After playing with it for a while concentration free HM needs to move up from lvl 1. It really good for a 1 level dip. Also Channel Divinity scale dice and uses on pb is too good for a 1 level dip. I think it dice amount should stay on pb but uses should base on Cleric class level. The feature is fine for a full cleric but as written it’s better on someone who did a 1 level dip. They get full power and uses while not being a cleric anymore. This observation is based on a Ranger/cleric and full cleric comparison. The full cleric could get full damage with divine spark more easily because of higher wisdom but the both had the number of uses and rolled the same number of dice.
I wouldn't call One D&D's Ranger nor Cleric outstanding as level 1 dips. They seem average at best. Also, this is the time to make those assessments so the developers know there is support for improving the multiclass progression. We shouldn't be complacent and just think future releases will fix the issue, especially during the play test period. Nor should additional splat books be necessary to make up for any multiclass nerfs when it can be fixed in the PHB.
The way multiclass is set up, 1 level dips were popular because games don't tend to last long enough to actually use some builds that require a significant number of levels in 2 or more classes. However, level 1 dips are also the "obvious" power boost; so if we remove them, we should take a look at the multiclass progression so early T2 doesn't suck so much. I also would not call them exploits.
One level of cleric grants you medium armor, shields, divine spellcasting, and channel divinity that scales with proficiency bonus, so any class with one level in cleric gets a healing feature that stays relevant with level. Though it ain't coffeelock or hexadin, it's still tempting enough to justify a 1-level dip. Same for ranger - medium armor, martial weapons, shields, spellcasting, expertise, and no-concentration hunter's mark is a hell of a package for a dip. Point is, some people got used to outright game-breaking combos that exploit design flaws. Hopefully, there will be no more of that, and the main reason for multiclassing will be narrative, rather than mechanical.
I wouldn't call any of those amazing, they seem average at best. Nor would I call the old combos exploits nor gamebreaking. The power level of 5E multliclassing didn't leave single classes in the dust. The overall power level of multiclassing looks lower than just single classing right now.
Cleric is okay, but I don't find the channel divinity to be as useful as the subclass features you got in 5E. It is still fine for the combination of the armor and shield proficiency and access to first level cleric spells. However, it is a really close call whether it is worth the 13 in wisdom if using it as say a dip for wizard to grab armor proficiencies due to the delayed spell progression. I don't put too much value in Channel Divinity unless you know you are going up against undead. The healing and damage from Spark sounds nice at first, but as it uses an action, unless you are casting a bonus action spell that turn, your action priority may see something else used.
The best thing ranger has going for it is the expertise; no concentration hunters mark is nice, but I wouldn't call it a game changer.
Also, there was nothing wrong if someone's main reason for multiclassing is mechanical. Remember that some players are more about mechanics. As long the power level remains in check and from my experience, the power level of single class characters and optimized multiclass characters were well inline.
I think it's a really good thing if all the new class designs make for average 1 level dips, not awesome ones. It would be great if there were no stand-out must have multiclass combos. If we can look at any class and think 'yeah, a level of that is pretty good' then job well done.
So far the classes mostly look like that. Rogue is the notable exception. Since they treat a language as a class feature...
But in playtests, multiclassing creates some strong characters. They keep up just fine, especially at low levels. Even in a short campaign, a level or two in one of these classes isn't going to hurt.
The old combos might not have been game breaking for the players in the party, but they sure were for encounter designs. Everyone wants a good CR system. But that's really hard to do when there is such an enormous gap in damage output between different builds and different tables.
I think it's a really good thing if all the new class designs make for average 1 level dips, not awesome ones. It would be great if there were no stand-out must have multiclass combos. If we can look at any class and think 'yeah, a level of that is pretty good' then job well done.
So far the classes mostly look like that. Rogue is the notable exception. Since they treat a language as a class feature...
But in playtests, multiclassing creates some strong characters. They keep up just fine, especially at low levels. Even in a short campaign, a level or two in one of these classes isn't going to hurt.
The old combos might not have been game breaking for the players in the party, but they sure were for encounter designs. Everyone wants a good CR system. But that's really hard to do when there is such an enormous gap in damage output between different builds and different tables.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster. I feel like there are going to be even less used combos at this rate. The ASI and progression restrictions with multiclassing made it so that the synergy with the current combos are used so often because they are worth the downsides to multiclassing. I am fine with moving subclasses to 3rd level if some compensation is made such as making Feats/ASI's character level based or making extra attack be based on the number of levels of classes with extra attack (I stated this a while back and I know someone else spoke about it as well). At the very least, it causes the power levels, 5th level in particular, to feel really bad due to 3rd level spells or key features like extra attack. More viable combos would exist if we reduced some of the basic downsides to multiclassing such as delayed ASI's and delaying features like extra attack. There is no real fix to the delayed spell progression so multiclassing fullcasters will probably still have the most unviable combos, but martials would have more options if the 5th level extra attack is based on a collective number of levels between the martial classes.
Also, I never found multiclassing hard on encounter design either. Encounter balanced only becomes an issue if there are large gaps of power between players, but there is not that much if any of a gap between an optimized single class character and an optimized multiclass character other than at specific levels like 5th level where the single class characters are stronger. If there is a power gap between players, that would exist regardless whether or not those prominent combos existed or not because the gap could still exist with single class characters.
If you are talking about the gap that occurs when the multiclass character is weaker due to having key features or spell progression delayed, that would be mitigated by having things like extra attack be based on the number of martial levels and feats/asi be based on character level.
I do want to point out that the min-maxers we're all so scared of tend to not only be easily identifiable but are, relatively speaking, only a small portion of the player base. A lot of people only play with their friends or many a small local group. It's not like this is a competative PvP game where an inbalance can result in meta shifts that last for years with everyone playing the exact same ungodly broken stuff. There's a world of difference between trying to simply avoid bad choices and take good ones, and the sheer volume of munchkining and self-obsession found in min-maxing. It's much more important to focus on the playerbase who simply doesn't want to end up sucking and functioning like they're a level or three lower than the playerbase who suspiciously 'rolled' three natural 18's at home and has no stat lower than a 12 and wants to be able to solo the tarrasque at level 3. Will min-maxers find a way to take advantage of more powerful multi-class options? You bet. They will also find ways to take advantage of single-class options. And find some obscure item or convince the GM to let them use a seemingly useless homebrew item that will allow them to function like a CR8 while at level 4. And possibly bribe the GM with cookies.
I also feel like, if we had to choose between mono-classing and multi-classing being more powerful, it should be the latter as that's where all the cool combinations and options are and how you can tailor a character to be much more like what you want them to be.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster.
That is, like, the basic price you pay for multiclassing. You gain some, you sacrifice some.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster.
That is, like, the basic price you pay for multiclassing. You gain some, you sacrifice some.
Right now the price is too high; you aren't really gaining much for what you pay. Multiclass already pays in delaying higher level features. If we are already shifting down abilities and lowering the power level of multiclassing then the price should be reduced.
I wouldn't call these things a basic price either as that implies that the price in inalienable when you can very much make feats/ASI's be based on character level rather than class level and make extra attack be based on martial class levels rather than specific class levels.
The power level of multiclassing as already in a good spot. If we take some stuff away from it, it is only fair to compensate. And with some of these changes, power will definitely be lost and seems more likely to reduce the number of viable combos than increase them. Easing up on the downsides should both make it more accessible while increasing the number of viable combinations.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster.
That is, like, the basic price you pay for multiclassing. You gain some, you sacrifice some.
Right now the price is too high; you aren't really gaining much for what you pay. Multiclass already pays in delaying higher level features. If we are already shifting down abilities and lowering the power level of multiclassing then the price should be reduced.
Should it be?
Yes it should be. 5E multiclassing was in a good place in terms of potential power level compared to single class. These changes One D&D is making will reduce the power level of multiclassing, which will likely end up even fewer viable multiclass combos than we have now. Just nerfing the prominent combos won't make the other combos any more viable. Those other combos aren't used because they were underpowered compared to just single classing.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster.
That is, like, the basic price you pay for multiclassing. You gain some, you sacrifice some.
Right now the price is too high; you aren't really gaining much for what you pay. Multiclass already pays in delaying higher level features. If we are already shifting down abilities and lowering the power level of multiclassing then the price should be reduced.
Should it be?
Yes it should be. 5E multiclassing was in a good place in terms of potential power level compared to single class. These changes One D&D is making will reduce the power level of multiclassing, which will likely end up even fewer viable multiclass combos than we have now. Just nerfing the prominent combos won't make the other combos any more viable. Those other combos aren't used because they were underpowered compared to just single classing.
I guess what I'm asking is why should this be a concern to the One D&D designers.
Because multiclassing is part of the game? And they were clearly concerned enough to essentially nerf cleric and presumably warlock and sorcerer dips? Multiclassing shouldn't be nerfed without giving anything back to it.
For some people, multiclassing scratches the mechanical customization itch that single classing does not give. However, there is no point if it ends up weaker than just single classing.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster.
That is, like, the basic price you pay for multiclassing. You gain some, you sacrifice some.
Right now the price is too high; you aren't really gaining much for what you pay. Multiclass already pays in delaying higher level features. If we are already shifting down abilities and lowering the power level of multiclassing then the price should be reduced.
Should it be?
Yes it should be. 5E multiclassing was in a good place in terms of potential power level compared to single class. These changes One D&D is making will reduce the power level of multiclassing, which will likely end up even fewer viable multiclass combos than we have now. Just nerfing the prominent combos won't make the other combos any more viable. Those other combos aren't used because they were underpowered compared to just single classing.
I guess what I'm asking is why should this be a concern to the One D&D designers.
Because multiclassing is part of the game? And they were clearly concerned enough to essentially nerf cleric and presumably warlock and sorcerer dips? Multiclassing shouldn't be nerfed without giving anything back to it.
Multiclassing is an optional part of the game. It always was in 5e. And this One D&D playtest seems to be no different, since unlike feats which are clearly now a core part of the game, the wording used with anything mentioning multiclassing suggests that it will still be considered something your play group opts into.
Whether or not multiclass is optional shouldn't matter. It is a fairy popular mechanic. It being an optional part is a poor excuse to not make sure it is working well. In fact, that logic could also be used to to ask why did they need to nerf the dips then?
The optionality of multiclassing is not an excuse to leave it an unviable mess, especially when it is a legal option in official organized play.
Whether or not multiclass is optional shouldn't matter. It is a fairy popular mechanic. It being an optional part is a poor excuse to not make sure it is working well. In fact, that logic could also be used to to ask why did they need to nerf the dips then?
Ironically, by moving subclasses to 3rd level, that very much IS making sure that multiclassing is working well. Your own argument is supporting the move you're trying to decry.
I think it's a really good thing if all the new class designs make for average 1 level dips, not awesome ones. It would be great if there were no stand-out must have multiclass combos. If we can look at any class and think 'yeah, a level of that is pretty good' then job well done.
So far the classes mostly look like that. Rogue is the notable exception. Since they treat a language as a class feature...
But in playtests, multiclassing creates some strong characters. They keep up just fine, especially at low levels. Even in a short campaign, a level or two in one of these classes isn't going to hurt.
The old combos might not have been game breaking for the players in the party, but they sure were for encounter designs. Everyone wants a good CR system. But that's really hard to do when there is such an enormous gap in damage output between different builds and different tables.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster. I feel like there are going to be even less used combos at this rate. The ASI and progression restrictions with multiclassing made it so that the synergy with the current combos are used so often because they are worth the downsides to multiclassing. I am fine with moving subclasses to 3rd level if some compensation is made such as making Feats/ASI's character level based or making extra attack be based on the number of levels of classes with extra attack (I stated this a while back and I know someone else spoke about it as well). At the very least, it causes the power levels, 5th level in particular, to feel really bad due to 3rd level spells or key features like extra attack. More viable combos would exist if we reduced some of the basic downsides to multiclassing such as delayed ASI's and delaying features like extra attack. There is no real fix to the delayed spell progression so multiclassing fullcasters will probably still have the most unviable combos, but martials would have more options if the 5th level extra attack is based on a collective number of levels between the martial classes.
Also, I never found multiclassing hard on encounter design either. Encounter balanced only becomes an issue if there are large gaps of power between players, but there is not that much if any of a gap between an optimized single class character and an optimized multiclass character other than at specific levels like 5th level where the single class characters are stronger. If there is a power gap between players, that would exist regardless whether or not those prominent combos existed or not because the gap could still exist with single class characters.
If you are talking about the gap that occurs when the multiclass character is weaker due to having key features or spell progression delayed, that would be mitigated by having things like extra attack be based on the number of martial levels and feats/asi be based on character level.
What I was saying was that, in my actual playtest games, the multiclass characters felt strong. Stronger than the single class characters until the single class ones reached 5th level and somewhat caught up. In real play, it was the opposite effect of what you are fearing. You might have had a different experience in your test games. I was just talking about mine. Our multiclass characters were stronger for it.
I was also the one that agreed with you that they might need to take another look at ASI progression being tied to character level not class level. I'm good with some possible concessions elsewhere if they can make it work well. But overall, waiting for 6th level for that extra attack or 3rd level spell isn't a huge issue.
The problem with 5e is that there are only a handful of super powerful 1 level dips, caused by those classes getting a lot of features (subclasses) at level 1. Fixing that is a good thing. Because just a few ultra options isn't very fun. It prevents people from multiclassing for customization or story reasons, and steers them into the same combos again and again. If they can manage to make all classes equally good at 1st level, it opens up a world of possibilities. When every option is equal, it's more appealing to everyone.
What I meant by the encounter design also comes from experience. And it really applies to all forms of optimization. When you have one player that does an average of 100 damage a round, while the other average 25-30, it's hard to make encounters that everyone gets to enjoy. I'm in this situation right now. It's not impossible, but the DM does the heavy lifting because the books can't help. The CR system sucks largely due to this problem. They can't realistically say what CR a monster is when power levels vary so much between tables, and even characters at one table.
They have to smooth out the curve to make a CR system that works. That's partially why Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master lost the damage bonus. At level 5 a character can be adding 30 damage every turn just from one feat selection. You can't balance that in a CR system when everyone else that didn't, or couldn't, take that feat is lucky to do 30 damage total on most turns. Factor in a bunch of smites or multiple sneak attacks a round. and there is no way to calculate CR that works for every character.
If they can write classes where they know the average HP and damage potential for any character at any level, they can make a better CR system. There can still be room for optimization, it just has to be a narrower range. If they know that every character at level 8 does somewhere between 30-40 damage per turn, for example, is very easy to make a CR 8 monster that lasts 3 turns. But if one character does an average of 20 damage a turn, and another does 120, there is no way to make a working CR. And there is no way for a DM to challenge one player, while also not destroying the other, without a lot of work on every encounter.
Right now the price is too high; you aren't really gaining much for what you pay. Multiclass already pays in delaying higher level features. If we are already shifting down abilities and lowering the power level of multiclassing then the price should be reduced.
I wouldn't call these things a basic price either as that implies that the price in inalienable when you can very much make feats/ASI's be based on character level rather than class level and make extra attack be based on martial class levels rather than specific class levels.
The power level of multiclassing as already in a good spot. If we take some stuff away from it, it is only fair to compensate. And with some of these changes, power will definitely be lost and seems more likely to reduce the number of viable combos than increase them. Easing up on the downsides should both make it more accessible while increasing the number of viable combinations.
Ok, let's just stop being dishonest at least with ourselves and admit that classes that had subclasses at level 1 were at the base of 90% of multiclass combos - all three and a half of them - just because of that overloaded first level. You're not interested in multiclass potential of rogues, druids, or monks - you want that sweet sorcerer, warlock, and cleric explosion of power. Basing feats on character levels, rather than class levels, creates the same exploit - the class itself ends up having empty levels, and picking three levels of other class before the empty level 4 will be optimal.
When all classes gain a subclass feature at level 3, all classes become equally valuable (more or less) for multiclassing, and this is what actually promotes multiclassing and creativity with different combinations, not just sorlock and hexadin.
Right now the price is too high; you aren't really gaining much for what you pay. Multiclass already pays in delaying higher level features. If we are already shifting down abilities and lowering the power level of multiclassing then the price should be reduced.
I wouldn't call these things a basic price either as that implies that the price in inalienable when you can very much make feats/ASI's be based on character level rather than class level and make extra attack be based on martial class levels rather than specific class levels.
The power level of multiclassing as already in a good spot. If we take some stuff away from it, it is only fair to compensate. And with some of these changes, power will definitely be lost and seems more likely to reduce the number of viable combos than increase them. Easing up on the downsides should both make it more accessible while increasing the number of viable combinations.
Ok, let's just stop being dishonest at least with ourselves and admit that classes that had subclasses at level 1 were at the base of 90% of multiclass combos - all three and a half of them - just because of that overloaded first level. You're not interested in multiclass potential of rogues, druids, or monks - you want that sweet sorcerer, warlock, and cleric explosion of power. Basing feats on character levels, rather than class levels, creates the same exploit - the class itself ends up having empty levels, and picking three levels of other class before the empty level 4 will be optimal.
When all classes gain a subclass feature at level 3, all classes become equally valuable (more or less) for multiclassing, and this is what actually promotes multiclassing and creativity with different combinations, not just sorlock and hexadin.
I am not being dishonest at all. I found multiclassing with the current One D&D classes to be lackluster in terms of mechanical power and overall not worth the downsides of multiclassing. Making multiclass weaker than single class does not promote multiclassing.
Whether or not multiclass is optional shouldn't matter. It is a fairy popular mechanic. It being an optional part is a poor excuse to not make sure it is working well. In fact, that logic could also be used to to ask why did they need to nerf the dips then?
Ironically, by moving subclasses to 3rd level, that very much IS making sure that multiclassing is working well. Your own argument is supporting the move you're trying to decry.
I don't see how making multiclass weaker than single class is making multiclass better. Right now I see less worthwhile options. Reducing the downsides such as making feats/asi's be character level based will help bring up some of the lesser used combos.
I'll be honest, I've never heard anyone say that single class characters are so strong that the only good multiclass options are the OP ones, until this thread. Every single optimizer build I can remember seeing has multiclassed. Even builds that don't use the major offender combos multiclass. Most of them do it multiple times for every character. Nearly every optimized build has delayed an ASI or spell progress somewhere in it.
I've had players tell me they don't see any benefit in continuing in their current class. And they ask me to help provide storylines to justify multiclassing in game. Even when they really thought a single class was the character they wanted at first.
I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. That maybe someone out there has information I've never seen, or runs a very unique table. As I've said, I have had players bemoan waiting on an ASI after multiclassing. But there aren't any easy solutions because they end up with empty levels. And it turns out that after a few more games it all evens out anyway. But I'm open to taking a look at the concept of unbinding ASIs from classes. It would just require a lot of work to shore up empty levels. I just really can't see the argument that multiclassing is so weak that it needs super strong level 1 subclass features. That just seems like it would create even more problems if everyone got one. And I have experienced playtesting the new rules and seen the multiclass characters were much stronger than the single class ones until later in the game. They never suffered at all under the new rules. I do plan to multiclass more in future tests to see how it continues to work. But I'm just not seeing a problem moving subclasses to level 3 across the board. I'm only seeing benefits.
I think it's a really good thing if all the new class designs make for average 1 level dips, not awesome ones. It would be great if there were no stand-out must have multiclass combos. If we can look at any class and think 'yeah, a level of that is pretty good' then job well done.
So far the classes mostly look like that. Rogue is the notable exception. Since they treat a language as a class feature...
But in playtests, multiclassing creates some strong characters. They keep up just fine, especially at low levels. Even in a short campaign, a level or two in one of these classes isn't going to hurt.
The old combos might not have been game breaking for the players in the party, but they sure were for encounter designs. Everyone wants a good CR system. But that's really hard to do when there is such an enormous gap in damage output between different builds and different tables.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster. I feel like there are going to be even less used combos at this rate. The ASI and progression restrictions with multiclassing made it so that the synergy with the current combos are used so often because they are worth the downsides to multiclassing. I am fine with moving subclasses to 3rd level if some compensation is made such as making Feats/ASI's character level based or making extra attack be based on the number of levels of classes with extra attack (I stated this a while back and I know someone else spoke about it as well). At the very least, it causes the power levels, 5th level in particular, to feel really bad due to 3rd level spells or key features like extra attack. More viable combos would exist if we reduced some of the basic downsides to multiclassing such as delayed ASI's and delaying features like extra attack. There is no real fix to the delayed spell progression so multiclassing fullcasters will probably still have the most unviable combos, but martials would have more options if the 5th level extra attack is based on a collective number of levels between the martial classes.
Also, I never found multiclassing hard on encounter design either. Encounter balanced only becomes an issue if there are large gaps of power between players, but there is not that much if any of a gap between an optimized single class character and an optimized multiclass character other than at specific levels like 5th level where the single class characters are stronger. If there is a power gap between players, that would exist regardless whether or not those prominent combos existed or not because the gap could still exist with single class characters.
If you are talking about the gap that occurs when the multiclass character is weaker due to having key features or spell progression delayed, that would be mitigated by having things like extra attack be based on the number of martial levels and feats/asi be based on character level.
What I was saying was that, in my actual playtest games, the multiclass characters felt strong. Stronger than the single class characters until the single class ones reached 5th level and somewhat caught up. In real play, it was the opposite effect of what you are fearing. You might have had a different experience in your test games. I was just talking about mine. Our multiclass characters were stronger for it.
I was also the one that agreed with you that they might need to take another look at ASI progression being tied to character level not class level. I'm good with some possible concessions elsewhere if they can make it work well. But overall, waiting for 6th level for that extra attack or 3rd level spell isn't a huge issue.
The problem with 5e is that there are only a handful of super powerful 1 level dips, caused by those classes getting a lot of features (subclasses) at level 1. Fixing that is a good thing. Because just a few ultra options isn't very fun. It prevents people from multiclassing for customization or story reasons, and steers them into the same combos again and again. If they can manage to make all classes equally good at 1st level, it opens up a world of possibilities. When every option is equal, it's more appealing to everyone.
What I meant by the encounter design also comes from experience. And it really applies to all forms of optimization. When you have one player that does an average of 100 damage a round, while the other average 25-30, it's hard to make encounters that everyone gets to enjoy. I'm in this situation right now. It's not impossible, but the DM does the heavy lifting because the books can't help. The CR system sucks largely due to this problem. They can't realistically say what CR a monster is when power levels vary so much between tables, and even characters at one table.
They have to smooth out the curve to make a CR system that works. That's partially why Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master lost the damage bonus. At level 5 a character can be adding 30 damage every turn just from one feat selection. You can't balance that in a CR system when everyone else that didn't, or couldn't, take that feat is lucky to do 30 damage total on most turns. Factor in a bunch of smites or multiple sneak attacks a round. and there is no way to calculate CR that works for every character.
If they can write classes where they know the average HP and damage potential for any character at any level, they can make a better CR system. There can still be room for optimization, it just has to be a narrower range. If they know that every character at level 8 does somewhere between 30-40 damage per turn, for example, is very easy to make a CR 8 monster that lasts 3 turns. But if one character does an average of 20 damage a turn, and another does 120, there is no way to make a working CR. And there is no way for a DM to challenge one player, while also not destroying the other, without a lot of work on every encounter.
My real play tests gave me the opposite results from yours. The current One D&D multiclass combos feel average at best. For example, when you dip cleric then go straight wizard it can be okay, but in most cases it just feels lackluster. Even on wizard, it really brought into question on if it was still worthwhile to delay spell progression for something that feels average.
The encounter design issue you explained is not a multiclass issue, buy a general optimization issue. The same can happen to single classes.
Also, I still disagree with nerfing SS/GWM right now. There is no compensation for martials to make up for that damage loss. They shouldn't have nerfed the martial feats without giving some sort of compensation. Martials needed it to keep up with fullcasters. The power of SS/GWM should have been moved into the classes if they took it out of the feat, but ranger didn't really get that after losing sharpshooter's damage boost (the hunters mark changes doesn't really make up for sharpshooter).
I don't see how making multiclass weaker than single class is making multiclass better. Right now I see less worthwhile options. Reducing the downsides such as making feats/asi's be character level based will help bring up some of the lesser used combos.
First of all, I know several people that have sworn that Rogue X/Ranger 1 was better than pure Rogue. Over on Reddit, lots of people are complaining at a Cleric 1 dip is overpowered for all the things you get - powerful magic, up to 36d8 healing, and medium armor+shields. "A must have!" is a common refrain. And that's just with 4 classes out of 13 (yes, I count Artificer, even if its not going to be core). So, your complaints of multiclass being weaker than pure class are called into question by others.
Secondly, its humanly impossible for WotC to check every new subclass against every possible multiclass + feat combination; they simply lack the funds and manpower to do it. This leads to unintended interactions and certain combinations as "obvious picks" like when we had Sorlock and hexadin that were regarded as too powerful. Its no different than martials all needing PAM/GWM or SS/XBE, because all other combos weren't worth talking about. Flattening the curve leads to a healthier game with more viable choices, and moving subclasses to 3 definitely does that.
Moving ASI/feats won't bring up "lesser used combos," it will simply make the most powerful combinations even stronger. Especially with the power level of feats being tweaked and flattened. Its just a flat increase across all multiclass and making single class options worse. Ideally, we want multiclass and single class to have parity, not superiority one way or another. And, right now, I've heard more complaints about multiclass characters being better than single with existing 1d&d material.
Especially when people look at the so called "Epic" feats and find the majority... not so epic.
My real play tests gave me the opposite results from yours. The current One D&D multiclass combos feel average at best. For example, when you dip cleric then go straight wizard it can be okay, but in most cases it just feels lackluster. Even on wizard, it really brought into question on if it was still worthwhile to delay spell progression for something that feels average.
The encounter design issue you explained is not a multiclass issue, buy a general optimization issue. The same can happen to single classes.
Also, I still disagree with nerfing SS/GWM right now. There is no compensation for martials to make up for that damage loss. They shouldn't have nerfed the martial feats without giving some sort of compensation. Martials needed it to keep up with fullcasters. The power of SS/GWM should have been moved into the classes if they took it out of the feat, but ranger didn't really get that after losing sharpshooter's damage boost (the hunters mark changes doesn't really make up for sharpshooter).
a.) We don't yet know how they'll handle wizards in One D&D.
b.) We don't yet know how they'll handle fighters, barbarians, and monks in One D&D.
You're basing a lot off incomplete information.
We were literally told by wotc to use existing content assumptions unless/until they present changes.
Will those classes change sure but expect similar treatment. Feature Clean up and balance intended to keep similar scope of power (they may or may not achieve such intentions)
I don't see how making multiclass weaker than single class is making multiclass better. Right now I see less worthwhile options. Reducing the downsides such as making feats/asi's be character level based will help bring up some of the lesser used combos.
First of all, I know several people that have sworn that Rogue X/Ranger 1 was better than pure Rogue. Over on Reddit, lots of people are complaining at a Cleric 1 dip is overpowered for all the things you get - powerful magic, up to 36d8 healing, and medium armor+shields. "A must have!" is a common refrain. And that's just with 4 classes out of 13 (yes, I count Artificer, even if its not going to be core). So, your complaints of multiclass being weaker than pure class are called into question by others.
Secondly, its humanly impossible for WotC to check every new subclass against every possible multiclass + feat combination; they simply lack the funds and manpower to do it. This leads to unintended interactions and certain combinations as "obvious picks" like when we had Sorlock and hexadin that were regarded as too powerful. Its no different than martials all needing PAM/GWM or SS/XBE, because all other combos weren't worth talking about. Flattening the curve leads to a healthier game with more viable choices, and moving subclasses to 3 definitely does that.
Moving ASI/feats won't bring up "lesser used combos," it will simply make the most powerful combinations even stronger. Especially with the power level of feats being tweaked and flattened. Its just a flat increase across all multiclass and making single class options worse. Ideally, we want multiclass and single class to have parity, not superiority one way or another. And, right now, I've heard more complaints about multiclass characters being better than single with existing 1d&d material.
Especially when people look at the so called "Epic" feats and find the majority... not so epic.
It sounds like the problem is more that cleric is too overpowered in it's level 1 benefits and that rogue is lacking something key to it's class that ranger has than it is that the problem is level 1 dips TBH. At the very least, why is it that 'Rogue X/Ranger 1 > Pure Rogue'?
My real play tests gave me the opposite results from yours. The current One D&D multiclass combos feel average at best. For example, when you dip cleric then go straight wizard it can be okay, but in most cases it just feels lackluster. Even on wizard, it really brought into question on if it was still worthwhile to delay spell progression for something that feels average.
The encounter design issue you explained is not a multiclass issue, buy a general optimization issue. The same can happen to single classes.
Also, I still disagree with nerfing SS/GWM right now. There is no compensation for martials to make up for that damage loss. They shouldn't have nerfed the martial feats without giving some sort of compensation. Martials needed it to keep up with fullcasters. The power of SS/GWM should have been moved into the classes if they took it out of the feat, but ranger didn't really get that after losing sharpshooter's damage boost (the hunters mark changes doesn't really make up for sharpshooter).
a.) We don't yet know how they'll handle wizards in One D&D.
b.) We don't yet know how they'll handle fighters, barbarians, and monks in One D&D.
You're basing a lot off incomplete information.
We were literally told by wotc to use existing content assumptions unless/until they present changes.
Will those classes change sure but expect similar treatment. Feature Clean up and balance intended to keep similar scope of power (they may or may not achieve such intentions)
Actually Martials are supposed to be getting a boost in the form of unique weapon traits. GWM and SS were bad, because they were so good. They were must haves. Also by math GWM isn’t nerfed at the levels most people play the game. It’s now more reliable over more turns. I know burst damage is often more important, but just by the numbers the new version should be about the same or more. At higher levels the old version is far superior and that’s the problem. The -5 was easily mitigated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
After playing with it for a while concentration free HM needs to move up from lvl 1. It really good for a 1 level dip. Also Channel Divinity scale dice and uses on pb is too good for a 1 level dip. I think it dice amount should stay on pb but uses should base on Cleric class level. The feature is fine for a full cleric but as written it’s better on someone who did a 1 level dip. They get full power and uses while not being a cleric anymore. This observation is based on a Ranger/cleric and full cleric comparison. The full cleric could get full damage with divine spark more easily because of higher wisdom but the both had the number of uses and rolled the same number of dice.
I wouldn't call any of those amazing, they seem average at best. Nor would I call the old combos exploits nor gamebreaking. The power level of 5E multliclassing didn't leave single classes in the dust. The overall power level of multiclassing looks lower than just single classing right now.
Cleric is okay, but I don't find the channel divinity to be as useful as the subclass features you got in 5E. It is still fine for the combination of the armor and shield proficiency and access to first level cleric spells. However, it is a really close call whether it is worth the 13 in wisdom if using it as say a dip for wizard to grab armor proficiencies due to the delayed spell progression. I don't put too much value in Channel Divinity unless you know you are going up against undead. The healing and damage from Spark sounds nice at first, but as it uses an action, unless you are casting a bonus action spell that turn, your action priority may see something else used.
The best thing ranger has going for it is the expertise; no concentration hunters mark is nice, but I wouldn't call it a game changer.
Also, there was nothing wrong if someone's main reason for multiclassing is mechanical. Remember that some players are more about mechanics. As long the power level remains in check and from my experience, the power level of single class characters and optimized multiclass characters were well inline.
I think it's a really good thing if all the new class designs make for average 1 level dips, not awesome ones. It would be great if there were no stand-out must have multiclass combos. If we can look at any class and think 'yeah, a level of that is pretty good' then job well done.
So far the classes mostly look like that. Rogue is the notable exception. Since they treat a language as a class feature...
But in playtests, multiclassing creates some strong characters. They keep up just fine, especially at low levels. Even in a short campaign, a level or two in one of these classes isn't going to hurt.
The old combos might not have been game breaking for the players in the party, but they sure were for encounter designs. Everyone wants a good CR system. But that's really hard to do when there is such an enormous gap in damage output between different builds and different tables.
I disagree on the current play test dips being strong, depending on the level the campaign reaches, a level or two can cause you to miss out on key things or delay them until the very end. I find them average at best and feeling overall lackluster. I feel like there are going to be even less used combos at this rate. The ASI and progression restrictions with multiclassing made it so that the synergy with the current combos are used so often because they are worth the downsides to multiclassing. I am fine with moving subclasses to 3rd level if some compensation is made such as making Feats/ASI's character level based or making extra attack be based on the number of levels of classes with extra attack (I stated this a while back and I know someone else spoke about it as well). At the very least, it causes the power levels, 5th level in particular, to feel really bad due to 3rd level spells or key features like extra attack. More viable combos would exist if we reduced some of the basic downsides to multiclassing such as delayed ASI's and delaying features like extra attack. There is no real fix to the delayed spell progression so multiclassing fullcasters will probably still have the most unviable combos, but martials would have more options if the 5th level extra attack is based on a collective number of levels between the martial classes.
Also, I never found multiclassing hard on encounter design either. Encounter balanced only becomes an issue if there are large gaps of power between players, but there is not that much if any of a gap between an optimized single class character and an optimized multiclass character other than at specific levels like 5th level where the single class characters are stronger. If there is a power gap between players, that would exist regardless whether or not those prominent combos existed or not because the gap could still exist with single class characters.
If you are talking about the gap that occurs when the multiclass character is weaker due to having key features or spell progression delayed, that would be mitigated by having things like extra attack be based on the number of martial levels and feats/asi be based on character level.
I do want to point out that the min-maxers we're all so scared of tend to not only be easily identifiable but are, relatively speaking, only a small portion of the player base. A lot of people only play with their friends or many a small local group. It's not like this is a competative PvP game where an inbalance can result in meta shifts that last for years with everyone playing the exact same ungodly broken stuff. There's a world of difference between trying to simply avoid bad choices and take good ones, and the sheer volume of munchkining and self-obsession found in min-maxing. It's much more important to focus on the playerbase who simply doesn't want to end up sucking and functioning like they're a level or three lower than the playerbase who suspiciously 'rolled' three natural 18's at home and has no stat lower than a 12 and wants to be able to solo the tarrasque at level 3. Will min-maxers find a way to take advantage of more powerful multi-class options? You bet. They will also find ways to take advantage of single-class options. And find some obscure item or convince the GM to let them use a seemingly useless homebrew item that will allow them to function like a CR8 while at level 4. And possibly bribe the GM with cookies.
I also feel like, if we had to choose between mono-classing and multi-classing being more powerful, it should be the latter as that's where all the cool combinations and options are and how you can tailor a character to be much more like what you want them to be.
That is, like, the basic price you pay for multiclassing. You gain some, you sacrifice some.
Right now the price is too high; you aren't really gaining much for what you pay. Multiclass already pays in delaying higher level features. If we are already shifting down abilities and lowering the power level of multiclassing then the price should be reduced.
I wouldn't call these things a basic price either as that implies that the price in inalienable when you can very much make feats/ASI's be based on character level rather than class level and make extra attack be based on martial class levels rather than specific class levels.
The power level of multiclassing as already in a good spot. If we take some stuff away from it, it is only fair to compensate. And with some of these changes, power will definitely be lost and seems more likely to reduce the number of viable combos than increase them. Easing up on the downsides should both make it more accessible while increasing the number of viable combinations.
Yes it should be. 5E multiclassing was in a good place in terms of potential power level compared to single class. These changes One D&D is making will reduce the power level of multiclassing, which will likely end up even fewer viable multiclass combos than we have now. Just nerfing the prominent combos won't make the other combos any more viable. Those other combos aren't used because they were underpowered compared to just single classing.
Because multiclassing is part of the game? And they were clearly concerned enough to essentially nerf cleric and presumably warlock and sorcerer dips? Multiclassing shouldn't be nerfed without giving anything back to it.
For some people, multiclassing scratches the mechanical customization itch that single classing does not give. However, there is no point if it ends up weaker than just single classing.
Whether or not multiclass is optional shouldn't matter. It is a fairy popular mechanic. It being an optional part is a poor excuse to not make sure it is working well. In fact, that logic could also be used to to ask why did they need to nerf the dips then?
The optionality of multiclassing is not an excuse to leave it an unviable mess, especially when it is a legal option in official organized play.
Ironically, by moving subclasses to 3rd level, that very much IS making sure that multiclassing is working well. Your own argument is supporting the move you're trying to decry.
What I was saying was that, in my actual playtest games, the multiclass characters felt strong. Stronger than the single class characters until the single class ones reached 5th level and somewhat caught up. In real play, it was the opposite effect of what you are fearing. You might have had a different experience in your test games. I was just talking about mine. Our multiclass characters were stronger for it.
I was also the one that agreed with you that they might need to take another look at ASI progression being tied to character level not class level. I'm good with some possible concessions elsewhere if they can make it work well. But overall, waiting for 6th level for that extra attack or 3rd level spell isn't a huge issue.
The problem with 5e is that there are only a handful of super powerful 1 level dips, caused by those classes getting a lot of features (subclasses) at level 1. Fixing that is a good thing. Because just a few ultra options isn't very fun. It prevents people from multiclassing for customization or story reasons, and steers them into the same combos again and again. If they can manage to make all classes equally good at 1st level, it opens up a world of possibilities. When every option is equal, it's more appealing to everyone.
What I meant by the encounter design also comes from experience. And it really applies to all forms of optimization. When you have one player that does an average of 100 damage a round, while the other average 25-30, it's hard to make encounters that everyone gets to enjoy. I'm in this situation right now. It's not impossible, but the DM does the heavy lifting because the books can't help. The CR system sucks largely due to this problem. They can't realistically say what CR a monster is when power levels vary so much between tables, and even characters at one table.
They have to smooth out the curve to make a CR system that works. That's partially why Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master lost the damage bonus. At level 5 a character can be adding 30 damage every turn just from one feat selection. You can't balance that in a CR system when everyone else that didn't, or couldn't, take that feat is lucky to do 30 damage total on most turns. Factor in a bunch of smites or multiple sneak attacks a round. and there is no way to calculate CR that works for every character.
If they can write classes where they know the average HP and damage potential for any character at any level, they can make a better CR system. There can still be room for optimization, it just has to be a narrower range. If they know that every character at level 8 does somewhere between 30-40 damage per turn, for example, is very easy to make a CR 8 monster that lasts 3 turns. But if one character does an average of 20 damage a turn, and another does 120, there is no way to make a working CR. And there is no way for a DM to challenge one player, while also not destroying the other, without a lot of work on every encounter.
Ok, let's just stop being dishonest at least with ourselves and admit that classes that had subclasses at level 1 were at the base of 90% of multiclass combos - all three and a half of them - just because of that overloaded first level. You're not interested in multiclass potential of rogues, druids, or monks - you want that sweet sorcerer, warlock, and cleric explosion of power. Basing feats on character levels, rather than class levels, creates the same exploit - the class itself ends up having empty levels, and picking three levels of other class before the empty level 4 will be optimal.
When all classes gain a subclass feature at level 3, all classes become equally valuable (more or less) for multiclassing, and this is what actually promotes multiclassing and creativity with different combinations, not just sorlock and hexadin.
I am not being dishonest at all. I found multiclassing with the current One D&D classes to be lackluster in terms of mechanical power and overall not worth the downsides of multiclassing. Making multiclass weaker than single class does not promote multiclassing.
I don't see how making multiclass weaker than single class is making multiclass better. Right now I see less worthwhile options. Reducing the downsides such as making feats/asi's be character level based will help bring up some of the lesser used combos.
I'll be honest, I've never heard anyone say that single class characters are so strong that the only good multiclass options are the OP ones, until this thread. Every single optimizer build I can remember seeing has multiclassed. Even builds that don't use the major offender combos multiclass. Most of them do it multiple times for every character. Nearly every optimized build has delayed an ASI or spell progress somewhere in it.
I've had players tell me they don't see any benefit in continuing in their current class. And they ask me to help provide storylines to justify multiclassing in game. Even when they really thought a single class was the character they wanted at first.
I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. That maybe someone out there has information I've never seen, or runs a very unique table. As I've said, I have had players bemoan waiting on an ASI after multiclassing. But there aren't any easy solutions because they end up with empty levels. And it turns out that after a few more games it all evens out anyway. But I'm open to taking a look at the concept of unbinding ASIs from classes. It would just require a lot of work to shore up empty levels. I just really can't see the argument that multiclassing is so weak that it needs super strong level 1 subclass features. That just seems like it would create even more problems if everyone got one. And I have experienced playtesting the new rules and seen the multiclass characters were much stronger than the single class ones until later in the game. They never suffered at all under the new rules. I do plan to multiclass more in future tests to see how it continues to work. But I'm just not seeing a problem moving subclasses to level 3 across the board. I'm only seeing benefits.
My real play tests gave me the opposite results from yours. The current One D&D multiclass combos feel average at best. For example, when you dip cleric then go straight wizard it can be okay, but in most cases it just feels lackluster. Even on wizard, it really brought into question on if it was still worthwhile to delay spell progression for something that feels average.
The encounter design issue you explained is not a multiclass issue, buy a general optimization issue. The same can happen to single classes.
Also, I still disagree with nerfing SS/GWM right now. There is no compensation for martials to make up for that damage loss. They shouldn't have nerfed the martial feats without giving some sort of compensation. Martials needed it to keep up with fullcasters. The power of SS/GWM should have been moved into the classes if they took it out of the feat, but ranger didn't really get that after losing sharpshooter's damage boost (the hunters mark changes doesn't really make up for sharpshooter).
First of all, I know several people that have sworn that Rogue X/Ranger 1 was better than pure Rogue. Over on Reddit, lots of people are complaining at a Cleric 1 dip is overpowered for all the things you get - powerful magic, up to 36d8 healing, and medium armor+shields. "A must have!" is a common refrain. And that's just with 4 classes out of 13 (yes, I count Artificer, even if its not going to be core). So, your complaints of multiclass being weaker than pure class are called into question by others.
Secondly, its humanly impossible for WotC to check every new subclass against every possible multiclass + feat combination; they simply lack the funds and manpower to do it. This leads to unintended interactions and certain combinations as "obvious picks" like when we had Sorlock and hexadin that were regarded as too powerful. Its no different than martials all needing PAM/GWM or SS/XBE, because all other combos weren't worth talking about. Flattening the curve leads to a healthier game with more viable choices, and moving subclasses to 3 definitely does that.
Moving ASI/feats won't bring up "lesser used combos," it will simply make the most powerful combinations even stronger. Especially with the power level of feats being tweaked and flattened. Its just a flat increase across all multiclass and making single class options worse. Ideally, we want multiclass and single class to have parity, not superiority one way or another. And, right now, I've heard more complaints about multiclass characters being better than single with existing 1d&d material.
Especially when people look at the so called "Epic" feats and find the majority... not so epic.
We were literally told by wotc to use existing content assumptions unless/until they present changes.
Will those classes change sure but expect similar treatment. Feature Clean up and balance intended to keep similar scope of power (they may or may not achieve such intentions)
It sounds like the problem is more that cleric is too overpowered in it's level 1 benefits and that rogue is lacking something key to it's class that ranger has than it is that the problem is level 1 dips TBH. At the very least, why is it that 'Rogue X/Ranger 1 > Pure Rogue'?
Actually Martials are supposed to be getting a boost in the form of unique weapon traits. GWM and SS were bad, because they were so good. They were must haves. Also by math GWM isn’t nerfed at the levels most people play the game. It’s now more reliable over more turns. I know burst damage is often more important, but just by the numbers the new version should be about the same or more. At higher levels the old version is far superior and that’s the problem. The -5 was easily mitigated.