that oned&d should absolutely make efforts to do better about.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Nah, 5e skill system is terrible & the way knowledge skills fit into it is especially awful.  copying it into one d&d as the exclusive set of skills would be awful.  The 3.x style multiclass but without 3.x style prerequisites of 5e likewise creates lots of issues that oned&d should absolutely make efforts to do better about.




Ok, you could improve the skill system a bit. But you are really suggesting to go back to not adding caster levels and track them seperately? 
Sorry, but this was the best idea. I mentioned that i really despised pathfinder 1 for not fixing the issue, while the little known trailblazer just did it.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 9, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ok, you could improve the skill system a bit. But you are really suggesting to go back to not adding caster levels and track them seperately?
> Sorry, but this was the best idea. I mentioned that i really despised pathfinder 1 for not fixing the issue, while the little known trailblazer just did it.



not so much _just_ don't add them & track them separate as do that while updating dual classing to no longer be combo specific rules with some improvements taken from the good parts of MC.  There's an interactive spreadsheet showing how such a thing could line up oon Alice's sheet across the table from Bob's single classed PC but it didn't get linked originally by accident.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> not so much _just_ don't add them & track them separate as do that while updating dual classing to no longer be combo specific rules with some improvements taken from the good parts of MC.  There's an interactive spreadsheet showing how such a thing could line up oon Alice's sheet across the table from Bob's single classed PC but it didn't get linked originally by accident.




I don't dislike the Idea as a whole. I thought, you wanted to have the spellcasting progressions seperate in the current system. As an alternate form of multiclassing, I'd support this Idea (like multiclassing and dual-classing without the species restrictions). 
But I definitely don't want to get rid of the current system, which is more flexible and works well barring a few class specific cases. But I don't want that discussion again. So this is the last I say in this thread.


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 9, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> That bold bit was not unnoticed but it certainly does not obliviate the other...



Oh good, and certainly it does not. It just sounded like that video, given the creator, was focusing on one side to the neglect of the other, so I thought it worth making sure the context was present here.

It's thorny, because I definitely agree with you on the Cleric front. That Divine Spark is...not game-breaking, likelily, but increasingly attractive to give any class an emergency heal, especially given that it's ranged. The tricky spot for so much of this is anything that scales off of Proficiency Bonus, given that you never have to sacrifice that progression, and I doubt they're willing to add a separate number that's expressly used to modify multiclass PB skill usage.


----------



## mellored (Dec 10, 2022)

I feel this is holdover fear from 3.5.   Because I really hadn't seen any major issues with it in 5e.  With the biggest issue being the moon druid at level 2.

Some minor issues, but it seems like they are addressing that.


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 10, 2022)

At some point, most classes stop giving you new and interesting features.  You can go multiple levels without anything remotely fun.  Most of the fun features you get are in the first few levels.  As long as this is true, the desire to multiclass will always exist.

And you don't want to push back fundamental features too much either, since there's this desire for players to want to feel like they're "actually playing their class".  

Multiclassed individuals have existed in the fiction D&D has been based on from the very beginning- Conan is both warrior and thief.  Elric of Melnibone is a warrior and a warlock. Fafhrd has a skill set much like Conan's, the Grey Mouser is a Dex Fighter/Rogue who dabbles in black magic.  Where D&D is currently going wrong is that the game isn't balanced around ala carte multiclassing, because single-classed characters are not equal to _properly built_ multiclassed characters (it's very easy to make a terrible multiclassed character).

There should be a single-classed character just as powerful as a Hexblade/Paladin.  That there isn't any other way to do what this multiclass does is the reason why it's so popular.

Most games don't reach high levels, and the rewards for being a Tier 4 and up character don't always seem so exciting.  "Huzzah, three levels later, and I got another use of Indomitable!".

And the current Cleric shows that they still don't get it.  Ok, I can't take a one level dip for Domain and Heavy Armor.  But I still get spell slots, medium armor, shields, and a powerful healing ability that scales with _proficiency bonus_.  So tell me how a Wizard 20 is better than a Cleric 1/Wizard 19?  Epic Boons?  Sorry, try again.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 10, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> So tell me how a Wizard 20 is better than a Cleric 1/Wizard 19?  Epic Boons?  Sorry, try again.



For most players, this is not a real question. Sure, at level 19 a one-level dip is helpful. This, though wold be solved if they altered the spell progression and gave a second level-9 slot at level 20. (That's just an example, but it shows that the problem is not nearly as dire as you present.)

For most players, the decision gets made at any given level as you progress, and for that the game does pretty well. It's almost never advantageous to multiclass before level 5 if you are playing for "power", because the level 5 benefits are significant. So I can tell you how a Wizard 5 is better than a Wiz 4/Cleric 1. I can also tell you how a Wiz 9 is better than a Wiz 8/Cleric1. Maybe some levels aren't as tempting -- sure -- but choosing to multiclass at 6 or 7 or 8 should be an interesting choice, and I don't think it's going to be obvious. 

That is a much more interesting break point, I would suggest, to measure the value of multiclassing -- class levels 6-10.


----------



## Lojaan (Dec 10, 2022)

They should swap holy orders and channel divinity around. The signature experience of playing a cleric is casting spells in armour, which they can do at level 1, not channel divinity, which is situational at best.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 10, 2022)

I'm not going to answer every one of your points, because it is clear form your post that your preliminary assumptions differ from mine substantially. 

Particularly, the idea that you are "forced" into a one-level dip, frankly, makes no sense. I do not in the current game ever feel "forced" to multiclass, and there is nothing in the current playtest packs that makes multiclassing any more inevitable or "forced".

However, a few small notes:



tetrasodium said:


> So here's what each class gives with a 1 level dip & how that expands beyond tier1.
> Bard



Is there a reason you don't list the two first-level spells that Bards get? That, um, seems a substantial part of the class. To get that, and to get a free (better than) Healing word proficiency times/long rest seems much more powerful than anything you are suggesting for Cleric. 



tetrasodium said:


> *L1:*Expertise in two of your skills
> Currently expertise is double proficiency & bounded accuracy is already destrpyed by scaling proficiency bonuses alone even without expertise. *This is a problem but perhaps not specifically a multiclass problem.*




It is clear you really don't like expertise. Fine -- I don't like it because it erodes the nich I think rogues shoudl hold, and I think too many classes have it, and you can get it through feats etc. But, as you note, that's really separate from the multiclassing issue. 



tetrasodium said:


> Ranger
> 
> *L1:*Favored enemy: You always have hunters mark prepared & can cast it without needing to maintain concentration...
> Ruh-roh: It's entirely possible hunters mark will change in a way that solves this but I think that's a stretch. This is a pretty serious bit of dip candy for any classs that makes weapon attacks& the pressure grows the more attacks a PC makes each round. We don't know what the non-light weapons will ultimately look like but this is already starting to singlehandedly pull an already questionable dip in ways that are looking like it significantly misses the mark for that goal Crawford laid out.



It's worth at least observing that you need to spend a spell slot to cast it.




tetrasodium said:


> Cleric Red Alert
> 
> *1st:*Channel Divinity: This is a heal or nuke that scales based with both proficiency bonus uses in addition to proficiency bonus number of dice
> This is an anility that misses that goal by an extreme degree.  Any wisdom based class is going to be feeling some pressure & it could be good enough that even non-wisdom based classes start feeling pressure



Can you explain why this causes you more anxiety that Bardic Inspiration?

Finally, I'll talk about your thoughts on Holy orders, which requires a 2-level dip, and as such becomes part of a build established over many sessions.


tetrasodium said:


> *2nd: *Holy Order:  Choice between* A:* Martial weapon proficiency &  heavy armor proficiency, B: proficiency in two skills from arcana history nature persuasion & religion _and _you add your wisdom mod to it on top of whatever you normally add, *C: *an extra divine cantrip and you regain one of those proficiency bonus/long rest proficiency bonus(d8) channel divinity uses when you take a short rest....
> *A* is pretty awesome on top of everything else.  Even now it's common for characters to dip cleric just to get heavy armor proficiency
> *B* is freaking amazing for a face character & further exposes how bad bounded accuracy is by making the best face character a bard X/cleric 2 leaps & bounds beyond anything else.
> *C* is something that makes an already overly desirable dip pressuring ability even better and




A. will almost certainly be possible from a 1-level dip in Fighter, so it does not seem overpowered. I would prefer characters invest in Wisdom and be rewarded for it. 

B. feels overstated to me. Yes, the presence of Persuasion there makes it powerful, but I do not think there's anything wrong with giving Expertise-level bonuses on Intelligence skills, since Int is so often a dump stat in any case. Compare the Knowledge cleric in the current game -- how often do people complain how it is uber-powerful? In my feedbck, I am going to suggest the bonus only be for INT skills (and so investigation rather than persuasion), and that fixes it for my tastes. 

C. Multiple levels of investment into cleric so that you can get Channel divinity features is actually what I want a cleric "dip" to give. This is good design, and if you see it as the obvious choice, then that's good design, doubling down on the core distinctive cleric mechanism. 

I'm really not seeing a problem here. 


tetrasodium said:


> There are definitely some serious problems



We're operating with different assumptions, clearly, but we're both playing the same game. Some of this reaction seems extreme to me, and I think with small tweaks it could be even better.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 10, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> At some point, most classes stop giving you new and interesting features. * You can go multiple levels without anything remotely fun. * *Most of the fun features you get are in the first few levels.  As long as this is true, the desire to multiclass will always exist.*
> 
> And you don't want to push back fundamental features too much either, since there's this desire for players to want to feel like they're "actually playing their class".
> 
> ...



The bold bits are the problem.  There should be a cost that balances out the gains in actual play but the design of multiclassing has a cost that is almost purely academic. If Alice is playing a multiclass build for power made by combining the single classes being played by Bob & Dave at the same table she's probably the same level barring missed sessions or something & with that the same proficiency bonus.  Because skills are tied to prof bonus she's probably just as skilled as both in important skills.  She probably even has the important class defining abilities of both Bob & Dave.

Either classes need to be designed to avoid it or other aspects of the game need to change to avoid them being problematic even without the class design trying to avoid it


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The bold bits are the problem.  There should be a cost that balances out the gains in actual play but the design of multiclassing has a cost that is almost purely academic. If Alice is playing a multiclass build for power made by combining the single classes being played by Bob & Dave at the same table she's probably the same level barring missed sessions or something & with that the same proficiency bonus.  Because skills are tied to prof bonus she's probably just as skilled as both in important skills.  She probably even has the important class defining abilities of both Bob & Dave.
> 
> Either classes need to be designed to avoid it or other aspects of the game need to change to avoid them being problematic even without the class design trying to avoid it



You can go too far one way, like Pathfinder 1e, where the classes provide you neat benefits at just about every level, to the point you don't want to multiclass- and go further by making full classes that hybridize single classes so you might not even need to.

Or too far the other way, like the 2e era, where there were few reasons *not *to multiclass, if you could, since usually you'd end up a level to a level than a half lower, but have 2 classes of abilities to draw upon.

I like multiclassing, but I fully admit that 5e has made it very lackluster to not want to do it. My first character was a Battlemaster, and by level 7, I was pretty much done with being a Fighter.  I switched to Rogue (figuring I could get the level 8 ASI later, if I needed it), and had way more fun as a result.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 10, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I'm not going to answer every one of your points, because it is clear form your post that your preliminary assumptions differ from mine substantially.
> 
> Particularly, the idea that you are "forced" into a one-level dip, frankly, makes no sense. I do not in the current game ever feel "forced" to multiclass, and there is nothing in the current playtest packs that makes multiclassing any more inevitable or "forced".




Here's how it happens.  Take Alice(her first paladin) Bob(his first warlock) Chuck(an experienced player who made a hexadin) & Dave(the DM).

Dave tries to help Alice & bob get going & maybe gives them a pregen or holds their hand through creation.  He maybe even calls on Dave to help in that & they do so to the best of their ability
Alice & Bob are very happy & think they areas awesome as they can be
Chuck is playing a dwarf with 8 strength 25ft speed platemail 20 cha huge con/wis/dex.  He's basically immune to anything capable of not stomping all over Alice & Bob thanks to his ac saves & HP.... Chuck also has the ability to hit just as easily as Alice with the same greatsword she uses & can even smite more often than her.
Dave (the GM) notices the problems with Alice & Bob feeling so much lesser than  Chuck & it comes down to Dave having three options...
Option one:  Demand Chuck make a new PC that is less optimized  Nobody will be happy after this with even Alice & bob feeling guilty because they will eventually realize Chuck self nerfed by choice (or got forced to self nerf) because of them
Option two: try to talk to Alice & bob about rebuilding their characters to be more optimized . Again this is a problem because Alice & bob thought they were making an awesome character & are now frustrated because the people they thought were honestly trying to help them do so are trying to sell them on making changes to a character they liked
Option three:  Give Alice & bob awesome stuff to bring them up a bit towards Chuck's level.  As Ackbar said, "It's a trap!!..." in more than one way though.  Firstly Alice & bob might not understand how to use it or why they really want to use this awesome bit of kit instead.  Second Alice or bob might see exactly how & stick that awesome feather in their cap just before taking the same dip Chuck did  to create an even bigger monster.  Third & worst of all Alice & Bob might simply refuse the AwesomeThing & suggest Chuck can make the best use of the AwesomeThing intended to bring them up to his level not widen the gap.




Kobold Stew said:


> However, a few small notes:
> 
> 
> Is there a reason you don't list the two first-level spells that Bards get? That, um, seems a substantial part of the class. To get that, and to get a free (better than) Healing word proficiency times/long rest seems much more powerful than anything you are suggesting for Cleric.



Oversight.  Charisma based casters (paladin & sorcerer) aren't likely to gain too much from the L1 bard spells though due to already having them or filling a somewhat different niche.  It's certainly not impossible that we wind up with a future packet where level one DIET spells is a gigantic edition but we don't have much reason to suspect that given what we know is traditionally true about other casters


Kobold Stew said:


> It is clear you really don't like expertise. Fine -- I don't like it because it erodes the nich I think rogues shoudl hold, and I think too many classes have it, and you can get it through feats etc. But, as you note, that's really separate from the multiclassing issue.



It is but arcana expertise for example can be the bit needed for an uncommon item to allow an int based caster with some dips to treat almost every spell of every level  as simultaneously prepared.  There is not _yet_ anything in oned&d that gets borked by expertise but there could be in the future so it's worth noting.  Noting the value of expertise for what it is doesn't just come from a _dislike_ of expertise though, it directly subverts what seems to still be part of one d&d's design plans.


Kobold Stew said:


> It's worth at least observing that you need to spend a spell slot to cast it.



It does give you some of those & I did note them 


Kobold Stew said:


> Can you explain why this causes you more anxiety that Bardic Inspiration?



I don't think it did.   "enticing" looks to be the strongest term I used & the bard overall got "There are some questionably dip_worthy_ abilities but barring interaction with abilities from classes we do not yet have bard is _probably_ not a class that's going to make nonbards feel forced to dip. Bard probably meets the goal Crawford laid out."  It's worth noting because we are missing 8 classes & 44 subclasses that could interact in noteworthy ways that turn it into something more than _just_ being dip_worthy_.


Kobold Stew said:


> Finally, I'll talk about your thoughts on Holy orders, which requires a 2-level dip, and as such becomes part of a build established over many sessions.



That second level following a multiple great first level abilities with one scaling by PB both for number of uses & number of dice involved when used.  The second level is going to depend on the specific combo & build a player is going for but it already has some great options.  A dip is the sum of its parts & the first two levels of cleric have some that seem overly good.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Chuck is playing a dwarf with 8 strength 25ft speed platemail 20 cha huge con/wis/dex.



How is Chuck getting all this at level 1? How did he get platemail to start? Why is he not invested in Alice and Bob's introduction to the game?


tetrasodium said:


> Dave (the GM) notices the problems with Alice & Bob feeling so much lesser than  Chuck & it comes down to Dave having three options..



Is Dave not allowed to talk to the group?
Is Dave not having the bad guys target the biggest threat (Chuck's character) and letting Bob and Alice come in for the rescue? Is he not invested in Alice and Bob's introduction to the game either?

It may be that such hypotheticals aren't as useful as they might be.

As to your specifics:


tetrasodium said:


> Oversight.  Charisma based casters (paladin & sorcerer) aren't likely to gain too much from the L1 bard spells though due to already having them or filling a somewhat different niche.



Full spellcasting seems a big oversight.



tetrasodium said:


> It's certainly not impossible that we wind up with a future packet where level one DIET spells is a gigantic edition but we don't have much reason to suspect that given what we know is traditionally true about other casters



I don't think imagining broken spells in the future is the best way to evaluate the playtest mechanics, but you do you.

I am pleased that you have taken on my DIET acronym -- cheers!  I think that's the way of the future.


tetrasodium said:


> It is but arcana expertise for example can be the bit needed for an uncommon item to allow an int based caster with some dips to treat almost every spell of every level  as simultaneously prepared.  There is not _yet_ anything in oned&d that gets borked by expertise but there could be in the future so it's worth noting.



Hypotheticals for future releases aside, I'm not particularly interested in a single broken magic item in a setting-specific book. That's where the problem is, though, not with multiclassing.



tetrasodium said:


> It does give you some of those & I did note them



Since you rank it "ruh-roh", this is not at all clear. You've listed it as a separate bullet point, and you overlooked the fact that Bards have full spellcasting. Hunter's Mark uses resources (bonus action and spell slot)., and is not nearly the sure-bet always-on ability you suggest. Is it better than it was? Sure. Still, no one is being "forced" into anything.


tetrasodium said:


> I don't think it did.



"Red alert" suggests some degree of anxiety. You also say the "cleric misses the goal ... by miles to the point where it's reasonable to wonder just how much wotc is interested in meeting that goal."

Can there be improvements? Sure. But things are not nearly as dire as you suggest (at least as I read your post).


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 10, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> How is Chuck getting all this at level 1? How did he get platemail to start? Why is he not invested in Alice and Bob's introduction to the game?
> 
> Is Dave not allowed to talk to the group?
> Is Dave not having the bad guys target the biggest threat (Chuck's character) and letting Bob and Alice come in for the rescue? Is he not invested in Alice and Bob's introduction to the game either?
> ...



So your games not progress beyond level one?   Also I don't think I've ever seen a multiclassed level one pc, I think you might be under some pretty serious misconceptions about the problem to be asking that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> So your games not progress beyond level one?   Also I don't think I've ever seen a multiclassed level one pc, I think you might be under some pretty serious misconceptions about the problem to be asking that.




You sepcifically spoke about the 1 level dip.
The cleric just won't give you armor at level 1, no matter how much your first class progresses.
So you might have serious problems to convey what you actually mean.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 10, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You sepcifically spoke about the 1 level dip.



Yes but a one or two level dip can be done at pretty much any level _except_ first level because then it wouldn't be _multi_classing simply because the character has only one level to their name.  Questioning how a multiclassed character could get platemail at level 1 seems odd given the context of how post #17 raised it or the rest of the post #16 "/here's how it happens" example scenario it spun from.


UngeheuerLich said:


> The cleric just won't give you armor at level 1, no matter how much your first class progresses.
> So you might have serious problems to convey what you actually mean.



Rather than accusing me of "serious problems" attempting to convey what I actually mean... Can you first explain how "_How is Chuck getting all this *at level 1*?_" is relevant to the scenario it was responding to?    multiclass dips being too good are a problem because a player of any level can use them to gain huge benefits beyond what a single one or two levels should grant when taken in combination with levels in another class that makes up the bulk of a character's levels as the term "dip" generally implies.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Yes but a one or two level dip can be done at pretty much any level _except_ first level because then it wouldn't be _multi_classing simply because the character has only one level to their name.  Questioning how a multiclassed character could get platemail at level 1 seems odd given the context of how post #17 raised it or the rest of the post #16 "/here's how it happens" example scenario it spun from.
> 
> Rather than accusing me of "serious problems" attempting to convey what I actually mean... Can you first explain how "_How is Chuck getting all this *at level 1*?_" is relevant to the scenario it was responding to?    multiclass dips being too good are a problem because a player of any level can use them to gain huge benefits beyond what a single one or two levels should grant when taken in combination with levels in another class that makes up the bulk of a character's levels as the term "dip" generally implies.




Yes. Sorry. I was still thinking you speak about level 1 armor dips. Sometimes I am getting confused by broken up quotes.

Edit: I still think, you could have been more specific and clear, with the dwarf, platemail, hexadin, cha 20 huge dex, con and wis character. 

We are definitely not speaking of a character that competes with characters built by newbs.

With a dip of 2 or 3 hexblade levels, we are speaking of at least level 11 to get the character up to cha 20. And this without any additional feat.

So the straight paladin has at least inproved divine smite. The straight warlock has a 6th level spell and 3 level 5 spells per long rest. 

This begs the question: is this comparison valid? Do the "noobs" really feel hosed?


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 10, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. Sorry. I was still thinking you speak about level 1 armor dips. Sometimes I am getting confused by broken up quotes.
> 
> Edit: I still think, you could have been more specific and clear, with the dwarf, platemail, hexadin, cha 20 huge dex, con and wis character.
> 
> ...



So, I can weigh in on this, because I saw it happen quite a few times when I played in AL. New players would come in, get handed a precon, or be walked through the character creation process, and feel pretty good about their characters.

Then play alongside the experienced players, with their strange, optimized builds that spat out better numbers, and seemed not only stronger, but way more *fun*, because they were doing more.  

And the next time you saw those new players, they would have completely new characters, and they treated their original ones like "old shames".  

D&D has always had choices that are better than others, that's just how the game was made.  The game creates the illusion that you can create whatever kind of character you desire, but some characters just work better than others in some games.

The guy who plays a Human Champion Fighter with 14 in all stats can be crazy fun to play with, and in a game where roleplaying and having fun is more important, you'd never notice anything wrong with him.

But he'd be woefully out of place in other games, where the challenge is high, the rules are set to "maximum grit", and you better be optimized as heck or you're going to be overwhelmed.

Public play has this interesting problem in that, unlike a home game, where you can express to everyone what the style of game and what an appropriate power level is at your Session Zero, basically anyone can belly up to a table with whatever character they want to play, and bring their own expectations.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 10, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> So, I can weigh in on this, because I saw it happen quite a few times when I played in AL. New players would come in, get handed a precon, or be walked through the character creation process, and feel pretty good about their characters.
> 
> Then play alongside the experienced players, with their strange, optimized builds that spat out better numbers, and seemed not only stronger, but way more *fun*, because they were doing more.
> 
> ...



I used to see it pretty often woth AL too & a lot of us would get suspected of "_those guys sabotaged my first PC, that's why I want to move to your table_" type things.  It wouldn't be as bad if the new player could get told or say things like "welllll.... my proficiency bonus is higher & he does need a crapton more exp" with a reworked MC mechanic to feel good about their own choice but the downsides of multiclassing as is are almost purely theoretical & hard to see with any regularity even when they are noteworthy.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> In one of the recent videos Crawford mentioned that they were moving the cleric subclass choice back because it was too rewarding as a dip & that they want to incentivize players to have a little more skin in a class than just 1-2 level dips that are so good players feel like they are harmed by not taking them*.  With one version for four of twelve core classes & 4 of 48 total subclasses I think so far that goal is falling pretty far shy of the mark Crawford described to the point that people are even making videos about it.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: the video
> ...



Yeah, if one of their goals is to avoid dips, they're going about it in exactly the wrong way. Making it _more_ mechanically beneficial does not somehow make it _less_ mechanically beneficial.


----------



## ECMO3 (Dec 10, 2022)

Taking the Heavy Armor option out of the subclass and moving it two a second level option really eliminates the 1-level Cleric dip issues.  I don't think the subclass options other than heavy armor were a big deal.

Ironically, Cleric was the only way to get Heavy Armor proficiency on a 1-level dip in 5E.

Also moving turn undead to 1st level makes this a more powerful dip than most of the subclass options would have been (heavy armor notwithstanding).

Personally, I don't see a 1-level dip as a big problem, for all the handwringing over Hexadins, when you get down to it those I have seen played were not really powerful or unbalanced in play.

The actual multiclass options I have found most stressing are Wizards or Sorcerers with a 1-level cleric dip which gets them the heavy armor and cantrips without losing any spell slots, but those classes were already powerful without the dip anyway.

I multiclass almost all the time. I think I have only played 1 single class character in 5E (a bladesinger wizard), and I have even triple classed once (Arcane Trickster/Arcane Archer/Shadow Sorcerer) but at most of the tables I play a majority of the players don't multiclass at all so I disagree with the premise that there is a "must take" multiclass.


----------



## ECMO3 (Dec 10, 2022)

One other thing I would change on cleric is I would take away light and medium armor proficiency on a multiclass dip.

On someone that starts cleric  they should be there, but I think with a full caster those are not needed on a multiclass and are not central enough to the cleric theme to make them part of the multiclass as a clothy, aesthetic-type cleric is still on point thematically.

Similarly, I would take away armor proficiency on Warlock or Rogue dips.

I would keep light and medium on a Paladin and Ranger multiclass.  I would probably put all 3 on a fighter multiclass (light, medium and heavy), since a Fighter is supposed to be a master of weapons and armor.


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 10, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Taking the Heavy Armor option out of the subclass and moving it two a second level option really eliminates the 1-level Cleric dip issues.  I don't think the subclass options other than heavy armor were a big deal.
> 
> Ironically, Cleric was the only way to get Heavy Armor proficiency on a 1-level dip in 5E.
> 
> ...



I just see Divine Spark as a very interesting ability for 1st level.  It has a low cost to acquire in a long enough game, and it continues to pay dividends as it's usage per day and effect scale with proficiency bonus.  It's 30 foot range is nothing to sneeze at either.  Now, it does cost an action, and I'm sure most players will want to do anything on their turn but heal hit point damage, but as it's not a spell, it can also be combined with those two Healing Words you get for the dip as well.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 10, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> One other thing I would change on cleric is I would take away light and medium armor proficiency on a multiclass dip.
> 
> On someone that starts cleric  they should be there, but I think with a full caster those are not needed on a multiclass and are not central enough to the cleric theme to make them part of the multiclass as a clothy, aesthetic-type cleric is still on point thematically.



This would be a good thing to include in feedback on this packet. Thanks.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 10, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I just see Divine Spark as a very interesting ability for 1st level.  It has a low cost to acquire in a long enough game, and it continues to pay dividends as it's usage per day and effect scale with proficiency bonus.  It's 30 foot range is nothing to sneeze at either.  Now, it does cost an action, and I'm sure most players will want to do anything on their turn but heal hit point damage, but as it's not a spell, it can also be combined with those two Healing Words you get for the dip as well.




For me the comparison with Bardic Inspiration shows that the balance struck has actually been quite thoughtful.

*Bardic Inspiration*: prof times/long rest. Use reaction to

either help an ally with a failed attack, save, or ability check (+1d6)
or heal 1d6 hp to an ally w/in 60'.

*Divine Spark*: prof times/long rest. Use action to

heal 2d8 hp to an ally w/in 30' (scaling up with prof bonus)
or do radiant damage 2d8 (scaling), save for half.
(the same pool also is used for Turning undead)

So for healing, both abilities can get a downed colleague on her feet again. DS has shorter range and takes an action, but heals more hp. For me, BI is more effective, but I see them as fundamentally balanced.

The damage option is not a good use of DS (unless you don't have an attack cantrip) but in the right campaign Turning undead can be a lifesaver, and it is fun. 

The bard's opportunity to boost a save as a reaction, or an attack, or an ability check means that as a bard you can help your party to shine -- a colleague can make a killing blow, or avoid damage completely, or whatever. Plus, you get t see what the party member rolls before you use the ability, so even if you don't know the exact target number, you probably have an idea if they are close. 

As I read it, both of these are comparable abilities. Measured just here, I think Bardic Inspiration would be more fun to play with, but I can totally see others weighting DS preferable. By itself, though, it's not broken.

You do get the spells from a dip -- you suggest Healing Word for the cleric, which is a spell Bards have access to at level 2.

(Disclaimer: I play Clerics regularly, and have never liked BI as a mechanism. On these abilities, I see what One is bringing as an improvement to both.)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I used to see it pretty often woth AL too & a lot of us would get suspected of "_those guys sabotaged my first PC, that's why I want to move to your table_" type things.  It wouldn't be as bad if the new player could get told or say things like "welllll.... my proficiency bonus is higher & he does need a crapton more exp" with a reworked MC mechanic to feel good about their own choice but the downsides of multiclassing as is are almost purely theoretical & hard to see with any regularity even when they are noteworthy.




Nope. The downside is not theoretical.
The downside just does not show if people just build a character for a certain level.
So if you know what level and know that you can rebuild anytime, that is the problem. And even with your rules, there are levels, where the multiclass build is straight better and levels where it is worse. A +1 difference in PB does not make or break a character.

Also: please explain how it works exactly. I don't really get it.


----------



## Greg Benage (Dec 10, 2022)

The only one that concerns me is no-concentration hunter's mark. Healing with an action cost doesn't have a lot of value. I don't anticipate high-level PCs using an action to heal 27 hp during a Tier 4 combat.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 10, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Nope. The downside is not theoretical.
> The downside just does not show if people just build a character for a certain level.
> So if you know what level and know that you can rebuild anytime, that is the problem. And even with your rules, there are levels, where the multiclass build is straight better and levels where it is worse. A +1 difference in PB does not make or break a character.
> 
> *Also: please explain how it works exactly.* I don't really get it.



"it"?

Stop thinking of this as an early game problem.  The classes are front loaded by design.  Any straight class is going to get smaller & smaller gains by comparison as the game progresses.  When a dip gives an ability that scales by character rather than class level that dip is going to provide greater & greater benefits to a PC the longer the game goes on. 

The easiest & most obvious example is a tier3 sorcerer & a 1-2 level warlock dip to gain more benefit than almost any 1-2 tier3 sorcerer levels would give because it does not require any preplanning to make maximum use of like hexadin.  That is the case because it involves an ability that scales by character level like the new channel divinity rather than class level and because there are no penalties beyond the eventually minimal opportunity cost.

As to the example dual class rules I linked... it works like 



Spoiler: this




You can dual class at any time & that gives you two parallel exp tracks along with two classes side by side.  Lets say classA is level 9 & classB is level5  for simplicity.   There are some further limitations that determine how the classes combine & the additional costs you will have for the rest of the game.
take the hit points from each class given your con score & divide them by two then add the results together.
This one should be easy... If a level 5 ClassA would have 35hp & a level 9 classB would have 22hp you would have 28.5 rounded down to 28hp.

Take the delta between classA's proficiency bonus & classB's proficiency bonus _(4-3=1)_ & subtract it from the higher of the two _(4-1=3)_
This encourages the dual classed player to go whole hog rather than just dip the juicy levels & focus on the primary class or it creates a cost as the spread grows.  It also means that someone who doesn't  do this can be happy about not having to take that hit.

Experience needed for each side is multiplied by 2.5 (or 3) depending on what feel the gm is going for.  This could be any number but those ones work well.
SYSTEM MATH HIGHLIGHTING:By default the exp table roughly doubles each level.  In order to get from level N to level N+1 a PC needs roughly the same amount of experience it took them to go from level 1 to level N before they will have enough to progress from level N to N+1
That interacts with the 2.5x or 3x multiplier by making it harder & harder to stay even with a single classed PC at the benefit of having lots of low  & maybe even mid level stuff  from the classA in addition  to the ones they have from classB.  Because of how the exp chat roughly doubles each level this works out to a few levels that are going to vary depending on the split & seeing that is why the spreadsheet exists


Spell slots & spell prep are tracked separate in 3.5 style.  They don't stack 5e style
Given the prior steps the multiclassed character is probably going to be a few levels levels behind on the high side _and_  almost certainly have reduced proficiency bonus for whatever level their high class is unless they are keeping  both at the same level or very close.  Keeping both at the same level is difficult in ways that will cause both to fall behind due to the 2.5-3x multiplier applied to the exp needs when the base need already roughly doubles every level before that multiplier

That classA9/classB5 with a +3 proficiency bonus would have sunk 136,250 experience which is almost enough to be level 14 but the hit points from all levels of both classA & classB are halved so those are probably going to be behind a bit
I pulled the earlier hp numbers from thin air but you can see how that works with Alice's hypothetical 12con barbarian9(77/2)/fighter5(35/2) (Alice has 65hp) & Bob's hypothetical 12 con sorcerer 9(47/2)/warlock 5(33/2)(Bob has 40hp).
A single classed barbarian/fighter/sorcerer/warlock with 12 con & 136,250 experience would have the following HP values respectively  barb 101hp/fighter 88hp/sorcerer 62hp/75hp assuming I didn't math something wrong with the hit dice.  If Alice & bob are concerned about their low HP bumping classB for a bit is by far their best choice because 9/7 & 9/8 are 177,500 & 205,000xp but 10/5 is 176,250 & 11/5 is 228,750.  For comparison a straight single class pc with 136,250 exp is level 12 while 177,500 & 205,000 are 15 & 16.
That works out to results that both choices are viscerally different with a clear niche each way with neither feeling like the other occupies the entire venn diagram of their niche.






The math is simple but comparing different hypothetical builds crosses far enough beyond 7+/-2 that the spreadsheet keeps visualization easy if you aren't trying to use it on a phone


----------



## rules.mechanic (Dec 10, 2022)

Would a simple balance be a permanent -1 to proficiency bonus when you multi-class into a new class (or subclass)?


----------



## Galandris (Dec 10, 2022)

The more I see @tetrasodium points, and they are good, the more I see the design to frontload might be derived from the idea that people won't be playing to Tier 3 or Tier 4, and thus the rules are mostly designed for low-to-mid level play.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> "it"?
> 
> Stop thinking of this as an early game problem.  The classes are front loaded by design.  Any straight class is going to get smaller & smaller gains by comparison as the game progresses.  When a dip gives an ability that scales by character rather than class level that dip is going to provide greater & greater benefits to a PC the longer the game goes on.
> 
> ...




Ok. The phone was the problem.

So if I understand it right, a level 9/5 class in your example is about a level 13 single classed PC and you penalize the proficiency bonus by 2 and hp by about 1/3 to 1/2. 

If it is a blow to spellcasting... I don't necessarily think so. The warlock does not really stack with normal slots anyway. 
So having 5 levels of warlock might be actually nice, as might be one more feat at certain levels

So yes, it seems to discurage dipping. I don't know if it is better balanced though. I am not really convinced. It seems very strange at low levels, and when you make that jump to the second class. But maybe I am still not fully grasping it. 

So overall, I guess it is too much hassle for little gain. I bet there are easier ways to do it. But cool that you created something and put some thoughts into it.

Edit: probably lowering the multiplyer down to 2 would result in more balanced results and make it easier to calculate.

The end result will be a character level 10/13 with about as much xp as a level 20 character and a 2 lower proficiency bonus and about 1/3 less hp. Maybe actually the extra prof bonus reduction is not needed on top of xp increase and just reducing the hit dice by 1/2 instead of all hp would be sufficient to keep those characters in line. Also you could allow for limited stacking of spellcasting. I guess that also gives better results than having two seperate spellcasting tables. I think having twice as many low level spell slots instead of few high ones you can't use to prepare spells is actually a power upgrade instead of a downgrade...

So then we are back to: why all the hassle?
Instead: just add to multiclass rules, that class abilities based on PB use the PB listed in the class list. We have a precendent for such a rule in the spell preparation multiclass rules.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 10, 2022)

The simplest solution is to change multiclassing. Require X levels in a class before you can dip into another, once you dip you have to commit to to Y levels, etc.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Dec 10, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> The simplest solution is to change multiclassing. Require X levels in a class before you can dip into another, once you dip you have to commit to to Y levels, etc.



3 feels like the magic number. 3 levels in a class if you want to keep them when you gain levels in another class...


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 10, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ok. The phone was the problem.
> 
> So if I understand it right, a level 9/5 class in your example is about a level 13 single classed PC and you penalize the proficiency bonus by 2 and hp by about 1/3 to 1/2.
> 
> ...





Spoiler: pretty much










The  proficiency bonus for  levels 5 9 & 13 is  +3 +4 & +5 respectively.  A single class level 13 would have +5 proficiency bonus while the level 9/5 has +4 & +3 where subtracting the delta makes it +3.  



rules.mechanic said:


> Would a simple balance be a permanent -1 to proficiency bonus when you multi-class into a new class (or subclass)?



It would help but probably not.  Players themselves are likely to push for bob to get a +2 weapon when everyone else has a +1 (or whatever).  Also consider things like adding archery fighting style or whatever to nullify it.  Hinging everything on a single cost makes it easy to find ways of nullifying it as anything worth noting as part of the dip.  If there were dice pools or something with less variance than 1d20 a -1 might be noteworthy, but it's only a tiny fraction of the average d20 roll (10.5).


----------



## rules.mechanic (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It would help but probably not. Players themselves are likely to push for bob to get a +2 weapon when everyone else has a +1 (or whatever). Also consider things like adding archery fighting style or whatever to nullify it. Hinging everything on a single cost makes it easy to find ways of nullifying it as anything worth noting as part of the dip. If there were dice pools or something with less variance than 1d20 a -1 might be noteworthy, but it's only a tiny fraction of the average d20 roll (10.5).



I was thinking more about the impact on the "PB times per day" or "roll a number of d8 equal to your PB" effects.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 10, 2022)

rules.mechanic said:


> I was think more about the impact on the "PB times per day" or "roll a number of d8 equal to your PB" effects.



It would depend on what the overly good dip class abilities ultimately wind up being.  We might not have the warrior group packet yet but imagine playing a level 11+ fighter eyeing that one level ranger dip for that no concentration hunters mark _and_ one more skill _and_ expertise on any two of your skills _*and*_ two primal cantrips_ (the new reaction guidance & resistance are both primal nfor an extra cherry on top)_.

Whatever the fighter looks like when we get it that probably makes for one heck of a dip at those levels but is almost entirely unaffected by a -1 proficiency, two skills are actually four points higher than before.  Imagine it was the other way around & fighter 12 gave a choice between +1 proficiency or all those other things when we get warrior group classes. People would wonder if there was some kind of extreme layout error & expect a corrected version to be uploaded by lunchtime.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Dec 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It would depend on what the overly good dip class abilities ultimately wind up being.  We might not have the warrior group packet yet but imagine playing a level 11+ fighter eyeing that one level ranger dip for that no concentration hunters mark _and_ one more skill _and_ expertise on any two of your skills _*and*_ two primal cantrips_ (the new reaction guidance & resistance are both primal nfor an extra cherry on top)_.
> 
> Whatever the fighter looks like when we get it that probably makes for one heck of a dip at those levels but is almost entirely unaffected by a -1 proficiency, two skills are actually four points higher than before.  Imagine it was the other way around & fighter 12 gave a choice between +1 proficiency or all those other things when we get warrior group classes. People would wonder if there was some kind of extreme layout error & expect a corrected version to be uploaded by lunchtime.



Yeah, good point - the -1 helps with dips that are enhanced by PB scaling but doesn't solve the issue of other class-defining 1st level features being over-accessible to other classes as a 1 level dip. Stalker0's X levels in a class before you can dip into another feels far cleaner in addressing the source of the problem. I'm warming to 3 levels in a class if you want to keep them if you gain levels in another class.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 10, 2022)

Surely if you have a front line fighter with 8 strength you need to make good use of shove and trip attacks for monsters?  I assume the hexadin would want to train athletics but strength saves require feat investment.  Personally, I think paladins are slightly overpowered, so it may be that nerfing them slightly might address some of the issues.

As for expertise, I think it needs to add half your ability modifier (+1 to +3) but treat any roll of 2 to 4 as if it was 5.  Boosts reliability but keeps the upper limit reaasonable?


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 10, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Surely if you have a front line fighter with 8 strength you need to make good use of shove and trip attacks for monsters?  I assume the hexadin would want to train athletics but strength saves require feat investment.  Personally, I think paladins are slightly overpowered, so it may be that nerfing them slightly might address some of the issues.
> 
> As for expertise, I think it needs to add half your ability modifier (+1 to +3) but treat any roll of 2 to 4 as if it was 5.  Boosts reliability but keeps the upper limit reaasonable?



Yeah but when you have to consistently alter enemy types and tactics to deal with _one guy_ in your party, that's a problem in of itself; you're actually warping the campaign around their build.  Some people are ok with this, I, personally am not.

If the adventure calls for enemies that pick on a weakness one person may have, fine, but I'd rather think of challenges for the group, not constantly hit one guy's Achilles' Heel.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 11, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Yeah but when you have to consistently alter enemy types and tactics to deal with _one guy_ in your party, that's a problem in of itself; you're actually warping the campaign around their build.  Some people are ok with this, I, personally am not.
> 
> If the adventure calls for enemies that pick on a weakness one person may have, fine, but I'd rather think of challenges for the group, not constantly hit one guy's Achilles' Heel.



Oh I agree but recurring villains can learn weaknesses.  Also giving enemies a pet dire wolf or similar beast can often be plausible without looking like you are targetting the character specifically.  It might be possible for a spellcaster to use Gust of Wind to move the dwarf out of melee range.  If a few enemies can escape they can spread the word to other evil minions.


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 11, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Oh I agree but recurring villains can learn weaknesses.  Also giving enemies a pet dire wolf or similar beast can often be plausible without looking like you are targetting the character specifically.  It might be possible for a spellcaster to use Gust of Wind to move the dwarf out of melee range.  If a few enemies can escape they can spread the word to other evil minions.



Um, whether or not you look like you are targeting that player specifically, in this example you are targeting the character specifically, lol.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 11, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Um, whether or not you look like you are targeting that player specifically, in this example you are targeting the character specifically, lol.



If you build varied encounters, some of those are going to target characters' weaknesess just be reason of them having weaknesses.  That's not the same as targeting a character specifically.  Giving an enemy a dire wolf pet is not the same as giving them a dire wolf pet that only targets the character with the low strength.  It's throwing in a potential challenge for that melee character to overcome.  How they do that is part of the game.

Min-maxing is not always going to be win-win.  A stuck door can be annoying to a group of low strength characters.  Being unable to carry all that lost treasure out of the dungeon can be an annoyance.  Being unable to move the statue to access the secret door is an annoyance.

And of course, a lich with a beef IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically.  A character's nemesis IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically.  A hired assassin IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 11, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> If you build varied encounters, some of those are going to target characters' weaknesess just be reason of them having weaknesses.  That's not the same as targeting a character specifically.  Giving an enemy a dire wolf pet is not the same as giving them a dire wolf pet that only targets the character with the low strength.  It's throwing in a potential challenge for that melee character to overcome.  How they do that is part of the game.
> 
> Min-maxing is not always going to be win-win.  A stuck door can be annoying to a group of low strength characters.  Being unable to carry all that lost treasure out of the dungeon can be an annoyance.  Being unable to move the statue to access the secret door is an annoyance.
> 
> And of course, a lich with a beef IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically.  A character's nemesis IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically.  A hired assassin IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically.




All this is fair game and way better than just put in enemies that are stronger overall. Or even show the characters that no matter how much they optimize, someone will always beat them in their field of expertise.

Better than targeting only theor weakness is just having varied encounters and challenges that at some times target all possible weaknesses. This way, everyone can shine and some can shine by never be at the bottom of usefulness.

I always find it fun, that as soon as som DM dares to not play into the optimized characters, some optimizer cries foul.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> All this is fair game and way better than just put in enemies that are stronger overall. Or even show the characters that no matter how much they optimize, someone will always beat them in their field of expertise.
> 
> Better than targeting only theor weakness is just having varied encounters and challenges that at some times target all possible weaknesses. This way, everyone can shine and some can shine by never be at the bottom of usefulness.
> 
> I always find it fun, that as soon as som DM dares to not play into the optimized characters, some optimizer cries foul.



I do sympathise mind you but the shoe is on the other foot for me.  My character has been converted each edition, starting out as a human rogue (scout) dual classed with wizard (starting at level 0) turned shadow mage in 2e and converted each edition. Currently she is a swashbuckler, tome warlock, shadow sorcerer and is fun to play even if she lacks oomph.  Her thunder was stolen somewhat when a new warlock character came in, min/maxed, cherry picking many of the same abilities that she had so that he does everything better.  But because my character stats were designed to meet the 2e rules, she is highly intelligent (not now needed) and her charisma and dexterity are mediocre.  At least she has personality.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 11, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I do sympathise mind you but the shoe is on the other foot for me.  My character has been converted each edition, starting out as a human rogue (scout) dual classed with wizard (starting at level 0) turned shadow mage in 2e and converted each edition. Currently she is a swashbuckler, tome warlock, shadow sorcerer and is fun to play even if she lacks oomph.  Her thunder was stolen somewhat when a new warlock character came in, min/maxed, cherry picking many of the same abilities that she had so that he does everything better.  But because my character stats were designed to meet the 2e rules, she is highly intelligent (not now needed) and her charisma and dexterity are mediocre.  At least she has personality.




Ok. I see that problem, but that has nothing to do with any edition. If you put your stats in the wrong place, your character is just weaker than a min/maxed build. 
I do sympathize with you and hope, that OneDnD emphaszises int a bit more (I hate! that bards don't need int).


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 11, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ok. I see that problem, but that has nothing to do with any edition. If you put your stats in the wrong place, your character is just weaker than a min/maxed build.
> I do sympathize with you and hope, that OneDnD emphaszises int a bit more (I hate! that bards don't need int).



Her stats were in the right place when she was rolled!  And she is perfectly functional with 16 dex and 16 cha.  I like that she's intelligent.  That is its own reward.  But I played through those levels and it's frustrating that a min maxer can avoid all the pitfalls for a brand new high level character.   Luckily I am also a DM so letting other players enjoy the limelight is fine.  We are customising ways to boost her situationally like a dark gift from Ravenloft or maybe the Dragonlance black wizard feat.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 12, 2022)

I have a feeling that competence of 1st and 2nd level characters is being sacrificed on "altar of multiclass cheese", but devs are explaining that they are doing so new players are not "overwhelmed" by 1st level characters. Please...

If Multiclass dips are problem, then either ban multiclassing or ban dips.

How to ban dips?

1. you cannot multiclass before 5th character level
2. when you take levels in new class, you must take at least 4 levels in new class before raising levels in 1st class or another class. possible 3rd class has same limitation as 2nd class.


Some players would maybe enjoy playing 1st level characters for 3 or 4 sessions if they would have 5 or 6 abilities to choose between. 
This will either force every non-1st time player to start at 3rd level or see 1st and 2nd level being leveled out in single session.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 12, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I have a feeling that competence of 1st and 2nd level characters is being sacrificed on "altar of multiclass cheese", but devs are explaining that they are doing so new players are not "overwhelmed" by 1st level characters. Please...
> 
> If Multiclass dips are problem, then either ban multiclassing or ban dips.
> 
> ...



Some players like the notion of multiclassing simultaneously in two classes so restricting it to 5th level seems unnecessary, although there some 'multiclass light' feats that give a flavour that might be made available at level 1.  The multiclass section does allow some customisation of class feature allocation at level 1 so this could be tightened. Another option might be to take problematic class features and delay them by siloing them in multiclass feats that you can only take with X number of levels in a class.  If they are that awesome, power gamers will still want to take them with the feat tax. The multiclass section would just say at level X you do not gain Y class feature but you may take Z feat.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 12, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Some players like the notion of multiclassing simultaneously in two classes so restricting it to 5th level seems unnecessary, although there some 'multiclass light' feats that give a flavour that might be made available at level 1.  The multiclass section does allow some customisation of class feature allocation at level 1 so this could be tightened. Another option might be to take problematic class features and delay them by siloing them in multiclass feats that you can only take with X number of levels in a class.  If they are that awesome, power gamers will still want to take them with the feat tax. The multiclass section would just say at level X you do not gain Y class feature but you may take Z feat.



Sure, 3rd option can be that you must always keep two classes(or more) within one level of each other. That is, 3rd level is then latest for multiclass.

problem with dips are not 2/3 class splits vs 5th level single class, it becomes with 1/2 level dips and higher level features. 2/9 can be lot more powerful than 11th single class, including 11th level feature. Or 2/11 as 13/14 level abilities are usually not that big.

having 5/6 multiclass vs 11th level could be nice power comparison.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 12, 2022)

Galandris said:


> The more I see @tetrasodium points, and they are good, the more I see the design to frontload might be derived from the idea that people won't be playing to Tier 3 or Tier 4, and thus *the [5e] rules are mostly designed for low-to-mid level play*.



It's definitely a vibe that gets felt more & more strongly but that gets into a rant ... Ttrpgs usually split somewhat into _some_ form of point buy structure or _some_ form of class type structure & both have their benefits/drawbacks.  Class based games avoid some of the learning curve & ease of abuse that are often present with pointbuy & it often comes with a bit of frontloading of classes.  I don't think that front loaded classes simply existing are a problem that needs to be changed but frontloaded & overly front loaded classes that improve without equipment gating or class level gating in a system that makes it trivial to have multiple baskets of frontloaded features at minimal cost or investment is definitely an awful combo.







Horwath said:


> I have a feeling that competence of 1st and 2nd level characters is being sacrificed on "altar of multiclass cheese", but devs are explaining that they are doing so new players are not "overwhelmed" by 1st level characters. Please...
> 
> If Multiclass dips are problem, then either ban multiclassing or ban dips.
> 
> ...



I don't think those changes actually do much.  All they really manage to do is ensure that multiclass sips tend to start at the levels where thebindip class has its full core toolkit so expanding the dip from one or two levels to four levels presents a near zero cost.  A MC subsystem change needs to be fr more comprehensive than that deck chair moving head in the sand bandaid.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 12, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I have a feeling that competence of 1st and 2nd level characters is being sacrificed on "altar of multiclass cheese", but devs are explaining that they are doing so new players are not "overwhelmed" by 1st level characters. Please...
> 
> If Multiclass dips are problem, then either ban multiclassing or ban dips.
> 
> ...




Still a bad idea as the base option. Make it a different option: medium multiclass: you need to take the 4th level multiclass bard feat to take levels in the bard class. No new system needed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 12, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Sure, 3rd option can be that you must always keep two classes(or more) within one level of each other. That is, 3rd level is then latest for multiclass.
> 
> problem with dips are not 2/3 class splits vs 5th level single class, it becomes with 1/2 level dips and higher level features. 2/9 can be lot more powerful than 11th single class, including 11th level feature. Or 2/11 as 13/14 level abilities are usually not that big.
> 
> having 5/6 multiclass vs 11th level could be nice power comparison.




Dips have their merit. If you really want to make staying in a class worthwhile, all level 11 features have to be looked at. The paladin or fighter level 11 features are not bad and quite costly to give up. Problem: now the level 13 feature must also be something you want. And then the level 15. So just make every 2nd level feature something you would want.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 12, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Some players like the notion of multiclassing simultaneously in two classes so restricting it to 5th level seems unnecessary



Some players also like getting 3 feats and full plate armor at 1st level. Players always want MOAR POWA.

At the end of the day you really have 3 options:

Continue to allow multiclass dipping to be an optimized path
Remove the front loaded of classes, which makes early levels a lot more boring.
Change multiclass in some fundamental way.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Still a bad idea as the base option. Make it a different option: medium multiclass: you need to take the 4th level multiclass bard feat to take levels in the bard class. No new system needed.



Multiclass feats:

Class initiate:
requires 4th level:
+1 ASI
gain 1st level features of chosen class. Do not gain saving throw proficiencies, gain one less armor proficiency, gain 1 skill if class stars with 3 skills or 2 skills if class starts with 4 skills. Gain any tool proficiencies. Gain martial weapons proficiencies

Class adept:
requires class initiate:
+1 ASI
gain 2nd and 3rd level features of class chosen by Class initiate

Class expert:
requires Class adept:
+1 ASI
gain 4th and 5th level class features of class chosen by Class adept. Do NOT gain 4th level ASI feature of 2nd class.

Class mastery:
Requires: Class expert
No +1 ASI here
gain 6th and 7th level class features of class chosen by Class expert.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 12, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> Some players also like getting 3 feats and full plate armor at 1st level. Players always want MOAR POWA.
> 
> At the end of the day you really have 3 options:
> 
> ...



The multiclass rules already detail the things you do and don't get at level 1.  Adding a couple of extra restrictions for problematic class features awarded at level 1 or at higher levels would not require massive investment beyond a second page in the multiclass section.  It might be that restricting certain class features that grant stackable features with uses based off your proficiency bonus could be changed to half your proficiency bonus for example.


----------



## Pedantic (Dec 12, 2022)

Couldn't you reframe this as a problem with higher level class features? If level 1-2 abilities are more compelling and interesting than level 8-10 ones, then why shouldn't players prefer them? That feels more like you really need better mid-high level class abilities.

The only real stand out abilities (barring the coffeelock stuff that's mostly just poorly written short rest mechanics in the warlock than anything) are things like paladin smite that live outside the action economy. You could just move those back in (maybe introduce a 4th action type, like 3e's swift or 4e's minor actions) to give them a real cost.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 12, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> *Couldn't you reframe this as a problem with higher level class features?* If *level 1-2 abilities are more compelling and interesting than level 8-10 ones,* then why shouldn't players prefer them? That feels more like you really need better mid-high level class abilities.
> 
> The only real stand out abilities (barring the coffeelock stuff that's mostly just poorly written short rest mechanics in the warlock than anything) are things like paladin smite that live outside the action economy. You could just move those back in (maybe introduce a 4th action type, like 3e's swift or 4e's minor actions) to give them a real cost.



Yes and no but those are secondary to a common root.  ttrpgs fall into lots of groupings but the important & relevant one  here is pointbuy systems & class based systems.  Pointbuy usually tries to value the cost to buy a given ability so that it's comparable to those with equal cost & better/worse than those with lower/higher cost & that works great but (in a nutshell) has problems with a higher bar to get started & a need for more oversight to prevent unchecked munchkinism  that goes outside the spirit of expectations.  Class based systems are usually easier to get into & provide some rails in the form of classes that allow characters to be a little more front loaded & not all equally balanced at every level.  That's fine & good for both types as long as they have rules that work within & support their mix of strengths & weaknesses.

The 5e style multiclassing tries to give players the strength of both without acknowledging the weaknesses of either.  To a degree 3.x style did as well but at least _tried_ to do things that raise the bar a little bit like oddball prerequisites all over the place & tools the gm could use to dial back on Bob's excess without crippling Alice's utter averageness on top of ways the GM could enhance Alice while being fairly confident the effort wouldn't be given to Bob  to further widen the gap.  (DR/SR/body slot conflicts/magic item churn/various forms of weapon specialization*/etc)

* the feat, crit fish many attacks with high crit range high crit multiplier weapons vrs fewer attacks with a freight train/etc




UngeheuerLich said:


> Still a bad idea as the base option. Make it a different option: medium multiclass: you need to take the 4th level multiclass bard feat to take levels in the bard class. No new system needed.



That's a good solution in pf2 but that solution depends on the syste,'s structural framework to make it work.  I think that would just result in a quagmire of design incentives that ultimately avoids being a solution.  It works in pathfinder2 because there are a lot more feats & taking something like bard dedication or the 4 feats that for of it & the advanced versions that fork of _those_ you do so at the cost of things from your own class.  5e & so far oned&d don't have anything like that so it creates incentive to say "well this is a feat so it should give something cool" leaving you with something cool on top of an overly good front loaded class dip and all the stuff from their primary class.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Yes and no but those are secondary to a common root.  ttrpgs fall into lots of groupings but the important & relevant one  here is pointbuy systems & class based systems.  Pointbuy usually tries to value the cost to buy a given ability so that it's comparable to those with equal cost & better/worse than those with lower/higher cost & that works great but (in a nutshell) has problems with a higher bar to get started & a need for more oversight to prevent unchecked munchkinism  that goes outside the spirit of expectations.  Class based systems are usually easier to get into & provide some rails in the form of classes that allow characters to be a little more front loaded & not all equally balanced at every level.  That's fine & good for both types as long as they have rules that work within & support their mix of strengths & weaknesses.
> 
> The 5e style multiclassing tries to give players the strength of both without acknowledging the weaknesses of either.  To a degree 3.x style did as well but at least _tried_ to do things that raise the bar a little bit like oddball prerequisites all over the place & tools the gm could use to dial back on Bob's excess without crippling Alice's utter averageness on top of ways the GM could enhance Alice while being fairly confident the effort wouldn't be given to Bob  to further widen the gap.  (DR/SR/body slot conflicts/magic item churn/various forms of weapon specialization*/etc)
> 
> ...




I don`t mean only feats, I mean, take that feat and then multiclass normally as in 5e.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don`t mean only feats, I mean, take that feat and then multiclass normally as in 5e.



Yea that's why there would be pressure to design feats that give _something_ beyond just opening the door.  

Even if it did only open the door the ranger & cleric dips give wayyy more than any feat & would even be questionable if they showed up as an epic boon...  Ranger is a d10 hit doe & cleric a d8 hit die.  Even if someone was multiclassing out of a d12 class like barbarian it's only a 3hp loss & a one level delay on some minor class feature you might not have ever gotten in exchange for a whole bunch of awesome stuff  for the rest of the campaign.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Yea that's why there would be pressure to design feats that give _something_ beyond just opening the door.
> 
> Even if it did only open the door the ranger & cleric dips give wayyy more than any feat & would even be questionable if they showed up as an epic boon...  Ranger is a d10 hit doe & cleric a d8 hit die.  Even if someone was multiclassing out of a d12 class like barbarian it's only a 3hp loss & a one level delay on some minor class feature you might not have ever gotten in exchange for a whole bunch of awesome stuff  for the rest of the campaign.




With that approach (although I don´t think it is needed if you design first level abilities better in the first place), your maximum level in the first class is 16 at most.

My Idea of a class feat would not be something extra, but forking out abilities you would have gained anyway if you became that class:

bard dedication would give:
light armor training, performance (or any skill) and a bard cantrip. Or something like that.

Mutliclass rules would remove the bonus skill from bard multiclass. I think, I´d keep that extra cantrip, so you got a little bit from the feat at least. You could even specify, that some abilities at level 1 are never gained by multiclass characters:

You could demote holy order to level 1, but just exclude it, if you became a cleric later. You could design such abilities for every class.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 13, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> Couldn't you reframe this as a problem with higher level class features? If level 1-2 abilities are more compelling and interesting than level 8-10 ones, then why shouldn't players prefer them? That feels more like you really need better mid-high level class abilities.
> 
> The only real stand out abilities (barring the coffeelock stuff that's mostly just poorly written short rest mechanics in the warlock than anything) are things like paladin smite that live outside the action economy. You could just move those back in (maybe introduce a 4th action type, like 3e's swift or 4e's minor actions) to give them a real cost.



There don't seem to be a huge number of problematic class features as far as power combos go.  Specifying that warlock spell slots may not be used for paladin smites or spell point conversion might help.  Paladin spell smites more generally should probably take a bonus action and be a class feature with a hard daily limit.  It remains to be seen how Eldritch Blast will be built but possibly more akin to martial class level based multiple attacks.  Action surge should probably exclude casting a spell as your additional action.  And you should get skill training (at the very least) if you already have multple attacks in your first class.

Whether they also want to slow front loading to reduce class dipping is another issue but not one that I have noticed causing any consternation.  Gaining greater breadth at the cost of reduced power/focus seems pretty much accepted as the trade off for multi-classing.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 13, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> *There don't seem to be a huge number of problematic class features as far as power combos go. * Specifying that warlock spell slots may not be used for paladin smites or spell point conversion might help.  Paladin spell smites more generally should probably take a bonus action and be a class feature with a hard daily limit.  It remains to be seen how Eldritch Blast will be built but possibly more akin to martial class level based multiple attacks.  Action surge should probably exclude casting a spell as your additional action.  And you should get skill training (at the very least) if you already have multple attacks in your first class.
> 
> Whether they also want to slow front loading to reduce class dipping is another issue but not one that I have noticed causing any consternation.  Gaining greater breadth at the cost of reduced power/focus seems pretty much accepted as the trade off for multi-classing.



We have 4 classes and _half_ of them seem to have an overly good front loaded incentive to dip them on other classes.  If half is "not a huge number" _where_ do you see the line being?


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 13, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> We have 4 classes and _half_ of them seem to have an overly good front loaded incentive to dip them on other classes.  If half is "not a huge number" _where_ do you see the line being?



Overly good isn't the same as a power combo.  Surely since most people don't play to higher levels the incentive to dip will remain strong unless they substantially prune level 1 features.  High level class features are sometimes just enhanced versions of lower level features.  Does the problem lie there? 

Reducing the number of cantrips?  Halving use of features?  Limiting cross pollination of class features?  Downgraded armour options? Would any of that make a difference?


----------



## Horwath (Dec 13, 2022)

maybe all classes should get 10 proficiency points that you can spend on 1st level.
when you multiclass you get 0 of those.

proficiency costs:

skills: 1pt per skill. min 1 skill, max 5 skills
tools, languages and weapons: 1 pt per 4 proficiencies. max twice, extra 8 proficiencies for 2 pts.
martial weapon proficiency: 2 pts
armor proficiency: 0-3 pts, 1 pt per armor category
cantrips: 0-4 pts. 1 pt per cantrip
saves: 2 pts for Dex, Con or Wis save. max once
saves: 1 pt for Str, Int or Cha. max twice


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 13, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Overly good isn't the same as a power combo.  Surely since most people don't play to higher levels the incentive to dip will remain strong unless they substantially prune level 1 features.  High level class features are sometimes just enhanced versions of lower level features.  Does the problem lie there?
> 
> Reducing the number of cantrips?  Halving use of features?  Limiting cross pollination of class features?  Downgraded armour options? Would any of that make a difference?




I still don't see the problem with dipping.
In ADnD, a fighter mage was only 2 levels behind in both classes...

So dipping 2 levels of fighter in exchange for abilities, which will turn the wizard into a halfway competent fighter mage seems reasonable to me. NOT getting a subclass and one/two less feats and being a bit more MAD too.
I really don't get, where all the dippophobia comes from?

Dipping is a feature, not a bug. Getting strong features is necessary. It is just that those features may not be too strong.
Channel divinity as written seems to strong. Old Hexblade always was too strong. But those are specific problems, not general ones.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 13, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> For most players, this is not a real question. Sure, at level 19 a one-level dip is helpful. This, though wold be solved if they altered the spell progression and gave a second level-9 slot at level 20. (That's just an example, but it shows that the problem is not nearly as dire as you present.)
> 
> For most players, the decision gets made at any given level as you progress, and for that the game does pretty well. It's almost never advantageous to multiclass before level 5 if you are playing for "power", because the level 5 benefits are significant. So I can tell you how a Wizard 5 is better than a Wiz 4/Cleric 1. I can also tell you how a Wiz 9 is better than a Wiz 8/Cleric1. Maybe some levels aren't as tempting -- sure -- but choosing to multiclass at 6 or 7 or 8 should be an interesting choice, and I don't think it's going to be obvious.
> 
> That is a much more interesting break point, I would suggest, to measure the value of multiclassing -- class levels 6-10.




 Some MC builds switch on level 2 or 3.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 13, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I still don't see the problem with dipping.
> In ADnD, a fighter mage was only 2 levels behind in both classes...
> 
> So dipping 2 levels of fighter in exchange for abilities, which will turn the wizard into a halfway competent fighter mage seems reasonable to me. NOT getting a subclass and one/two less feats and being a bit more MAD too.
> ...



Yeah I'm not sure either.  I played my character to level 3 as a rogue in 2e and then switched to 0 level wizard and worked my way up.  My 5e version also has 3 levels.  It gives great versatility but my spells are more lacklustre. I thought that was working as intended.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 13, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Yeah I'm not sure either.  I played my character to level 3 as a rogue in 2e and then switched to 0 level wizard and worked my way up.  My 5e version also has 3 levels.  It gives great versatility but my spells are more lacklustre. I thought that was working as intended.




Yes, 2e dual class was way more powerful as 2e multiclassing or 5e multiclassing, as the few xp you lost in the beginning were meaningless compared to the xp you needed later.

The downside was that you had to be the worst specie with 0 bonuses, you had to have extraordinary stats and you had to get along with level low level abilities until you surpassed your first class.

So opting out a bit earlier was the safest way to multiclass.

Human fighter level 1, 2 sor 3 and then switching was not the worst idea to make a useful fighter mage. You get along with thaco 18 (which a mage would not get before level 7, when the lost xp are starting to get meaningless).

edit: you had to be level 2 as fighter, as seen in my last post.


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 13, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I still don't see the problem with dipping.
> In ADnD, a fighter mage was only 2 levels behind in both classes...
> 
> So dipping 2 levels of fighter in exchange for abilities, which will turn the wizard into a halfway competent fighter mage seems reasonable to me. NOT getting a subclass and one/two less feats and being a bit more MAD too.
> ...



Some people look at character classes as LEGOS; you can just grab the pieces that make your character concept work.  Thus your "Pirate" might be a Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue/Ranger, if that gives you the abilities you feel you should have.

Other people see character classes as the core of a character's identity.  Your character is a Fighter.  Or a Wizard.  Or a Barbarian.  Not some Frankenstein cobbled together out of the best parts to create an abomination.

In AD&D, if you were a Fighter/M-U, that's what your character was.  You never stopped being that, and it wasn't like you could grab a few levels of something else on top of it.  

*With the notable exception of dual-classing, which was required for the 1e Bard build.  Despite the name, you could pick up multiple classes with dual-classing, though constantly having to go back to level 1 and having to pretend you didn't have any other class abilities had it's own issues- I don't know of any insane dual-classed characters, but now I wish I had an AD&D game to join to see what's possible!

On top of all of this, there's the issue of balance.

If a Paladin/Sorcerer or a Paladin/Warlock seems to be more potent than a Paladin single-class, the question becomes, why should anyone be just a Paladin? 

I personally like multiclassing, and the ability to do it, but for some classes, reaching the highest levels doesn't seem terribly rewarding.  Especially when you consider how few games go on to those levels in the first place.

Even if [Class] 20 is more powerful than [Class]8/[Class] 12 in the long run, if [Class] 4/[Class] 4 is stronger NOW than [Class] 8, and the campaign is unlikely to go past level 11-12, what's the better choice?

If the better choice is multiclassing, that presents a problem.  And yeah, especially in 2e, multi-classed characters did tend to be better than single-classed characters, because the few levels you lost didn't tend to give you that much once you hit high levels, in exchange for a lot of versatility- but at the same time, the low levels were a real grind.

In 5e, maybe waiting a level for that new spell or extra attack seems painful, but it's a lot less painful than a Half-Elf Ftr/Thf/M-U desperately waiting to earn 3,750 xp to get his 1/3 of a d6 hit points!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 13, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Some people look at character classes as LEGOS; you can just grab the pieces that make your character concept work.  Thus your "Pirate" might be a Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue/Ranger, if that gives you the abilities you feel you should have.
> 
> Other people see character classes as the core of a character's identity.  Your character is a Fighter.  Or a Wizard.  Or a Barbarian.  Not some Frankenstein cobbled together out of the best parts to create an abomination.
> 
> ...




Are you sure about only being able to dual class once? I remember that you could do it as much as you wanted if you had the stats and if you always surpassed your highest class. And each reset was a setback at ever increasing level so the risk/reward became always higher.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 13, 2022)

In general (and at the end I will show an exception so no one thinks I think this means always) it depends on how long you expect to play. If I plan on playing for 7-10 levels taking 2 classes 1 as a dip sounds fantastic because in general I am not missing out on much. I get more options (always a plus in my group) for a slight power hit.
Lets say I play in a game that will be level 3-level9 (so 6-7 level of actual play) taking cleric or druid from 3rd to 9th is very powerful with 5th level spells in the end game, but taking a 2 level dip into paladin for divine smite and a fighting style and some spells that I can't cast can be a lot of fun... the extra on average 1hp is a bonus. 
If I am going to play that same character to level 15 or 16 yes that 2 level dip is still just 1 level of spells known but the high level spells get hit much longer... I am 2 levels behind not just in 5th level spells but 6th and 7th and might negate 8th level spells from the end game. 

So the cost of 5th level spells for a level or so and delay 4th and 3rd level spells for a bit is counter balanced for the bonuses of the other class... BUT that same dip effects much longer at almost double the # of levels.

EXCEPTION:
I played a 20+EB game. We started at 3rd and in the end I had 4 or 5 epic boons. I started as a fey pact tome warlock who was trying to collect as many at will spells as I could and use them as creative as I could (I even didn't take Eldritch blast just to prove a point) However the warlock last few levels stink... so I took 3 levels of divine soul sorcerer. I got some sorcery pts (and more with a feat) and more at wills and some divin spells (I already had magic adept druid) so it was a HUGE boon to my power. 

Now to contrast (and go back to my point) I took 3 levels of battle smith artificer and 2 level of blade singer wizard to start my 5th level character (we just hit 7th level and I am still just going up wizard) and yeah, a 7th level bladesinger would have more spells and higher level slots, but those 3 levels of BS art gave me the ability to use my 20 Int for attacks with magic weapons, and to infuse my sword to BE a magic weapon until I picked up my magic 'Dragon Soul' sword... and then it switched to being on my armor (that is insane for my level when I blade dance). BUT it is a newish DM that is already not showing signs of being in this for the long haul... so in exchange for only having 2nd level spells I know a boat load of 1st level ones (including cure wounds) I still have 3rd level slots to up cast, and I have more HP (3d8 over 3d6) a better Con save (artificer is prof + in blade dance I get +Int if it is for concentration) and that big buff in melee attacks.  The 7th level cleric has more umph then me but less options (and can't auto succeed on base concentration saves like I can) the warlock is in a similar boat to me she multied for 1 or 2 levels of rogue, and the others aren't even casters so they at best are my equal but the new player already is upset that fighter isn't as much as our three casters (two multi classed) in combat... now this is MAYBE a bad example since the DM had us roll for stats and I blew everyone away with mine...


----------



## Pedantic (Dec 13, 2022)

I'm confused as to why multiclassing is the underlying problem here. It very much feels like we're making an intrinsic argument that dips in and of themselves are bad, not in the pursuit of some particular design reason.

If a Fighter 1/rogue 7 is better than a rogue 8, that suggests whatever rogues get at 8 isn't particularly impressive. I don't think we can evaluate higher level class features as generally "worth" putting up with less impressive mid-level features, because it's very much not a given that any game ever uses them. With that in mind, I think it's much more pointing to a need to make class features after level 3 more compelling than the 1-3 features of other classes.

Honestly, I don't think there's much wrong with a lot of the classic dip options. Hexblade, for example, isn't really that overwhelmingly powerful; you're just adding "attack with a weapon" to the most of spellcaster action options at expected accuracy. Given that it's an action cost vs. casting spells (and excludes clerics and wizards), I think it's honestly a better argument that "attack with int, wis or cha" should probably be a feat instead of requiring multiclassing.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 13, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> I'm confused as to why multiclassing is the underlying problem here. It very much feels like we're making an intrinsic argument that dips in and of themselves are bad, not in the pursuit of some particular design reason.
> 
> If a Fighter 1/rogue 7 is better than a rogue 8, that suggests whatever rogues get at 8 isn't particularly impressive. I don't think we can evaluate higher level class features as generally "worth" putting up with less impressive mid-level features, because it's very much not a given that any game ever uses them. With that in mind, I think it's much more pointing to a need to make class features after level 3 more compelling than the 1-3 features of other classes.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think there's much wrong with a lot of the classic dip options. Hexblade, for example, isn't really that overwhelmingly powerful; you're just adding "attack with a weapon" to the most of spellcaster action options at expected accuracy. Given that it's an action cost vs. casting spells (and excludes clerics and wizards), I think it's honestly a better argument that "attack with int, wis or cha" should probably be a feat instead of requiring multiclassing.



Thematically, paladin and warlock abilities don't feel like they should synergise. The power sources don't seem compatible. If you could only use paladin smites when attacking as a paladin, this would exclude using charisma, since you only use that when channeling warlock pact blades.  Would that be enough to kill the overpowered combo or would it be going too far? Personally, I think spell smiting should be a bonus action and there should be a flat bonus damage for higher level slots rather that additional dice.


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 13, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Are you sure about only being ablento dual class once? I remember that you could do it as much as you wanted if youa had the stats and if you always surpassed  your highest class. And each reset was a setback at ever increasing level so the risk/reward became always higher.



Well, my thought was, it was implied because they called it "dual" class, not "switch classes as much as you want".  I have no actual evidence either way, other than what happened when I tried to dual class a second time in Baldur's Gate I (nope!), though I'm not saying we should take the rules of a computer game as evidence.

EDIT: checking the 2e PHB however, to my surprise, it actually does say there is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire!  I will go back and edit my earlier post.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 13, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Well, my thought was, it was implied because they called it "dual" class, not "switch classes as much as you want".  I have no actual evidence either way, other than what happened when I tried to dual class a second time in Baldur's Gate I (nope!), though I'm not saying we should take the rules of a computer game as evidence.



dual class was two classes only.  Multiclass was highly restricted & mostly two classes only but an elf or half elf could go with a fighter/mage/thief combo for 3

edit: I stand corrected


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 13, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> If a Fighter 1/rogue 7 is better than a rogue 8, that suggests whatever rogues get at 8 isn't particularly impressive. I don't think we can evaluate higher level class features as generally "worth" putting up with less impressive mid-level features, because it's very much not a given that any game ever uses them. With that in mind, I think it's much more pointing to a need to make class features after level 3 more compelling than the 1-3 features of other classes.



this is a BIG issue with those classes... a fighter 2/Rogue X can most likely do anything a Fighter 2+X or Rogue 2+X can do but better... at 20th level a 6th level fighter (eldritch knight) Rogue (arcane Trick) 14 is a 6th level caster with access to the best spell schools and 7d6 sneak attack with 2 attacks or 1 attack and a cantrip (like say a green flame blade) can wear heavy armor or light if you have a good dex. 
The sad part is that a Fighter (EK) 6 Rogue (AT)6 Bard (sword or valor) 8 is better still with 2 attacks (or 1 attack+cantrip) 3d6 sneak attack and 12 caster levels (although only 1st level spells from the 2 EK/AT and 4th level spells from bard)... you can trade 2 levels from F and R making them 5/5 (giving up the 2nd caster level from each) take 2 more bard levels and get the spells bad but now access 5th level spells...
this is just sad.


Pedantic said:


> Honestly, I don't think there's much wrong with a lot of the classic dip options. Hexblade, for example, isn't really that overwhelmingly powerful; you're just adding "attack with a weapon" to the most of spellcaster action options at expected accuracy.



My problem is that paliden SHOULD have 'use cha to attack' also... becuse a level 17+Paliden is no where near as cool or useful as paliden 6 hexblade 11+ that synergy is just too amazing.
The monster I saw that was paliden 3/hexblade 3/ divine soul sorcerer X or Bard X was crazy powerful compared to a paliden of equal level.


Pedantic said:


> Given that it's an action cost vs. casting spells (and excludes clerics and wizards), I think it's honestly a better argument that "attack with int, wis or cha" should probably be a feat instead of requiring multiclassing.



I think it should be (and I know I get pushback) just baked into the game... attack with any stat, here is the fluff to go with it. Want to make a fighter attacking with Wis, go for it, want your Rogue to attack with Cha, cool, want your ranger or barbarian to attack with Con (the hardest to justify but not impossible) yup.


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 13, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> dual class was two classes only.  Multiclass was highly restricted & mostly two classes only but an elf or half elf could go with a fighter/mage/thief combo for 3



I thought so too, but...the last paragraph disagrees.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 13, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Well, my thought was, it was implied because they called it "dual" class, not "switch classes as much as you want".  I have no actual evidence either way, other than what happened when I tried to dual class a second time in Baldur's Gate I (nope!), though I'm not saying we should take the rules of a computer game as evidence.
> 
> EDIT: checking the 2e PHB however, to my surprise, it actually does say there is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire!  I will go back and edit my earlier post.



In my experence 99% of the time it was 1 time only but there was no rule... and the 1 time I remember someone doing more everyone wanted to kill him...
He started as a ranger and took only a handful of levels then went thief (now called rogue) got up to the 3x backstab then went wizard... and when he hit a level that he got the ranger and thief abilities back he was way more powerful with very similar xp as anyone else... but this was before we had heard anything about caster supremacy/LFQW so maybe any wizard with good HP would have been this bad.

edit: that was a human, we also had a half elf Fighter/Cleric and a dwarf thief and a something I don't remember barbarian from the barbarian hand book... I was the half elf and I ended up getting wild talents too.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 13, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> dual class was two classes only.  Multiclass was highly restricted & mostly two classes only but an elf or half elf could go with a fighter/mage/thief combo for 3




nope. Page 62 of the ADnD 2e PHB seems to disagree with you...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 13, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> dual class was two classes only.  Multiclass was highly restricted & mostly two classes only but an elf or half elf could go with a fighter/mage/thief combo for 3



by the end of 2e we had swapped multi and duel class for thematic reasons... long lived races had level limits, they stopped being X and started trying Y instead, but humans (and I think we sometimes let half elves) had to cram everything in at once...


----------



## James Gasik (Dec 13, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> nope. Page 62 of the ADnD 2e PHB seems to disagree with you...
> 
> View attachment 269576



Now that's interesting, between the first and second printing, it went from "there's no limit to the number of classes" to "you can acquire up to four classes, one from each group".

I guess they didn't feel the need to mention that there was a fifth group, Psionic characters (but I know a lot of people liked to pretend they don't exist).

I do remember the core books seemed to prohibit the idea of mixing classes in the same group, but the Complete Bard's Handbook had no real problem allowing Thief/Bard multiclassing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 13, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Now that's interesting, between the first and second printing, it went from "there's no limit to the number of classes" to "you can acquire up to four classes, one from each group".
> 
> I guess they didn't feel the need to mention that there was a fifth group, Psionic characters (but I know a lot of people liked to pretend they don't exist).
> 
> I do remember the core books seemed to prohibit the idea of mixing classes in the same group, but the Complete Bard's Handbook had no real problem allowing Thief/Bard multiclassing.



i don't remember thatbit about in the group ( and i am SUREI remember details from 33 years ago     ) but I do remember rangers that wanted to become fighters before we house ruled (same memory so maybe it wasn't a house rule) anyone could specilize after 1st level but only warrior types could master and only fighter high and grand master...


----------



## Ashrym (Dec 13, 2022)

I'm not seeing dipping in another class as a significant issue in itself.  A single level doesn't give much in most cases, costs an epic boon now, and still delays main class progression.  2 levels does the same and costs a feat as well.  3 levels is getting beyond dipping and also costs the main high level ability.

In the case of spell casters as the main class that level progression is painful.  

We don't have more than 4 classes shown yet so there's a lot of speculation going on here, but those classes show rogues and rangers getting features at every level at high levels to also get delayed.  Spells as well in the ranger's case.

The example of splashing ranger for hunter's mark with a fighter only works because the fighter's extra attacks are powerful so point at the ranger doesn't make sense.  Splashing ranger delays gaining extra attacks or whatever we see at high levels.  We cannot see that but from what we see now that another attack, a feat, an extra feat, another feat, another feat maybe, and saving throw benefits.  And subclass abilities.  Delays matter while playing and cherry picking a nice level gain doesn't change any other level.

That character also needs to invest in dex and wis for ranger M/C plus anything he might need for that fighter class.  This matters less for some classes and can matter for others.

Expertise in a couple of skills is useful but the only thing it does is make that character more reliable in attempting the same tasks.  It's not a huge deal.

Channel divinity healing looks like it's stronger than it needs to be, but it's still just bonus healing a few times a day for an action cost.

I don't see any reason to splash bard or rogue.  (I have a hard time seeing much reason to play a bard at all over a reflavored cleric with the spell changes).

I'm not a fan of multi-classing.  Multi-classing can be complex.  I prefer using feats instead.  That method is simpler.  But I need to question what the point is in making multi-classing not appealing to players.  Low level abilities are there because they are iconic to the class and players should have iconic abilities throughout the class.  Making them less appealing can make the class less appealing.  Loading up the high levels with must have abilities can make multi-classing undesirable but that only shifts the issue onto the other side of the spectrum where people who like to multi-class will have incentive to avoid multi-classing.  That leaves out the players who want to recreate their old elven fighter / magic user.  

It's okay for multi-classing to have advantages and the existence of those advantages won't necessarily be problematic.


----------



## Scott Christian (Dec 14, 2022)

I know I am in the minority here, but anything they can do to make multiclassing worse is a step in the right direction. There are already so many subclasses, that almost everyone's niche can be filled. There may be a few outliers, but that is about it. The only reason anyone in any of my groups took a second (or third) class was to powergame. And I do not mean that as a bad thing. I just mean that their character concept had nothing to do with it. It was just so they could combine powers to be the highlight reel in every single encounter. 
I personally like the mini-game of character development, but some things just seem silly after a while. Multiclassing has always felt that way to me.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 14, 2022)

Pedantic said:


> I'm confused as to why multiclassing is the underlying problem here. It very much feels like we're making an intrinsic argument that dips in and of themselves are bad, not in the pursuit of some particular design reason.
> 
> If a Fighter 1/rogue 7 is better than a rogue 8, that suggests whatever rogues get at 8 isn't particularly impressive. I don't think we can evaluate higher level class features as generally "worth" putting up with less impressive mid-level features, because it's very much not a given that any game ever uses them. With that in mind, I think it's much more pointing to a need to make class features after level 3 more compelling than the 1-3 features of other classes.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think there's much wrong with a lot of the classic dip options. Hexblade, for example, isn't really that overwhelmingly powerful; you're just adding "attack with a weapon" to the most of spellcaster action options at expected accuracy. Given that it's an action cost vs. casting spells (and excludes clerics and wizards), I think it's honestly a better argument that "attack with int, wis or cha" should probably be a feat instead of requiring multiclassing.



Rogue gets ASI at 8th level vs as 1st level fighter:
Fighting style(wotc values this as full feats, but most will barely be enough for a half feat if that. but that is another topic)
medium armor proficiency+shields, that is half feat.
martial weapon proficiency, that is half feat.
second wind, that could be a half feat.

so in total(I will rank fighting style as half feat as it in not worth full feat. not even archery): that is 2 feats(more or less) vs rogues 8th level ASI.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 14, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Rogue gets ASI at 8th level vs as 1st level fighter:
> Fighting style(wotc values this as full feats, but most will barely be enough for a half feat if that. but that is another topic)
> medium armor proficiency+shields, that is half feat.
> martial weapon proficiency, that is half feat.
> ...



That's interesting.  I suppose they could reword the level 1 text: You gain the X class feature, usable (half as often) until you take a long rest.  You can also choose one class feature from the following list:  etc.  In addition to the current stuff about skills.

Would you need to reduce the number of cantrips at level 1 as well?  I guess you would slot back into standard cantrip progression at level 2.


----------



## Ashrym (Dec 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Rogue gets ASI at 8th level vs as 1st level fighter:
> Fighting style(wotc values this as full feats, but most will barely be enough for a half feat if that. but that is another topic)
> medium armor proficiency+shields, that is half feat.
> martial weapon proficiency, that is half feat.
> ...




And that same character has to wait longer for every rogue class feature after that.  One level later the pure rogue adds sneak attack damage and evasion that the splash doesn't have.  The first epic boon is lost completely.

Medium armor does little for a rogue because they are typically dex based anyway.  The shield takes away the off hand attack to cut down the chance of landing sneak attacks.

Martial weapons don't matter because of the sneak attack needs to be done with a ranged or finesse weapon.  Rogues already have proficiency in all martial weapons that have the finesse quality.  The fighter splash adds and average of 1 damage on the die before calculating hit ratios by using a heavy crossbow at range, and using nets.

They're getting second wind and a fighting style instead of a feat.  The shield is a damage trade-off but the feat could be defensive duelist anyway, and everything else doesn't help.  I'm not really seeing the issue in your example.


----------



## Pedantic (Dec 15, 2022)

I should probably have actually calibrated my example, instead of responding to the general case with a hypothetical, but the broader point was that higher level class features should be competitive with lower level cross class features and if they aren't, then it should generally be incumbent on the higher level feature to be made better, instead of the lower level feature made less appealing.


----------



## DragonBelow (Dec 15, 2022)

Bring back 2e style multiclassing rules!


----------



## Horwath (Dec 15, 2022)

Ashrym said:


> And that same character has to wait longer for every rogue class feature after that.  One level later the pure rogue adds sneak attack damage and evasion that the splash doesn't have.  The first epic boon is lost completely.



rogue features coming one level later is a valid argument and needs to be valued as a cost of multiclass.
Epic boon however is irrelevant argument in 99,9% of the cases.


Ashrym said:


> Medium armor does little for a rogue because they are typically dex based anyway.  The shield takes away the off hand attack to cut down the chance of landing sneak attacks.



medium armor+shield give more than double chance to utilize magic armor if it comes along. Also with Aim bonus action+shield you can have advantage vs enemy when you are solo in melee with increased survivability and getting a sneak attack.


Ashrym said:


> Martial weapons don't matter because of the sneak attack needs to be done with a ranged or finesse weapon.  Rogues already have proficiency in all martial weapons that have the finesse quality.  The fighter splash adds and average of 1 damage on the die before calculating hit ratios by using a heavy crossbow at range, and using nets.



Agree partly, but fighter add scimitar to the list, so one more weapon for magic lottery,
heavy crossbow adds 20ft of range in addition to damage, and longbow adds almost double range over crossbow for same damage.
and also 2 more ranged weapons to aim for magic version.


Ashrym said:


> They're getting second wind and a fighting style instead of a feat.  The shield is a damage trade-off but the feat could be defensive duelist anyway, and everything else doesn't help.  I'm not really seeing the issue in your example.



I'm not saying that is an issue, I'm saying that rogue only gets more out of 1 level of fighter than with ASI/feat.
Is that more overweighted by waiting one level for rogue features? maybe.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 15, 2022)

A dip for fighter is largely for action surge or a subclass surely?  it's possible to build some fairly interesting Warlord builds this way.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 15, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> A dip for fighter is largely for action surge or a subclass surely?  it's possible to build some fairly interesting Warlord builds this way.



We don't have the new fighter yet but a higher level fighter  dipping ranger does look _extremely_ attractive


----------



## Ashrym (Dec 16, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Agree partly, but fighter add scimitar to the list, so one more weapon for magic lottery,




Rogues have scimitar proficiency under the play test rules.  They have proficiency in any martial weapon with the finesse property.

"Weapons: Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons that have the Finesse Property"



Horwath said:


> Also with Aim bonus action+shield you can have advantage vs enemy when you are solo in melee with increased survivability and getting a sneak attack.




Steady aim is an optional class feature that doesn't exist under the rogue class presented in this play test.  Trying to use those supplements complicates the shared spell lists with added spells as well so using those supplements doesn't really work with the the play test rules.

Comparing classes or multiclassing is premature because we're either playtesting and comparing with 5e classes as is or not making a balanced party with the 4 class we have.  Or applying mechanics to existing classes.  Try an artificer with the playtest spell spell slots and arcane spell list.  It's different.


----------

