From playing in other systems and older editions previously I really enjoyed multi-tasking and building a character that really suites my play style. I havent don't a whole lot of research but does anyone know how easy it is to multiclass in One D&D or is it like 5E where there is really no point?
Based on everything that's been seen in the playtest, they're not changing how multiclassing works. (Which isn't surprising since it's not supposed to be a new edition, just a tuneup n the current one.)
I don't think multiclassing has no point, and the character optimization folks will definitely take issue with it, but it's a matter of opinion.
For One D&D there's definitely some focus on making Multiclassing a little harder. The most obvious example is how all classes don't get access to their Subclass features until 3rd level. Sorcerer, Warlock, Cleric, Druid and Wizard all get their subclasses at 1st or 2nd level, which makes them tempting as a "dip" for other classes. You'll find dozens of builds out there with just a single level dip into Warlock for Hexblade, or a number of classes that can benefit from a single level of Cleric just get access to some kind of gimmick tied to the subclass.
Other than that, though, multiclassing seems to work basically the same as current 5e. If you're building a multiclass that actually invests 3+ levels into your second class, at best you'll get to the good stuff later, but in the long run they should work together better. Although one smaller thing they've done is try and make sure features that might have at one time been tied to your Proficiency Bonus are now tied to your class level in that class.
So the min-maxer's continue to win. That is really unfortunate. wotc has a chance to really re-balance the game somewhat, and they shrink away.
The min-maxers will always win because D&D is not meant to be [Thanos voice] "perfectly balanced". And they have been making adjustments, including nixing 1st level subclasses which goes a long way to nerfing some dips. But, regardless, given that they have made it a major point that the current 5e classes are all still going to be compatible going forward, they wouldn't be "fixing" anything in any case since it's still down to the DM's to allow or disallow the classes and/or multiclasses.
So the min-maxer's continue to win. That is really unfortunate. wotc has a chance to really re-balance the game somewhat, and they shrink away.
The min-maxers aren't winning. They aren't losing. They're gonna do their thing with whatever rule set they're presented with. It's what brings them joy.
There was never going to be any serious re-balancing, for two reasons:
It's basically impossible to do while keeping backwards compatibility.
Balance is an illusion anyway.
Meanwhile, if they had standardized on level 3 subclasses, there'd be all the yelling of "Backwards compatibility was a lie!", "It's really 6th edition!", "Forcing us to buy new versions of everything!", etc, etc, etc.
So the min-maxer's continue to win. That is really unfortunate. wotc has a chance to really re-balance the game somewhat, and they shrink away.
The min-maxers aren't winning. They aren't losing. They're gonna do their thing with whatever rule set they're presented with. It's what brings them joy.
There was never going to be any serious re-balancing, for two reasons:
It's basically impossible to do while keeping backwards compatibility.
Balance is an illusion anyway.
Meanwhile, if they had standardized on level 3 subclasses, there'd be all the yelling of "Backwards compatibility was a lie!", "It's really 6th edition!", "Forcing us to buy new versions of everything!", etc, etc, etc.
The fact that every PC will start with a Feat, given that Feats are an OPTIONAL thing, is enough to establish this is a new edition. Min-maxers will be screaming that they get to rejig their existing PC's to equalize with new PC's, and new DM's without access to 5e won't even know that about how 5e builds PC's. Backwards compatibility was always just marketese, and there is no reason why if Feats are now mandatory that all subclasses starting at 3rd level could not be implemented.
So the min-maxer's continue to win. That is really unfortunate. wotc has a chance to really re-balance the game somewhat, and they shrink away.
The min-maxers aren't winning. They aren't losing. They're gonna do their thing with whatever rule set they're presented with. It's what brings them joy.
There was never going to be any serious re-balancing, for two reasons:
It's basically impossible to do while keeping backwards compatibility.
Balance is an illusion anyway.
Meanwhile, if they had standardized on level 3 subclasses, there'd be all the yelling of "Backwards compatibility was a lie!", "It's really 6th edition!", "Forcing us to buy new versions of everything!", etc, etc, etc.
The fact that every PC will start with a Feat, given that Feats are an OPTIONAL thing, is enough to establish this is a new edition. Min-maxers will be screaming that they get to rejig their existing PC's to equalize with new PC's, and new DM's without access to 5e won't even know that about how 5e builds PC's. Backwards compatibility was always just marketese, and there is no reason why if Feats are now mandatory that all subclasses starting at 3rd level could not be implemented.
The only reason I didn't write "you'd be yelling" in the quote above was in the interest of civility, so thank you for demonstrating my point.
No, choosing from a limited subset of the feats at level 1 does not make it a new edition. It does not break backward compatibility. It doesn't throw the balance, such as it is, out of whack.
It's also got nothing to do with the question of whether they're changing multiclassing in the revised rules.
So the min-maxer's continue to win. That is really unfortunate. wotc has a chance to really re-balance the game somewhat, and they shrink away.
Min-maxers were going to win either way, moving subclasses to level 3 wouldn't impact min-maxing all that much. You multiclass for specific class features that are gained at low levels (e.g. Action Surge), not for subclasses.
The real problem with multiclassing is that the power gains at low levels are so much larger than the power gains at 10+ level, with the only exception being spellcasters that want to keep progression towards Level 7,8,9 spells. Other than wanting high level spellslots, there's never any reason to put more than 8-10 levels into any single class. Unfortunately none of the One DnD changes have attempted to address this at all, and multiclassing was always going to be vastly superior for min-maxing.
The fact that every PC will start with a Feat, given that Feats are an OPTIONAL thing, is enough to establish this is a new edition. Min-maxers will be screaming that they get to rejig their existing PC's to equalize with new PC's, and new DM's without access to 5e won't even know that about how 5e builds PC's. Backwards compatibility was always just marketese, and there is no reason why if Feats are now mandatory that all subclasses starting at 3rd level could not be implemented.
It's not a new edition just because there will be 2 versions of every class (3 for Ranger), anymore than Tasha's was 6th edition just because it created a new version of Ranger.
When they say "backwards compatible" they really mean that all the adventure modules they are selling still work no matter whether you use the 2014 classes or 2024 classes, which all indications appear will be true. Monsters still all work as well as they ever have (not very well because Challenge Rating is a terrible metric), Magic Items all still work, etc. That stuff is all backwards compatible, although each table is going to have to choose whether to use the 2014 or 2024 version of classes and game rules, which is pretty confusing but not particularly more confusing than how every table has its own Homebrew rules.
To be fair, the issue of Challenge Ratings is fundamentally insoluble assuming the system as a whole is to remain substantially unchanged. There's way too many variables to pin down better than a general ballpark area of "appropriate difficulty", and it's also important to remember that the result is weighted heavily in the party's favor by design.
I’m confused by the assertion that the decision to standardise acquisition of subclasses at level 3 had been scrapped. The most recent UA still had the Druid gaining its subclass at level 3, unlike the current version which does so at level 2.
I’m confused by the assertion that the decision to standardise acquisition of subclasses at level 3 had been scrapped. The most recent UA still had the Druid gaining its subclass at level 3, unlike the current version which does so at level 2.
Yeah good question. The most recent UA version of Warlock (UA 7), Wizard (UA 7), Sorcerer (UA 7), and Cleric (UA 6) also have their subclass moved to Level 3. Everything else already is at level 3. I don't see how anything was scrapped
I’m confused by the assertion that the decision to standardise acquisition of subclasses at level 3 had been scrapped. The most recent UA still had the Druid gaining its subclass at level 3, unlike the current version which does so at level 2.
Yeah good question. The most recent UA version of Warlock (UA 7), Wizard (UA 7), Sorcerer (UA 7), and Cleric (UA 6) also have their subclass moved to Level 3. Everything else already is at level 3. I don't see how anything was scrapped
Could there be some confusion with the abandoned experiment with standardising subclass progression (to levels 6, 10 and 14h)? That was dropped in order to maintain backwards compatibility, but the 3rd level standardisation was preserved at that time.
Untrue. All subclasses will come at 3rd level. They did, however, get rid of the standardized subclass feature progression (I believe it was at levels 3, 6, 10, 14 for all subclasses). But JC distinctly said they were keeping subclasses at 3rd level.
From playing in other systems and older editions previously I really enjoyed multi-tasking and building a character that really suites my play style. I havent don't a whole lot of research but does anyone know how easy it is to multiclass in One D&D or is it like 5E where there is really no point?
Based on everything that's been seen in the playtest, they're not changing how multiclassing works. (Which isn't surprising since it's not supposed to be a new edition, just a tuneup n the current one.)
I don't think multiclassing has no point, and the character optimization folks will definitely take issue with it, but it's a matter of opinion.
For One D&D there's definitely some focus on making Multiclassing a little harder. The most obvious example is how all classes don't get access to their Subclass features until 3rd level. Sorcerer, Warlock, Cleric, Druid and Wizard all get their subclasses at 1st or 2nd level, which makes them tempting as a "dip" for other classes. You'll find dozens of builds out there with just a single level dip into Warlock for Hexblade, or a number of classes that can benefit from a single level of Cleric just get access to some kind of gimmick tied to the subclass.
Other than that, though, multiclassing seems to work basically the same as current 5e. If you're building a multiclass that actually invests 3+ levels into your second class, at best you'll get to the good stuff later, but in the long run they should work together better. Although one smaller thing they've done is try and make sure features that might have at one time been tied to your Proficiency Bonus are now tied to your class level in that class.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
They backed off on the "no subclasses until 3rd"
So the min-maxer's continue to win. That is really unfortunate. wotc has a chance to really re-balance the game somewhat, and they shrink away.
The min-maxers will always win because D&D is not meant to be [Thanos voice] "perfectly balanced". And they have been making adjustments, including nixing 1st level subclasses which goes a long way to nerfing some dips. But, regardless, given that they have made it a major point that the current 5e classes are all still going to be compatible going forward, they wouldn't be "fixing" anything in any case since it's still down to the DM's to allow or disallow the classes and/or multiclasses.
The min-maxers aren't winning. They aren't losing. They're gonna do their thing with whatever rule set they're presented with. It's what brings them joy.
There was never going to be any serious re-balancing, for two reasons:
Meanwhile, if they had standardized on level 3 subclasses, there'd be all the yelling of "Backwards compatibility was a lie!", "It's really 6th edition!", "Forcing us to buy new versions of everything!", etc, etc, etc.
The fact that every PC will start with a Feat, given that Feats are an OPTIONAL thing, is enough to establish this is a new edition. Min-maxers will be screaming that they get to rejig their existing PC's to equalize with new PC's, and new DM's without access to 5e won't even know that about how 5e builds PC's. Backwards compatibility was always just marketese, and there is no reason why if Feats are now mandatory that all subclasses starting at 3rd level could not be implemented.
The only reason I didn't write "you'd be yelling" in the quote above was in the interest of civility, so thank you for demonstrating my point.
No, choosing from a limited subset of the feats at level 1 does not make it a new edition. It does not break backward compatibility. It doesn't throw the balance, such as it is, out of whack.
It's also got nothing to do with the question of whether they're changing multiclassing in the revised rules.
Min-maxers were going to win either way, moving subclasses to level 3 wouldn't impact min-maxing all that much. You multiclass for specific class features that are gained at low levels (e.g. Action Surge), not for subclasses.
The real problem with multiclassing is that the power gains at low levels are so much larger than the power gains at 10+ level, with the only exception being spellcasters that want to keep progression towards Level 7,8,9 spells. Other than wanting high level spellslots, there's never any reason to put more than 8-10 levels into any single class. Unfortunately none of the One DnD changes have attempted to address this at all, and multiclassing was always going to be vastly superior for min-maxing.
It's not a new edition just because there will be 2 versions of every class (3 for Ranger), anymore than Tasha's was 6th edition just because it created a new version of Ranger.
When they say "backwards compatible" they really mean that all the adventure modules they are selling still work no matter whether you use the 2014 classes or 2024 classes, which all indications appear will be true. Monsters still all work as well as they ever have (not very well because Challenge Rating is a terrible metric), Magic Items all still work, etc. That stuff is all backwards compatible, although each table is going to have to choose whether to use the 2014 or 2024 version of classes and game rules, which is pretty confusing but not particularly more confusing than how every table has its own Homebrew rules.
To be fair, the issue of Challenge Ratings is fundamentally insoluble assuming the system as a whole is to remain substantially unchanged. There's way too many variables to pin down better than a general ballpark area of "appropriate difficulty", and it's also important to remember that the result is weighted heavily in the party's favor by design.
I’m confused by the assertion that the decision to standardise acquisition of subclasses at level 3 had been scrapped. The most recent UA still had the Druid gaining its subclass at level 3, unlike the current version which does so at level 2.
Yeah good question. The most recent UA version of Warlock (UA 7), Wizard (UA 7), Sorcerer (UA 7), and Cleric (UA 6) also have their subclass moved to Level 3. Everything else already is at level 3. I don't see how anything was scrapped
Could there be some confusion with the abandoned experiment with standardising subclass progression (to levels 6, 10 and 14h)? That was dropped in order to maintain backwards compatibility, but the 3rd level standardisation was preserved at that time.
Untrue. All subclasses will come at 3rd level. They did, however, get rid of the standardized subclass feature progression (I believe it was at levels 3, 6, 10, 14 for all subclasses). But JC distinctly said they were keeping subclasses at 3rd level.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?