im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
No, extra attack is a class feature, not a character feature.
In addition, much like Unarmored Defense, you can only use one Extra Attack feature, they do not stack. So a Barbarian 5/Fighter 5 gets one extra attack where as a Fighter 11 gets two. A Fighter 11/Barbarian 5 would have to choose between having one extra attack from the Barbarian feature or two from the Fighter feature, the wouldn't get three. Jeremy Crawford discussed this in the last Dragon Talk podcast, where he reviewed a number of questions related to multiclassing. Once again, this illustrates the trade off a multiclass character makes.
Absolutely right. Another example is the ability score improvement feature. That is a class feature as well. A Paladin 3/Warlock3/Fighter 3 does not get the ability score improvement (or feat) that single-classer get at level 4.
im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
No, extra attack is a class feature, not a character feature.
In addition, much like Unarmored Defense, you can only use one Extra Attack feature, they do not stack. So a Barbarian 5/Fighter 5 gets one extra attack where as a Fighter 11 gets two. A Fighter 11/Barbarian 5 would have to choose between having one extra attack from the Barbarian feature or two from the Fighter feature, the wouldn't get three. Jeremy Crawford discussed this in the last Dragon Talk podcast, where he reviewed a number of questions related to multiclassing. Once again, this illustrates the trade off a multiclass character makes.
im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
No, extra attack is a class feature, not a character feature.
In addition, much like Unarmored Defense, you can only use one Extra Attack feature, they do not stack. So a Barbarian 5/Fighter 5 gets one extra attack where as a Fighter 11 gets two. A Fighter 11/Barbarian 5 would have to choose between having one extra attack from the Barbarian feature or two from the Fighter feature, the wouldn't get three. Jeremy Crawford discussed this in the last Dragon Talk podcast, where he reviewed a number of questions related to multiclassing. Once again, this illustrates the trade off a multiclass character makes.
im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
No, extra attack is a class feature, not a character feature.
In addition, much like Unarmored Defense, you can only use one Extra Attack feature, they do not stack. So a Barbarian 5/Fighter 5 gets one extra attack where as a Fighter 11 gets two. A Fighter 11/Barbarian 5 would have to choose between having one extra attack from the Barbarian feature or two from the Fighter feature, the wouldn't get three. Jeremy Crawford discussed this in the last Dragon Talk podcast, where he reviewed a number of questions related to multiclassing. Once again, this illustrates the trade off a multiclass character makes.
Yeah, but does it say that in the PHB?
It is extremely clearly stated in the page on multiclassing, even stating that the warlock thirsting blade doesn't stack even though it has a different name.
So one thing from earlier in the thread that came up but wasn't really thoroughly examined- is the idea of a single class vs. a multi-class- I think it's a little strange to have a problem, even if a wizard when played a certain way would out-stealth an unoptimized rogue, or out-tank an optimized fighter. I think it comes from an unreasonable demand that classes each have seperate (and untouchable) niches- ultimately when you pick a class, you aren't really thinking about the classes- you're thinking about what kind of capability you want to have and how to achieve it. The normal rationale of these things, is that if you want to play a character that fights like a pop-culture fantasy-assassin, you take the rogue assassin sub class because it's a good way to simulate that- classes are interpreted as narratives.
But ultimately, a shadow monk/warlock multiclass that's designed to be an assassin has just as much claim on the title as the rogue- as does any other build designed to have that capability. The players both decided that they wanted an assassin, they just took different routes to get there, routes that are individually consistent with what they interpret their assassin to be like. The rogue player doesn't somehow have some moral right to dibs on the assassin concept by virtue of their class choice. A tank character is a tank character regardless of if that's a bladesinger wizard designed to tank, or a battlemaster fighter designed to tank, neither player is automatically more in the right for their tank build.
If there were a problem with it, it would be if one of these builds was more effective than the other- but that's very rare because 5th edition has a lot of different capabilities for builds to specialize in- in our monklock/rogue example, the multiclass might offer certain benefits (Darkness/Devil's Sight, THP on a succesful kill etc.) that help the concept, and overall performance- but the single class rogue assassin has it's own benefits (namely, the absurd burst on surprise the subclass is built around), in our figther/bladesinger tank example, the Bladesigner will typically have higher AC than the fighter (for two fights a short rest anyway) but will have worse HP than the same fighter (both because the fighter class has more hitpoints overall, and because they can max out con faster for the extra HP, since they only need two stats- their attack stat and con)- they would excel then at different situations, this isn't 3.5 where the wizard could stack buff spells on themselves to be a better figther than the fighter- they just have the options to invest into the build, to become for all intents and purposes equal to the traditional class.
5e changed quite a few things, subtly or overtly, compared to older editions. However, the hardest thing to change is mindset. I can confuse 5e rules with what I remembered from 3.5, and people who know both rulesets better than I will also confuse the rules. However, when looking at both the rules as written (whether that's the books, errata, or Sage Advice) or rules as intended (DMs trying to make the best adjudications), 5e easily is the system that best fosters gaming. 3.5 let features grow rampant and wild; just laying on the fertilizer. 5e prunes and tends its garden, and focuses on filling in the design space rather than allowing the vines to spread beyond the walls. I feel like plenty of people are still scarred by bad experiences from 3.5 and they don't believe 5e is truly the different garden that it is. To continue the analogy: 3.5 is a nature preserve, where survival of the fittest reigns supreme. 4e is a manicured french garden like Versailles, and 5e is your backyard garden, the most receptive to your input and needs. As a system, 5e just doesn't allow itself to get out of control, while also staying approachable to modification. The fact that they've encouraged and supported personal homebrew more than any other system I've seen tells me that its also one of the easiest to keep powerlevels reigned in.
I DM for a group of 4. 2 full on min/maxers and 2 heavy role players, and I've literally never had a problem. My view as a DM is to let everybody have the most fun they can. Reading this thread makes me doubt that that's what everyone's intentions are :(
I have the same view as a DM - the game is supposed to be fun, so let's make it fun. That being said, some people find the DM vs Player style game fun. It's not for me and I would never sit at a table that ran that kind of game, but some people seem to like it so perhaps that's where some of the comments are coming from. We are a group of six people (five players and a DM) and it has never been an issue, but I think that's because no one is a jerk. This goes back to what AaronOfBarbaria, a few other, and myself have been saying - it's not min/maxing that's the problem, it's players who are jerks. Min/maxing seems to have come to mean "jerk" and it's also used as the antonym of roleplaying, as if they are on a spectrum where one end is "min/maxing" and the other end is "roleplaying". I suggest that they are two separate spectrums, one called "Optimization" that ranges from poor to high and the other called "Roleplaying" that ranges from poor to great.
You bring up a really good point about people being locked into a certain class having to be a certain way - look back a few pages where Paladins came up and even when presented with written proof from the text of the game that states it's the oath they are beholden to, some people insisted it was their god and I suspect that's because of the stereotype of a Lawful Good Paladin from previous editions.
I think the single-class vs multiclass thing is related to the "optimizing" vs "min/maxing" discussion. Some people seem to be fine with a single-classed character optimizing, but not a multiclass and I believe some of this pushback is because of issues that arose in previous editions and a lack of understanding of how the rules for multiclassing and the general design philosophies are different this time around. Your points about specialization in certain areas speak to how the design philosophy manifests itself in the game - players have choices within each class and there are often two ways to get a similar result with two different classes.
However, the hardest thing to change is mindset...3.5 is a nature preserve, where survival of the fittest reigns supreme. 4e is a manicured french garden like Versailles, and 5e is your backyard garden, the most receptive to your input and needs. As a system, 5e just doesn't allow itself to get out of control, while also staying approachable to modification. The fact that they've encouraged and supported personal homebrew more than any other system I've seen tells me that its also one of the easiest to keep powerlevels reigned in.
First, that analogy is great! I have come to the same conclusion about 5e with regard to it being designed to maintain control when customized. I think it's one of the greatest strengths of 5e and something that perhaps not everyone realizes. It really can hold up against a number of modifications and still run smoothly. Provided you understand the basics of the simple framework the game is built on, you can bolt on heavy modifications and additions and it will hold up just fine.
As for your statement about mindset - I think it's very insightful and very true. Past experience with other editions and the effect multiclassing had within them has been difficult to shake for some people, and I understand where they're coming from. That being said, I think it's important to be open and look at things with a fresh perspective as much as one can. It helps you learn, grow, and gain new experiences that you can carry with you into the next campaign and into your life outside of D&D.
The problem with the idea that this edition is easy to maintain is the power that is present in some early level classes and the relative weakness of some late/end level classes. This is actually addressed every time they release a new Unearthed Arcana: the disclaimer that it hasn't been balanced for multiclassing.
The best example I can think of is the new Mystic class. There's no way that min-maxers wouldn't dip Mystic for the powerful 1st level foci/proficiencies/etc...
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
But that's Unearthed Arcana- it says that to mark that content as the exception that proves the rule, when those rules reach their final iteration, you can expect them to have received balance passes for multi-classing, which is something that every option in the currently published books has received, there's no reason to think they would stop doing that. You shouldn't multiclass the rules found in UA, because they aren't finalized, and apparently MC balance is something they do relatively late in the design process (which makes sense, it's a variant rule.)
i suppose they could make a subclass for battlemage or something that start with martial weapons medium armor and then cutting back a bit of the magic to compensate... but who is still more magic focussed than the EK
You mean a ranger?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
I'm not sure about the rest of this thread, but the "Paladins can't also be Warlocks" crowd really needs to sit down and watch the TV version of Constantine or something....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I'm not sure about the rest of this thread, but the "Paladins can't also be Warlocks" crowd really needs to sit down and watch the TV version of Constantine or something....
First, I would never call Constantine a Paladin, he clearly isn't one.
A lot of it is still the foundational idea (from previous editions) that Paladins are warriors of light who oppose darkness and all things vile and evil. In that regard it is virtually unlikely that a Paladin would then make a deal with an evil entity for power. Paladins slay the people who do those kinds of things.
Besides that, I think the biggest thing is that Paladins are clearly dipping into warlock to get near infinite smites per day and that is really where the resentment comes in. And that reason usually has some unreasonable rp reason behind it. Getting unlimited smites per day is seen as finding a loophole in the game to exploit it. It also gets kinda old if every Paladin does it just to get infinite Smites. If Paladins had infinite smites, then no one would dip into Warlock.
While WotC tried to remove the "lawful good" element from Paladins, that idea is still maintained.
Even more so the idea that Paladins are against evil, not making deals with evil beings, which is really where Warlocks come in.
I would be more inclined to be okay with it if it wasn't everyone doing it just to get refreshing smites, or even if the player actually took more than one or two levels of warlock. In other words most players purely dip to get refreshing smites and then come up with some roleplaying reason for it.
The other thing is just roleplaying. Its always ten years before we started this adventure I met a demon and made a deal with him and that's why I'm a warlock now 11 years later. Its almost never I want more power, which is somewhat out of characteristic with a Paladin in the first place, its always part of their background which hasn't happened in a long time.
I'm not sure about the rest of this thread, but the "Paladins can't also be Warlocks" crowd really needs to sit down and watch the TV version of Constantine or something....
First, I would never call Constantine a Paladin, he clearly isn't one.
A lot of it is still the foundational idea (from previous editions) that Paladins are warriors of light who oppose darkness and all things vile and evil. In that regard it is virtually unlikely that a Paladin would then make a deal with an evil entity for power. Paladins slay the people who do those kinds of things.
Besides that, I think the biggest thing is that Paladins are clearly dipping into warlock to get near infinite smites per day and that is really where the resentment comes in. And that reason usually has some unreasonable rp reason behind it. Getting unlimited smites per day is seen as finding a loophole in the game to exploit it. It also gets kinda old if every Paladin does it just to get infinite Smites. If Paladins had infinite smites, then no one would dip into Warlock.
While WotC tried to remove the "lawful good" element from Paladins, that idea is still maintained.
Even more so the idea that Paladins are against evil, not making deals with evil beings, which is really where Warlocks come in.
I would be more inclined to be okay with it if it wasn't everyone doing it just to get refreshing smites, or even if the player actually took more than one or two levels of warlock. In other words most players purely dip to get refreshing smites and then come up with some roleplaying reason for it.
The other thing is just roleplaying. Its always ten years before we started this adventure I met a demon and made a deal with him and that's why I'm a warlock now 11 years later. Its almost never I want more power, which is somewhat out of characteristic with a Paladin in the first place, its always part of their background which hasn't happened in a long time.
A Warlock's patron doesn't need to be evil. An Archfey patron can be good, neutral or evil, and is more than fitting for an Oath of the Ancients Paladin. Nothing about the Great Old One patron implies it's evil either. The Raven Queen patron from Unearthed Arcana is in charge of making sure people die and seeks to destroy intelligent undead; another natural choice for Paladins.
The thing about the Warlock class is that - like Paladin - it comes with strings attached. If you accept power from a powerful extraplanar entity, you're giving that entity leverage to call upon you to further its agenda. Just like Paladins need to uphold their oaths to keep their powers, Warlocks are beholden to their patron. That gives the DM a lot of ammunition.
I also think it's perfectly reasonable for a Paladin to want more power if it helps them fulfill their vows. Being good - even lawful good - doesn't mean a character is infallible or incapable of making complex moral choices. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and even near-infallible angels occasionally let their pride and arrogance get the better of them. A DM can absolutely work with all of this to move a story in an interesting direction.
A character's background is supposed to be a collaborative effort between them and the DM. The DM controls the setting, so a player can't unilaterally decide details about the world.
If a player's dipping into Warlock just to make a smite-heavy character, so what? Why is that any different from someone dipping into Rogue to make a strong grappling character? They're sacrificing whatever features they would've gotten at higher Paladin levels to specialize in that one area.
The DM's job is to maximize fun. There's at least 8 kinds of fun and some players really like pushing the boundaries of a game's rules and creating strong characters, just like some players really like roleplaying, others like exploring, and some like to build a unique character like a gnome barbarian or a goliath bard. None of these inclinations are more or less important than the others. It's absolutely possible for min-maxing to cause conflicts at a table, but that's true of the other kinds of fun too. A player that loves talking to NPCs is going to cause problems if the rest of the party just wants to kick down doors and kill things all the time.
This is ultimately a social problem - the DM and the players need to agree on what kind of game they're going to be playing, and each player (DM included) needs to be willing to give and take so everyone's needs are met. Maybe one DM is really creative and can easily challenge a party with a smite-heavy character, while another DM might not want to have to put in a lot of extra work to accommodate that player. Maybe everyone's ok with the Paladin being awesome and destroying fights. Maybe one min-maxing Paladin might be willing to put extra effort into roleplaying or accept some DM-imposed limitation in exchange for multiclassing, while another might not.
I'm not sure about the rest of this thread, but the "Paladins can't also be Warlocks" crowd really needs to sit down and watch the TV version of Constantine or something....
Constantine is either straight warlock or warlock + wizard. There's literally nothing paladin about Constantine in any comic, tv show, or movie.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I just watched a Dawnforged Podcast and so to everyone defending the idea of min/max would you be okay with this. (note: this does require a wizard ability from unearthed arcana to make actually work, but it is a good example of how min/maxing to the extreme can seriously harm the game for everyone).
Basically you take 2 levels of fighter / 6 levels of warlock wizard 2 Sorcerer 10 Use action surge to cast magic missle twice, switching its damage type to fire and using the GOblin race. By doing so it is possible to dear 21d4+651 damage to a creature, meaning anything in the Monster manual is toast. Granted I'm not sure how much it can be reworked to do massive damage at lower levels.
I just watched a Dawnforged Podcast and so to everyone defending the idea of min/max would you be okay with this. (note: this does require a wizard ability from unearthed arcana to make actually work, but it is a good example of how min/maxing to the extreme can seriously harm the game for everyone).
Basically you take 2 levels of fighter / 6 levels of warlock wizard 2 Sorcerer 10 Use action surge to cast magic missle twice, switching its damage type to fire and using the GOblin race. By doing so it is possible to dear 21d4+651 damage to a creature, meaning anything in the Monster manual is toast. Granted I'm not sure how much it can be reworked to do massive damage at lower levels.
How on earth do you get +651 damage?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
I just watched a Dawnforged Podcast and so to everyone defending the idea of min/max would you be okay with this. (note: this does require a wizard ability from unearthed arcana to make actually work, but it is a good example of how min/maxing to the extreme can seriously harm the game for everyone).
Basically you take 2 levels of fighter / 6 levels of warlock wizard 2 Sorcerer 10 Use action surge to cast magic missle twice, switching its damage type to fire and using the GOblin race. By doing so it is possible to dear 21d4+651 damage to a creature, meaning anything in the Monster manual is toast. Granted I'm not sure how much it can be reworked to do massive damage at lower levels.
How on earth do you get +651 damage?
Action surge lets you take two actions so you get to cast magic missile twice. The wizard class allows you to change the damage type to fire damage. Also key to remember is each magic missile does its own damage. The goblin deals extra damage on creatures larger than it. One class feature allows you to add your charisma modifier to the damage, another class feature adds charisma modifier to damage (Cha = +5). So in this case that would be +10 to each missile. You cast magic missile at 9th level, so that gives you 11 missiles. Something else increases your fire damage also but I can't quite remember.
Basically everything hinges on the UA wizard class feature that allows you to change the damage type to fire, which then has a ton of stuff that allows you to make the fire damage greater. It then heavily relies on adding Charisma x2 to each missile. I mean I can watch the video and make a detailed list of how it occurs. But I think the fact someone did it, does in fact show that Min/Maxing can go to the extreme.
Fury of the Small is limited-use (short or long rest), as is Action Surge; and you just spent your 9th- and 8th-level spell slots. Which you don't have in the first place because you're only a 12th-level spellcaster/6th-level warlock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
ah right it was the proficiency that was based on character lvl
So one thing from earlier in the thread that came up but wasn't really thoroughly examined- is the idea of a single class vs. a multi-class- I think it's a little strange to have a problem, even if a wizard when played a certain way would out-stealth an unoptimized rogue, or out-tank an optimized fighter. I think it comes from an unreasonable demand that classes each have seperate (and untouchable) niches- ultimately when you pick a class, you aren't really thinking about the classes- you're thinking about what kind of capability you want to have and how to achieve it. The normal rationale of these things, is that if you want to play a character that fights like a pop-culture fantasy-assassin, you take the rogue assassin sub class because it's a good way to simulate that- classes are interpreted as narratives.
But ultimately, a shadow monk/warlock multiclass that's designed to be an assassin has just as much claim on the title as the rogue- as does any other build designed to have that capability. The players both decided that they wanted an assassin, they just took different routes to get there, routes that are individually consistent with what they interpret their assassin to be like. The rogue player doesn't somehow have some moral right to dibs on the assassin concept by virtue of their class choice. A tank character is a tank character regardless of if that's a bladesinger wizard designed to tank, or a battlemaster fighter designed to tank, neither player is automatically more in the right for their tank build.
If there were a problem with it, it would be if one of these builds was more effective than the other- but that's very rare because 5th edition has a lot of different capabilities for builds to specialize in- in our monklock/rogue example, the multiclass might offer certain benefits (Darkness/Devil's Sight, THP on a succesful kill etc.) that help the concept, and overall performance- but the single class rogue assassin has it's own benefits (namely, the absurd burst on surprise the subclass is built around), in our figther/bladesinger tank example, the Bladesigner will typically have higher AC than the fighter (for two fights a short rest anyway) but will have worse HP than the same fighter (both because the fighter class has more hitpoints overall, and because they can max out con faster for the extra HP, since they only need two stats- their attack stat and con)- they would excel then at different situations, this isn't 3.5 where the wizard could stack buff spells on themselves to be a better figther than the fighter- they just have the options to invest into the build, to become for all intents and purposes equal to the traditional class.
5e changed quite a few things, subtly or overtly, compared to older editions. However, the hardest thing to change is mindset. I can confuse 5e rules with what I remembered from 3.5, and people who know both rulesets better than I will also confuse the rules. However, when looking at both the rules as written (whether that's the books, errata, or Sage Advice) or rules as intended (DMs trying to make the best adjudications), 5e easily is the system that best fosters gaming. 3.5 let features grow rampant and wild; just laying on the fertilizer. 5e prunes and tends its garden, and focuses on filling in the design space rather than allowing the vines to spread beyond the walls. I feel like plenty of people are still scarred by bad experiences from 3.5 and they don't believe 5e is truly the different garden that it is. To continue the analogy: 3.5 is a nature preserve, where survival of the fittest reigns supreme. 4e is a manicured french garden like Versailles, and 5e is your backyard garden, the most receptive to your input and needs. As a system, 5e just doesn't allow itself to get out of control, while also staying approachable to modification. The fact that they've encouraged and supported personal homebrew more than any other system I've seen tells me that its also one of the easiest to keep powerlevels reigned in.
The problem with the idea that this edition is easy to maintain is the power that is present in some early level classes and the relative weakness of some late/end level classes. This is actually addressed every time they release a new Unearthed Arcana: the disclaimer that it hasn't been balanced for multiclassing.
The best example I can think of is the new Mystic class. There's no way that min-maxers wouldn't dip Mystic for the powerful 1st level foci/proficiencies/etc...
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
But that's Unearthed Arcana- it says that to mark that content as the exception that proves the rule, when those rules reach their final iteration, you can expect them to have received balance passes for multi-classing, which is something that every option in the currently published books has received, there's no reason to think they would stop doing that. You shouldn't multiclass the rules found in UA, because they aren't finalized, and apparently MC balance is something they do relatively late in the design process (which makes sense, it's a variant rule.)
You mean a ranger?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I'm not sure about the rest of this thread, but the "Paladins can't also be Warlocks" crowd really needs to sit down and watch the TV version of Constantine or something....
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I just watched a Dawnforged Podcast and so to everyone defending the idea of min/max would you be okay with this. (note: this does require a wizard ability from unearthed arcana to make actually work, but it is a good example of how min/maxing to the extreme can seriously harm the game for everyone).
Basically you take 2 levels of fighter / 6 levels of warlock wizard 2 Sorcerer 10 Use action surge to cast magic missle twice, switching its damage type to fire and using the GOblin race. By doing so it is possible to dear 21d4+651 damage to a creature, meaning anything in the Monster manual is toast. Granted I'm not sure how much it can be reworked to do massive damage at lower levels.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Fury of the Small is limited-use (short or long rest), as is Action Surge; and you just spent your 9th- and 8th-level spell slots. Which you don't have in the first place because you're only a 12th-level spellcaster/6th-level warlock.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)