Warlocks as they are now really have two subclass choices. They could be planning to reduce it to one, but they could also be pushing more of the features out to the pact instead of the patron.
As for Sorcerers, they could push the choice to third, or do a similar thing to the warlock, where your source of power is separate from the subclass.
And if they do that for both Warlock and Sorcerer, will they give Wizards parallel structure?
If we look too Cleric, I think Pacts are likely to become like Holy Orders are for Cleric, Patron will be the big choice for Warlocks and so likely the level 3 subclass choice.
As for sorcerer, it's not a big issue either, the only issue will be wild magic, since you won't get wild magic at level 1/2 but this is also likely a good thing, no more wild magic sorcerers fireballing their party due to surge at level 1.
I think it will too. This actually just happened the other day when a character in a oneshot I was play testing did just that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I haven’t offended you, don’t worry. I’m sure I’ll get to you eventually.
Warlocks as they are now really have two subclass choices. They could be planning to reduce it to one, but they could also be pushing more of the features out to the pact instead of the patron.
As for Sorcerers, they could push the choice to third, or do a similar thing to the warlock, where your source of power is separate from the subclass.
And if they do that for both Warlock and Sorcerer, will they give Wizards parallel structure?
If we look too Cleric, I think Pacts are likely to become like Holy Orders are for Cleric, Patron will be the big choice for Warlocks and so likely the level 3 subclass choice.
As for sorcerer, it's not a big issue either, the only issue will be wild magic, since you won't get wild magic at level 1/2 but this is also likely a good thing, no more wild magic sorcerers fireballing their party due to surge at level 1.
Remind me why it can’t be the other way around? With packs being the sub class and patron being a holy order like a choice you pick at level one? There are four different packs and each class is getting four subclasses. Not to mention this means pack of the blade can work out of the gate instead of needing hexblade to fix it.
Warlocks as they are now really have two subclass choices. They could be planning to reduce it to one, but they could also be pushing more of the features out to the pact instead of the patron.
As for Sorcerers, they could push the choice to third, or do a similar thing to the warlock, where your source of power is separate from the subclass.
And if they do that for both Warlock and Sorcerer, will they give Wizards parallel structure?
If we look too Cleric, I think Pacts are likely to become like Holy Orders are for Cleric, Patron will be the big choice for Warlocks and so likely the level 3 subclass choice.
As for sorcerer, it's not a big issue either, the only issue will be wild magic, since you won't get wild magic at level 1/2 but this is also likely a good thing, no more wild magic sorcerers fireballing their party due to surge at level 1.
Remind me why it can’t be the other way around? With packs being the sub class and patron being a holy order like a choice you pick at level one? There are four different packs and each class is getting four subclasses. Not to mention this means pack of the blade can work out of the gate instead of needing hexblade to fix it.
Because a patron is a billion times more essential to a Warlock's identity than a Pact. Getting a single different feature for making a pact with a fiend instead of a fey would simply be ridiculous
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Warlocks as they are now really have two subclass choices. They could be planning to reduce it to one, but they could also be pushing more of the features out to the pact instead of the patron.
As for Sorcerers, they could push the choice to third, or do a similar thing to the warlock, where your source of power is separate from the subclass.
And if they do that for both Warlock and Sorcerer, will they give Wizards parallel structure?
If we look too Cleric, I think Pacts are likely to become like Holy Orders are for Cleric, Patron will be the big choice for Warlocks and so likely the level 3 subclass choice.
As for sorcerer, it's not a big issue either, the only issue will be wild magic, since you won't get wild magic at level 1/2 but this is also likely a good thing, no more wild magic sorcerers fireballing their party due to surge at level 1.
Remind me why it can’t be the other way around? With packs being the sub class and patron being a holy order like a choice you pick at level one? There are four different packs and each class is getting four subclasses. Not to mention this means pack of the blade can work out of the gate instead of needing hexblade to fix it.
Because a patron is a billion times more essential to a Warlock's identity than a Pact. Getting a single different feature for making a pact with a fiend instead of a fey would simply be ridiculous
So would getting no different features for three levels for making a pact with a fiend instead of a fey. What's you point?
Warlocks as they are now really have two subclass choices. They could be planning to reduce it to one, but they could also be pushing more of the features out to the pact instead of the patron.
As for Sorcerers, they could push the choice to third, or do a similar thing to the warlock, where your source of power is separate from the subclass.
And if they do that for both Warlock and Sorcerer, will they give Wizards parallel structure?
If we look too Cleric, I think Pacts are likely to become like Holy Orders are for Cleric, Patron will be the big choice for Warlocks and so likely the level 3 subclass choice.
As for sorcerer, it's not a big issue either, the only issue will be wild magic, since you won't get wild magic at level 1/2 but this is also likely a good thing, no more wild magic sorcerers fireballing their party due to surge at level 1.
Remind me why it can’t be the other way around? With packs being the sub class and patron being a holy order like a choice you pick at level one? There are four different packs and each class is getting four subclasses. Not to mention this means pack of the blade can work out of the gate instead of needing hexblade to fix it.
Better answer. Because there are only so many types of pacts they can do. In the entire time we have thought of and tested maybe 5 total. While there are dozens upon dozens of powerful beings that could be a patron. It comes down to the small choice with a few options, holy order, vs the big choice with a highly numerous number of options like domain. In this case pact vs patron. There are a few pact types, there are an endless number of patrons.
This is a foundation for the future, what ever makes it easier for more stuff in the future is what is going to happen.
Warlocks as they are now really have two subclass choices. They could be planning to reduce it to one, but they could also be pushing more of the features out to the pact instead of the patron.
As for Sorcerers, they could push the choice to third, or do a similar thing to the warlock, where your source of power is separate from the subclass.
And if they do that for both Warlock and Sorcerer, will they give Wizards parallel structure?
If we look too Cleric, I think Pacts are likely to become like Holy Orders are for Cleric, Patron will be the big choice for Warlocks and so likely the level 3 subclass choice.
As for sorcerer, it's not a big issue either, the only issue will be wild magic, since you won't get wild magic at level 1/2 but this is also likely a good thing, no more wild magic sorcerers fireballing their party due to surge at level 1.
Remind me why it can’t be the other way around? With packs being the sub class and patron being a holy order like a choice you pick at level one? There are four different packs and each class is getting four subclasses. Not to mention this means pack of the blade can work out of the gate instead of needing hexblade to fix it.
Better answer. Because there are only so many types of pacts they can do. In the entire time we have thought of and tested maybe 5 total. While there are dozens upon dozens of powerful beings that could be a patron. It comes down to the small choice with a few options, holy order, vs the big choice with a highly numerous number of options like domain. In this case pact vs patron. There are a few pact types, there are an endless number of patrons.
This is a foundation for the future, what ever makes it easier for more stuff in the future is what is going to happen.
Right. The patron is the subclass with all the options. Both realized and potential. I suppose it is possible they could just throw it all out and start over, but that makes backwards compatibility and forwards expansion much harder. The subclasses are moving and people like more patrons. It's most likely the patron remains the subclass and that becomes level 3. But I guess we'll have to see.
It isn't besides the point, I am just proving the claim that these new dips are incredibly powerful. I am not making a martial vs caster argument; I am making a multiclass vs single class argument.
BS. You are claiming that a cleric, a caster, is better than a pair of Expert classes, in terms of dealing damage "at high levels," whatever those are. Nevermind that clerics rely entirely on resources and we've seen spells being tweaked with each new release, suggesting spells as a whole are getting a bit of an overhaul, while a Ranger/Rogue are primarily martial characters and we know that weapons and their effects and damage are getting an overhaul as well. And that spells are often AoEs versus martials' single target focus. You're not even comparing apples to oranges at this point. You're comparing orange peels to apple skin. There's so much missing that a comparison is meaningless.
BS on that BS. I actually never said high levels. A cleric can outdo in terms of damage with Spirit Guardians rather easily. Bless alone will help the party more in damage due to the increased in accuracy. Also, not all have the spells have been adjusted and we shouldn't just assume that they will be. We haven't seen any of those martial overhauls, so we cannot give feedback with those overhauls in mind. Also, even in a single target situation, a Cleric's spells will allow them more influence in the party DPR than rogue or ranger. Bless is still incredibly valid as you are buffing the party, Guiding Bolt deals 4d6 and grants the next attack advantage, even Spirit Guardians is still effective as you can cast other spells during its duration. I am comparing DPR to DPR.
Emphasis mine.
Cherry picking the best of the best as the standard for everything to compare to isn't what I would consider "weaker." That's purely an optimizer standpoint, where system mastery is the default and only the best are "valid" options to pick from. That is, if its not obvious by now, a stance that I'm quite vocally opposed to.
I am not cherry picking. I am just acknowledging that there are some that are worse sure, but when looking at balance, you need to look at the maximum potential. Even then, there are a lot of subclass features that can find much more use than the channel divinity feature. You generally want to avoid using your action to heal in combat as healing generally does not keep up with damage. That's why Healing Word is rated so highly, being a bonus action healing spell that can pick someone up at 0 while maintaining your own action.
The best options are looked as "valid" in this perspective because we are looking at balance. People complained about things like Hexadins and Sorcadins due to how prominent they are. This subclass to 3rd level isn't likely to change how prominent those combos are. For example, Sorcadin often sees Paladin 6/Sorcerer X. We are going to have those same complaints, only worse because there are going to be even fewer prominent combos.
Except that you seem to be quite happy to be comparing these multiclasses to what you consider the strongest single classes available. Which, in turn, means that a multi-class is only viable in your eyes if it can meet or exceed the best single class, and will always be better than the vast majority of single classes.
Most players tend to define "viable" as something closer to "meaningfully contribute to the game while not feeling overshadowed." Which can, and often does, include slightly lower damage output for the sake of a fun and interesting build to play.
If that definition of viable was used, we wouldn't have so many complaints about the few prominent combos. Because none of those combos perform so above the curve that they are really an issue, but we still got those complaints. The maximum power level when looking at balance matters a lot.
The truth of the matter is that multi-classing, or individual classes, aren't worse - by all accounts, its more flexible for wider range of combinations than before. The only thing that's been made weaker are the optimized builds, which is (as far as I'm concerned) a good thing for the health of the game. For everything else, its actually a bit stronger and dealing with accusations of power creep.
The truth of the matter is that certain classes are noted to be worse; rogue for example lost the ability to sneak attack on reaction attacks or by holding their action. Lore Bard lost their extra magical secrets while having the first standard magical secrets moved from 10 to 11, so it is unlikely that most players will ever see it now. Cleric dips lost access to subclasses and are now competing with the new lightly armored feat (spell progression is quite important). Even if we compare Rogue 1/Ranger X to Ranger X, is that dip in rogue worth delaying feats and extra attack? The power boost at 5th level is huge.
The issue right now is that by just moving subclasses to 3, there are going to be even less prominent combos. Talk will be even more focused on those combos because it is much harder to try other combos. If we make it easier for multiclass characters to gain access to feats and features like extra attack, we bring up a bunch of lesser used combos. Spell Progression delay likely has to be kept, but on the martial end, you can find people mixing martial classes like Barbarian and Fighter more easily.
It is so incredibly easy to make a multiclass combo that ends up with you becoming overshadowed by others. I've seen it happen plenty of times and it is one of the huge flaws with the current multiclass systems. I focus on the maximum potential, because that maximum potential should not overshadow the average. That's why looking at the optimized setups is important when looking at balance.
It isn't besides the point, I am just proving the claim that these new dips are incredibly powerful. I am not making a martial vs caster argument; I am making a multiclass vs single class argument.
BS. You are claiming that a cleric, a caster, is better than a pair of Expert classes, in terms of dealing damage "at high levels," whatever those are. Nevermind that clerics rely entirely on resources and we've seen spells being tweaked with each new release, suggesting spells as a whole are getting a bit of an overhaul, while a Ranger/Rogue are primarily martial characters and we know that weapons and their effects and damage are getting an overhaul as well. And that spells are often AoEs versus martials' single target focus. You're not even comparing apples to oranges at this point. You're comparing orange peels to apple skin. There's so much missing that a comparison is meaningless.
BS on that BS. I actually never said high levels. A cleric can outdo in terms of damage with Spirit Guardians rather easily. Bless alone will help the party more in damage due to the increased in accuracy. Also, not all have the spells have been adjusted and we shouldn't just assume that they will be. We haven't seen any of those martial overhauls, so we cannot give feedback with those overhauls in mind. Also, even in a single target situation, a Cleric's spells will allow them more influence in the party DPR than rogue or ranger. Bless is still incredibly valid as you are buffing the party, Guiding Bolt deals 4d6 and grants the next attack advantage, even Spirit Guardians is still effective as you can cast other spells during its duration. I am comparing DPR to DPR.
Emphasis mine.
Cherry picking the best of the best as the standard for everything to compare to isn't what I would consider "weaker." That's purely an optimizer standpoint, where system mastery is the default and only the best are "valid" options to pick from. That is, if its not obvious by now, a stance that I'm quite vocally opposed to.
I am not cherry picking. I am just acknowledging that there are some that are worse sure, but when looking at balance, you need to look at the maximum potential. Even then, there are a lot of subclass features that can find much more use than the channel divinity feature. You generally want to avoid using your action to heal in combat as healing generally does not keep up with damage. That's why Healing Word is rated so highly, being a bonus action healing spell that can pick someone up at 0 while maintaining your own action.
The best options are looked as "valid" in this perspective because we are looking at balance. People complained about things like Hexadins and Sorcadins due to how prominent they are. This subclass to 3rd level isn't likely to change how prominent those combos are. For example, Sorcadin often sees Paladin 6/Sorcerer X. We are going to have those same complaints, only worse because there are going to be even fewer prominent combos.
Except that you seem to be quite happy to be comparing these multiclasses to what you consider the strongest single classes available. Which, in turn, means that a multi-class is only viable in your eyes if it can meet or exceed the best single class, and will always be better than the vast majority of single classes.
Most players tend to define "viable" as something closer to "meaningfully contribute to the game while not feeling overshadowed." Which can, and often does, include slightly lower damage output for the sake of a fun and interesting build to play.
If that definition of viable was used, we wouldn't have so many complaints about the few prominent combos. Because none of those combos perform so above the curve that they are really an issue, but we still got those complaints. The maximum power level when looking at balance matters a lot.
The truth of the matter is that multi-classing, or individual classes, aren't worse - by all accounts, its more flexible for wider range of combinations than before. The only thing that's been made weaker are the optimized builds, which is (as far as I'm concerned) a good thing for the health of the game. For everything else, its actually a bit stronger and dealing with accusations of power creep.
The truth of the matter is that certain classes are noted to be worse; rogue for example lost the ability to sneak attack on reaction attacks or by holding their action. Lore Bard lost their extra magical secrets while having the first standard magical secrets moved from 10 to 11, so it is unlikely that most players will ever see it now. Cleric dips lost access to subclasses and are now competing with the new lightly armored feat (spell progression is quite important). Even if we compare Rogue 1/Ranger X to Ranger X, is that dip in rogue worth delaying feats and extra attack? The power boost at 5th level is huge.
The issue right now is that by just moving subclasses to 3, there are going to be even less prominent combos. Talk will be even more focused on those combos because it is much harder to try other combos. If we make it easier for multiclass characters to gain access to feats and features like extra attack, we bring up a bunch of lesser used combos. Spell Progression delay likely has to be kept, but on the martial end, you can find people mixing martial classes like Barbarian and Fighter more easily.
It is so incredibly easy to make a multiclass combo that ends up with you becoming overshadowed by others. I've seen it happen plenty of times and it is one of the huge flaws with the current multiclass systems. I focus on the maximum potential, because that maximum potential should not overshadow the average. That's why looking at the optimized setups is important when looking at balance.
I love how all of this still makes the faulty assumption that you take your multiclass before your main class without taking into consideration one dnd changes. Optimization is doing what is optimal within the system you are given, not doing what you used to do amd expecting the same results when the system changed.
I already compared the current classes to their multi-class variants.
You don't need to start cleric to get the armor proficiency anymore. If you take it at 6 it still provides the armor proficiency. If you go 5 ranger then 1 rogue you get expertise 3 levels early and gain slme extra damage from sneak attack no delay of extra attack. You delay your subclass features, roving, an ASI, A THIRD rank of expertise and your third level spell by ONE level. For every level after 5 the ranger X/ rogue 1 is going to be just as strong if not stronger than pure ranger. Same with multiclassing into cleric. It won't delay spell levels at all. In fact ranger X/cleric 1 will get 3rd level slots a level early. Yes they will delay their 3rd level spell preps one level, at the very end of campaign. While benefiting for extra out of combat healing and more in combat emergency healing and TURN UNDEAD for more than 1/3 of the campaign, as my experience is most of the game time is spent between 5 and 8. Not only does this compete with pure ranger, but depending on the campaign it could massively out preform pure ranger.
That is multi-class. That is optimization. Making decisions about how to progress your ranger and comparing it to other ways of progressing your ranger. Not comparing your long bow shooting ranger to the heavy armor melee paladin and saying "well I cant do the same stuff the pally does". That is apples and oranges.
You want to compare a single class cleric to a multiclass option than compare it to a cleric X/ 1 of another class. Not to a completely unrelated multiclass.
Blade Ward, cantrip, reaction, 10 foot range, 1d4 added to AC against "to hit" roll.
Expending a reaction to gain a minor advantage in a particular situation is sufficient to make the various cantrips useful, but not overpowering.
What?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Since I like "skill monkey" characters I don't mind delaying progression by one level to take Level 1 Rogue. The second level for Cunning Action is something that can be left for later levels, if taken at all.
Rogue 1/Barbarian X (inspired by Chetney in Critical Role Season 3, but actually using a moderately competent class) gives a character that can be sneaky (expertise in stealth and perception) while still able to break heads. Level 1 feat: Tough.
Rogue 1/Warlock X gives a character who can be extremely persuasive (expertise in Persuasion and Deception) while not giving up too much in casting power (since Eldritch Blast is a cantrip you're still getting the extra beams at level 5). Level 1 feat: Skilled or Magic Initiate.
Rogue 1/Ranger X doubles up on expertise over two levels, and in my opinion that would be the uber Rogue option. You start with four proficiencies and two expertise from Rogue, then add another proficiency and two expertise for Ranger. Add two from your background, and then double up on the Skilled Feat by taking Human, plus their extra skill proficiency, and you have fourteen skill proficiencies, four with expertise, at level 2. I'd take a second level of Rogue for Cunning Action after getting extra attack from Ranger.
I have a suspicion that Expertise might get the treatment of Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, and Unarmored Defense. It might end up not stacking. Though expertise in skills isn't such a game-breaking deal...
I'm late to the party but wanted to add my thoughts and opinions. Read some of the thread, but after it got bogged down early on should warlocks be INT or CHA etc, I skipped most everything else so I'm sure most of this has been mentioned.
Clerics:
From the Cleric description:
Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods’ will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies.
Once you’ve chosen a deity, consider your cleric’s relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes? How do the temple priests of your faith regard you: as a champion or a troublemaker? What are your ultimate goals? Does your deity have a special task in mind for you? Or are you striving to prove yourself worthy of a great quest?
I don't see a problem with the subclass at 3rd level. It can fit narratively quite easily. You pick a deity at level 1, the additional abilities of the domain come on at level 3. Some of these "choices" are player choices, not character choices. The cleric doesn't know it's 3rd level and doesn't all of a sudden decide that "Hey, I like nature, I will be a nature cleric" it is a gift from their deity and manifests itself in the cleric. (see the spoiler above).
Plus there will be only 4 domains in the PHB and they may change how deities have power over domains and may be expanded to cover more than just one or two. So you can believe in the god JoeBlow at level 1 and at 3rd level become a Nature Cleric bestowed upon you by your deity, while Frank who follows JoeBlow becomes a Knowledge cleric, and Suzie who also follows JoeBlow becomes a War cleric.
Sorcerer:
Magic is a part of every sorcerer, suffusing body, mind, and spirit with a latent power that waits to be tapped.
The appearance of sorcerous powers is wildly unpredictable. Some draconic bloodlines produce exactly one sorcerer in every generation, but in other lines of descent every individual is a sorcerer. Most of the time, the talents of sorcery appear as apparent flukes. Some sorcerers can’t name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby’s birth, or a taste of the water from a mysterious spring might spark the gift of sorcery. So too might the gift of a deity of magic, exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner Planes or the maddening chaos of Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality.
The innate magic of the sorcerer becomes apparent at level 1. They can start casting spells, and as was mentioned earlier they will probably get metamagic earlier as well as Sorcery points. It isn't until level 3 that the origin of their power starts to manifest (makes me think of the first Sam Rami Spiderman movie. Peter didn't immediately realize it was the spider bite that allowed him to see without his glasses or gave him six pack abs. That was figured out later). There will be 4 Sorcerous Origins in the PHB, but we don't know which ones outside of the 2014 PHB ones. I don't believe there is any narrative disconnect between choosing the Origin at level 3 compared to level 1.
Warlock:
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.
Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. This thirst drives warlocks into their pacts and shapes their later careers as well.
Stories of warlocks binding themselves to fiends are widely known. But many warlocks serve patrons that are not fiendish. Sometimes a traveler in the wilds comes to a strangely beautiful tower, meets its fey lord or lady, and stumbles into a pact without being fully aware of it. And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant but crazed student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void.
I think Warlock is the hardest with the choice at 3rd level. But since this is a new edition, I can see some fairly big changes, or rearranging coming. Yes, it has to be backwards compatible, but it all depends on how you define that term, which I won't get into here to stay on topic.
I can see Warlocks being treated more like Clerics. You choose your patron at level 1, just like a cleric picks their deity, but the features of that pact that come on at level 3 will be handled differently. It may be a bit more modular, and not necessarily tied to the patron, so you can pick a Pact (out of the 4 that will be in the 2024 PHB) no matter who your patron is. And there will be Invocations that have prerequisites for the different patrons that can help flesh out the abilities that currently the patron provides, like Hurl through Hell could be a Fiendish Invocation instead of a pact feature.
So your spellcasting and Invocations come from your patron starting at level 1, but pacts may be handled more like domains, and you can choose a pact from that patron. I mean you are making a deal with this patron so what you might want from your Fiendish pact may not be what I want from my Fiendish pact. You negotiate your deal, and I will negotiate mine, kind of thing. (Edit: Think of the 2014 Warlock pacts as early McDonalds. They offered burgers and that's it. The Fiend offered Dark One's Blessing, Dark One's Own Luck, Fiendish Resilience, and Hurl Through Hell, and that's it. But 2024 Warlock Pacts are more like modern McDonalds where you can get burgers, but you can also get chicken sandwiches, and Salads, and all-day Breakfast. Your Fiend patron may offer more options in pacts and supplement them with specific invocations)
It isn't besides the point, I am just proving the claim that these new dips are incredibly powerful. I am not making a martial vs caster argument; I am making a multiclass vs single class argument.
BS. You are claiming that a cleric, a caster, is better than a pair of Expert classes, in terms of dealing damage "at high levels," whatever those are. Nevermind that clerics rely entirely on resources and we've seen spells being tweaked with each new release, suggesting spells as a whole are getting a bit of an overhaul, while a Ranger/Rogue are primarily martial characters and we know that weapons and their effects and damage are getting an overhaul as well. And that spells are often AoEs versus martials' single target focus. You're not even comparing apples to oranges at this point. You're comparing orange peels to apple skin. There's so much missing that a comparison is meaningless.
BS on that BS. I actually never said high levels. A cleric can outdo in terms of damage with Spirit Guardians rather easily. Bless alone will help the party more in damage due to the increased in accuracy. Also, not all have the spells have been adjusted and we shouldn't just assume that they will be. We haven't seen any of those martial overhauls, so we cannot give feedback with those overhauls in mind. Also, even in a single target situation, a Cleric's spells will allow them more influence in the party DPR than rogue or ranger. Bless is still incredibly valid as you are buffing the party, Guiding Bolt deals 4d6 and grants the next attack advantage, even Spirit Guardians is still effective as you can cast other spells during its duration. I am comparing DPR to DPR.
Emphasis mine.
Cherry picking the best of the best as the standard for everything to compare to isn't what I would consider "weaker." That's purely an optimizer standpoint, where system mastery is the default and only the best are "valid" options to pick from. That is, if its not obvious by now, a stance that I'm quite vocally opposed to.
I am not cherry picking. I am just acknowledging that there are some that are worse sure, but when looking at balance, you need to look at the maximum potential. Even then, there are a lot of subclass features that can find much more use than the channel divinity feature. You generally want to avoid using your action to heal in combat as healing generally does not keep up with damage. That's why Healing Word is rated so highly, being a bonus action healing spell that can pick someone up at 0 while maintaining your own action.
The best options are looked as "valid" in this perspective because we are looking at balance. People complained about things like Hexadins and Sorcadins due to how prominent they are. This subclass to 3rd level isn't likely to change how prominent those combos are. For example, Sorcadin often sees Paladin 6/Sorcerer X. We are going to have those same complaints, only worse because there are going to be even fewer prominent combos.
Except that you seem to be quite happy to be comparing these multiclasses to what you consider the strongest single classes available. Which, in turn, means that a multi-class is only viable in your eyes if it can meet or exceed the best single class, and will always be better than the vast majority of single classes.
Most players tend to define "viable" as something closer to "meaningfully contribute to the game while not feeling overshadowed." Which can, and often does, include slightly lower damage output for the sake of a fun and interesting build to play.
If that definition of viable was used, we wouldn't have so many complaints about the few prominent combos. Because none of those combos perform so above the curve that they are really an issue, but we still got those complaints. The maximum power level when looking at balance matters a lot.
The truth of the matter is that multi-classing, or individual classes, aren't worse - by all accounts, its more flexible for wider range of combinations than before. The only thing that's been made weaker are the optimized builds, which is (as far as I'm concerned) a good thing for the health of the game. For everything else, its actually a bit stronger and dealing with accusations of power creep.
The truth of the matter is that certain classes are noted to be worse; rogue for example lost the ability to sneak attack on reaction attacks or by holding their action. Lore Bard lost their extra magical secrets while having the first standard magical secrets moved from 10 to 11, so it is unlikely that most players will ever see it now. Cleric dips lost access to subclasses and are now competing with the new lightly armored feat (spell progression is quite important). Even if we compare Rogue 1/Ranger X to Ranger X, is that dip in rogue worth delaying feats and extra attack? The power boost at 5th level is huge.
The issue right now is that by just moving subclasses to 3, there are going to be even less prominent combos. Talk will be even more focused on those combos because it is much harder to try other combos. If we make it easier for multiclass characters to gain access to feats and features like extra attack, we bring up a bunch of lesser used combos. Spell Progression delay likely has to be kept, but on the martial end, you can find people mixing martial classes like Barbarian and Fighter more easily.
It is so incredibly easy to make a multiclass combo that ends up with you becoming overshadowed by others. I've seen it happen plenty of times and it is one of the huge flaws with the current multiclass systems. I focus on the maximum potential, because that maximum potential should not overshadow the average. That's why looking at the optimized setups is important when looking at balance.
I love how all of this still makes the faulty assumption that you take your multiclass before your main class without taking into consideration one dnd changes. Optimization is doing what is optimal within the system you are given, not doing what you used to do amd expecting the same results when the system changed.
I already compared the current classes to their multi-class variants.
You don't need to start cleric to get the armor proficiency anymore. If you take it at 6 it still provides the armor proficiency. If you go 5 ranger then 1 rogue you get expertise 3 levels early and gain slme extra damage from sneak attack no delay of extra attack. You delay your subclass features, roving, an ASI, A THIRD rank of expertise and your third level spell by ONE level. For every level after 5 the ranger X/ rogue 1 is going to be just as strong if not stronger than pure ranger. Same with multiclassing into cleric. It won't delay spell levels at all. In fact ranger X/cleric 1 will get 3rd level slots a level early. Yes they will delay their 3rd level spell preps one level, at the very end of campaign. While benefiting for extra out of combat healing and more in combat emergency healing and TURN UNDEAD for more than 1/3 of the campaign, as my experience is most of the game time is spent between 5 and 8. Not only does this compete with pure ranger, but depending on the campaign it could massively out preform pure ranger.
That is multi-class. That is optimization. Making decisions about how to progress your ranger and comparing it to other ways of progressing your ranger. Not comparing your long bow shooting ranger to the heavy armor melee paladin and saying "well I cant do the same stuff the pally does". That is apples and oranges.
You want to compare a single class cleric to a multiclass option than compare it to a cleric X/ 1 of another class. Not to a completely unrelated multiclass.
Taking the dip before the main class still ends up being more optimal than taking it later in the long run. It isn't a faulty assumption. With Cleric 1/Wizard X as an example: Taking cleric at 1 gives you more HP and better starting gear. Also, charisma saving throws tend to be a tad more relevant than intelligence saving throw. Turn Undead is also situational.
Also, when I mentioned proficiencies, I was not looking at Cleric specifically. Fighters in 5E for example, only give heavy armor if they are taken at first level. Same with paladin.
Also, spell slot progression is not the important part and not what I was referring to when I meant spell progression. I never referred to spell progression as being based on spell slots. Being able to cast spells on time, e.g. third level spells at 5th level is massive. It is a huge downside having to wait that extra level.
If you are dipping into rogue for the extra expertise, then you are likely aiming for a skill monkey set up. In that situation, dipping into rogue at first level actually gives you another skill proficiency. Both rogue and ranger give 1 skill proficiency when multiclassed into. Rogue however starts with 4 skills while ranger starts with 3. So by starting as rogue, you end up with 5 skill proficiencies from the class versus 4 from starting as ranger.
Also, even if you don't delay extra attack, you are still delaying your 2nd feat and spell progression. Rangers got a spell list buff due to them getting the primal spell list minus evocation spells.
Also, it isn't wrong to compare other multiclass combos to single class cleric if we are looking at overall power rather than specifics. If a single class cleric remains stronger, then that means there is a flaw with the balancing. However, if you want another comparison, lets compare it to bard as ranger and rogue are considered expert classes with bard. Even while overall nerfed from its 5e version, Lore Bard will end up with 6 skill proficiencies from class due to the extra 3 that Lore bard grants it, all while having Jack of All Trades to give non proficient skills a boost and having fullcaster access. So even if bard does not do the same level of damage, it has still has spells like Hypnotic Pattern. Even earlier on, there are spells like sleep to ensure bard has combat relevancy. Not to mention, being a fullcaster gives bard an insane level of versatility. The damage issue for bard also solves itself at higher tiers when they finally gain access to magical secrets, letting them poach the damage spells that they were lacking or they could use it to gain even more utility or crowd control. I don'5 see the rogue 1/ranger x combo being on par.
I am overall fine with subclasses being moved to 3rd level. However, if one of the reasons why is to make the current prominent multiclass combos less prominent, it is only going to make certain ones even more prominent.
It isn't besides the point, I am just proving the claim that these new dips are incredibly powerful. I am not making a martial vs caster argument; I am making a multiclass vs single class argument.
BS. You are claiming that a cleric, a caster, is better than a pair of Expert classes, in terms of dealing damage "at high levels," whatever those are. Nevermind that clerics rely entirely on resources and we've seen spells being tweaked with each new release, suggesting spells as a whole are getting a bit of an overhaul, while a Ranger/Rogue are primarily martial characters and we know that weapons and their effects and damage are getting an overhaul as well. And that spells are often AoEs versus martials' single target focus. You're not even comparing apples to oranges at this point. You're comparing orange peels to apple skin. There's so much missing that a comparison is meaningless.
BS on that BS. I actually never said high levels. A cleric can outdo in terms of damage with Spirit Guardians rather easily. Bless alone will help the party more in damage due to the increased in accuracy. Also, not all have the spells have been adjusted and we shouldn't just assume that they will be. We haven't seen any of those martial overhauls, so we cannot give feedback with those overhauls in mind. Also, even in a single target situation, a Cleric's spells will allow them more influence in the party DPR than rogue or ranger. Bless is still incredibly valid as you are buffing the party, Guiding Bolt deals 4d6 and grants the next attack advantage, even Spirit Guardians is still effective as you can cast other spells during its duration. I am comparing DPR to DPR.
Emphasis mine.
Cherry picking the best of the best as the standard for everything to compare to isn't what I would consider "weaker." That's purely an optimizer standpoint, where system mastery is the default and only the best are "valid" options to pick from. That is, if its not obvious by now, a stance that I'm quite vocally opposed to.
I am not cherry picking. I am just acknowledging that there are some that are worse sure, but when looking at balance, you need to look at the maximum potential. Even then, there are a lot of subclass features that can find much more use than the channel divinity feature. You generally want to avoid using your action to heal in combat as healing generally does not keep up with damage. That's why Healing Word is rated so highly, being a bonus action healing spell that can pick someone up at 0 while maintaining your own action.
The best options are looked as "valid" in this perspective because we are looking at balance. People complained about things like Hexadins and Sorcadins due to how prominent they are. This subclass to 3rd level isn't likely to change how prominent those combos are. For example, Sorcadin often sees Paladin 6/Sorcerer X. We are going to have those same complaints, only worse because there are going to be even fewer prominent combos.
Except that you seem to be quite happy to be comparing these multiclasses to what you consider the strongest single classes available. Which, in turn, means that a multi-class is only viable in your eyes if it can meet or exceed the best single class, and will always be better than the vast majority of single classes.
Most players tend to define "viable" as something closer to "meaningfully contribute to the game while not feeling overshadowed." Which can, and often does, include slightly lower damage output for the sake of a fun and interesting build to play.
If that definition of viable was used, we wouldn't have so many complaints about the few prominent combos. Because none of those combos perform so above the curve that they are really an issue, but we still got those complaints. The maximum power level when looking at balance matters a lot.
The truth of the matter is that multi-classing, or individual classes, aren't worse - by all accounts, its more flexible for wider range of combinations than before. The only thing that's been made weaker are the optimized builds, which is (as far as I'm concerned) a good thing for the health of the game. For everything else, its actually a bit stronger and dealing with accusations of power creep.
The truth of the matter is that certain classes are noted to be worse; rogue for example lost the ability to sneak attack on reaction attacks or by holding their action. Lore Bard lost their extra magical secrets while having the first standard magical secrets moved from 10 to 11, so it is unlikely that most players will ever see it now. Cleric dips lost access to subclasses and are now competing with the new lightly armored feat (spell progression is quite important). Even if we compare Rogue 1/Ranger X to Ranger X, is that dip in rogue worth delaying feats and extra attack? The power boost at 5th level is huge.
The issue right now is that by just moving subclasses to 3, there are going to be even less prominent combos. Talk will be even more focused on those combos because it is much harder to try other combos. If we make it easier for multiclass characters to gain access to feats and features like extra attack, we bring up a bunch of lesser used combos. Spell Progression delay likely has to be kept, but on the martial end, you can find people mixing martial classes like Barbarian and Fighter more easily.
It is so incredibly easy to make a multiclass combo that ends up with you becoming overshadowed by others. I've seen it happen plenty of times and it is one of the huge flaws with the current multiclass systems. I focus on the maximum potential, because that maximum potential should not overshadow the average. That's why looking at the optimized setups is important when looking at balance.
I love how all of this still makes the faulty assumption that you take your multiclass before your main class without taking into consideration one dnd changes. Optimization is doing what is optimal within the system you are given, not doing what you used to do amd expecting the same results when the system changed.
I already compared the current classes to their multi-class variants.
You don't need to start cleric to get the armor proficiency anymore. If you take it at 6 it still provides the armor proficiency. If you go 5 ranger then 1 rogue you get expertise 3 levels early and gain slme extra damage from sneak attack no delay of extra attack. You delay your subclass features, roving, an ASI, A THIRD rank of expertise and your third level spell by ONE level. For every level after 5 the ranger X/ rogue 1 is going to be just as strong if not stronger than pure ranger. Same with multiclassing into cleric. It won't delay spell levels at all. In fact ranger X/cleric 1 will get 3rd level slots a level early. Yes they will delay their 3rd level spell preps one level, at the very end of campaign. While benefiting for extra out of combat healing and more in combat emergency healing and TURN UNDEAD for more than 1/3 of the campaign, as my experience is most of the game time is spent between 5 and 8. Not only does this compete with pure ranger, but depending on the campaign it could massively out preform pure ranger.
That is multi-class. That is optimization. Making decisions about how to progress your ranger and comparing it to other ways of progressing your ranger. Not comparing your long bow shooting ranger to the heavy armor melee paladin and saying "well I cant do the same stuff the pally does". That is apples and oranges.
You want to compare a single class cleric to a multiclass option than compare it to a cleric X/ 1 of another class. Not to a completely unrelated multiclass.
Taking the dip before the main class still ends up being more optimal than taking it later in the long run. It isn't a faulty assumption. With Cleric 1/Wizard X as an example: Taking cleric at 1 gives you more HP and better starting gear. Also, charisma saving throws tend to be a tad more relevant than intelligence saving throw. Turn Undead is also situational.
Also, when I mentioned proficiencies, I was not looking at Cleric specifically. Fighters in 5E for example, only give heavy armor if they are taken at first level. Same with paladin.
Also, spell slot progression is not the important part and not what I was referring to when I meant spell progression. I never referred to spell progression as being based on spell slots. Being able to cast spells on time, e.g. third level spells at 5th level is massive. It is a huge downside having to wait that extra level.
If you are dipping into rogue for the extra expertise, then you are likely aiming for a skill monkey set up. In that situation, dipping into rogue at first level actually gives you another skill proficiency. Both rogue and ranger give 1 skill proficiency when multiclassed into. Rogue however starts with 4 skills while ranger starts with 3. So by starting as rogue, you end up with 5 skill proficiencies from the class versus 4 from starting as ranger.
Also, even if you don't delay extra attack, you are still delaying your 2nd feat and spell progression. Rangers got a spell list buff due to them getting the primal spell list minus evocation spells.
Also, it isn't wrong to compare other multiclass combos to single class cleric if we are looking at overall power rather than specifics. If a single class cleric remains stronger, then that means there is a flaw with the balancing. However, if you want another comparison, lets compare it to bard as ranger and rogue are considered expert classes with bard. Even while overall nerfed from its 5e version, Lore Bard will end up with 6 skill proficiencies from class due to the extra 3 that Lore bard grants it, all while having Jack of All Trades to give non proficient skills a boost and having fullcaster access. So even if bard does not do the same level of damage, it has still has spells like Hypnotic Pattern. Even earlier on, there are spells like sleep to ensure bard has combat relevancy. Not to mention, being a fullcaster gives bard an insane level of versatility. The damage issue for bard also solves itself at higher tiers when they finally gain access to magical secrets, letting them poach the damage spells that they were lacking or they could use it to gain even more utility or crowd control. I don'5 see the rogue 1/ranger x combo being on par.
I am overall fine with subclasses being moved to 3rd level. However, if one of the reasons why is to make the current prominent multiclass combos less prominent, it is only going to make certain ones even more prominent.
We haven't seen fighter yet. Cleric didnt used to give armor if you didn't take it at 1. I am fully aware about what you meant about spell progression. I mentioned it in my post in addition to the spell slot progression. Because when talking about trade-offs both are relevant.
Cleric single class power is relevant to 2 things.
1. Cleric multiclass.
2. Single class of any other class.
That is it. If your argument is Cleric needs to be brought down to the power level of other classes say that. If you think other classes need to be brought up to cleric say that, but it is not relevant to a multiclass of another class combination. Because if you are doing choosing those other classes you are clearly getting something from them that cleric isn't giving you.
For those multiclasses what is relevant is what could you have done if you stayed a single class.
As far as "better in the 'long run' for starting with the dip". No. Level 1-5 is half of the campaign with level 4 and 5 being the longest part of that journey. 2 health is not big difference, nor is trading one minor save for another. It is not worth being weaker for half the campaign. So if you are an optimizer and you are optimizing for a standard 1 to 10 campaign with the classes we have seen so far. No it is not better to start your off class before your main class, and I PREFER it that way. I want people to feel punished for taking their dip before their main class and rewarded for waiting.
As far as the rogue/ranger thing. The skilled feat exists. There is still a limit to the number of skills that are going to be useful to the skill monkey based on Ability scores and the only 6 expertise. If you are going more ranger than rogue 1 skill isn't worth being worse for 1/4th the campaign. If you are going more rogue than ranger then you aren't delaying anything.
Edit: human starts with 1 skill. + can start with the skilled feat+ as part of the background can take the skilled feat AGAIN for an additional 7 skills. 1 extra skill is not going to make a big difference here.
Edit 2: for DnD, much like life, the journey is what matters not the destination.
I personally just don't care if a multiclass character is as strong as a single class one. They trade raw strength for versatility. It doesn't matter if a Wizard/Cleric doesn't get fireball at level 5. They can cast both arcane and divine spells, have better armor and HP, etc. That's a big benefit. It will never show up in a DPR calculation, but it has a massive impact on the character and the game.
To me, multiclassing should be about getting the right combination of abilities to make the character concept you want, or for roleplaying purposes during the game. It shouldn't feel incredibly punishing to do so, but you also shouldn't expect to get all the benefits of the single class on top of all the extra abilities of the multiclass. Some more powerful things will get delayed. That's a feature, not a bug, to me.
Single class characters should feel stronger and more stable in their raw power, because they are more specialized. They give up on all those extra proficiencies, or expanded spell lists, or cool invocations, etc. They do one thing, and they do it well.
I just want all single classes to feel roughly equal to each other at the same levels. Does the 1st level Cleric feel about as useful as the 1st level Bard? Does the 5th level Ranger feel about equal to the 5th level Rogue? If they do, then that's awesome. And every multiclass combination will work as a result. Because whether you dip into Warlock or dip into Paladin, your getting about the same amount of good stuff for every level spent.
Which is why I'm 100% for standardizing subclass progression. I don't care if everyone gets it at level 3, or level 1, or level 5, as long as it's the same all around. It just so happens that most Classes already got it at level 3. So moving the few outliers to 3 was the easiest move, and most backwards compatible. It was a good choice.
All they have to do now is balance out the abilities each class gets at any given level. All level 1 features should be equally nice. All subclass features should be equally good or bad. Subclasses can all be ribbon features and it won't bother me. As long as it's the same for everyone.
This is why Rogue feels bad and Channel Divinity is too good. A few languages don't compare with healing/damage/turn undead that scales off proficiency bonus in multiple ways. A Rogue has to keep leveling in rogue to increase their sneak attack damage. That should be true of everyone or no one. Limit Channel Divinity or let sneak attack damage scale on proficiency. Or give Rogues something else that scales better. Whatever way they want to go, if they make them equal, it's a better game to me.
This is why Rogue feels bad and Channel Divinity is too good. A few languages don't compare with healing/damage/turn undead that scales off proficiency bonus in multiple ways. A Rogue has to keep leveling in rogue to increase their sneak attack damage. That should be true of everyone or no one. Limit Channel Divinity or let sneak attack damage scale on proficiency. Or give Rogues something else that scales better. Whatever way they want to go, if they make them equal, it's a better game to me.
That's exactly what I wrote in the survey. 1-level dip in cleric and 1-level dip in rogue do not measure up against each other at all. they have to settle on whether such features scale with class level or with proficiency bonus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think it will too. This actually just happened the other day when a character in a oneshot I was play testing did just that.
If I haven’t offended you, don’t worry. I’m sure I’ll get to you eventually.
Remind me why it can’t be the other way around? With packs being the sub class and patron being a holy order like a choice you pick at level one? There are four different packs and each class is getting four subclasses. Not to mention this means pack of the blade can work out of the gate instead of needing hexblade to fix it.
Because a patron is a billion times more essential to a Warlock's identity than a Pact. Getting a single different feature for making a pact with a fiend instead of a fey would simply be ridiculous
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So would getting no different features for three levels for making a pact with a fiend instead of a fey. What's you point?
Better answer. Because there are only so many types of pacts they can do. In the entire time we have thought of and tested maybe 5 total. While there are dozens upon dozens of powerful beings that could be a patron. It comes down to the small choice with a few options, holy order, vs the big choice with a highly numerous number of options like domain. In this case pact vs patron. There are a few pact types, there are an endless number of patrons.
This is a foundation for the future, what ever makes it easier for more stuff in the future is what is going to happen.
Right. The patron is the subclass with all the options. Both realized and potential. I suppose it is possible they could just throw it all out and start over, but that makes backwards compatibility and forwards expansion much harder. The subclasses are moving and people like more patrons. It's most likely the patron remains the subclass and that becomes level 3. But I guess we'll have to see.
BS on that BS. I actually never said high levels. A cleric can outdo in terms of damage with Spirit Guardians rather easily. Bless alone will help the party more in damage due to the increased in accuracy. Also, not all have the spells have been adjusted and we shouldn't just assume that they will be. We haven't seen any of those martial overhauls, so we cannot give feedback with those overhauls in mind. Also, even in a single target situation, a Cleric's spells will allow them more influence in the party DPR than rogue or ranger. Bless is still incredibly valid as you are buffing the party, Guiding Bolt deals 4d6 and grants the next attack advantage, even Spirit Guardians is still effective as you can cast other spells during its duration. I am comparing DPR to DPR.
I am not cherry picking. I am just acknowledging that there are some that are worse sure, but when looking at balance, you need to look at the maximum potential. Even then, there are a lot of subclass features that can find much more use than the channel divinity feature. You generally want to avoid using your action to heal in combat as healing generally does not keep up with damage. That's why Healing Word is rated so highly, being a bonus action healing spell that can pick someone up at 0 while maintaining your own action.
The best options are looked as "valid" in this perspective because we are looking at balance. People complained about things like Hexadins and Sorcadins due to how prominent they are. This subclass to 3rd level isn't likely to change how prominent those combos are. For example, Sorcadin often sees Paladin 6/Sorcerer X. We are going to have those same complaints, only worse because there are going to be even fewer prominent combos.
If that definition of viable was used, we wouldn't have so many complaints about the few prominent combos. Because none of those combos perform so above the curve that they are really an issue, but we still got those complaints. The maximum power level when looking at balance matters a lot.
The truth of the matter is that certain classes are noted to be worse; rogue for example lost the ability to sneak attack on reaction attacks or by holding their action. Lore Bard lost their extra magical secrets while having the first standard magical secrets moved from 10 to 11, so it is unlikely that most players will ever see it now. Cleric dips lost access to subclasses and are now competing with the new lightly armored feat (spell progression is quite important). Even if we compare Rogue 1/Ranger X to Ranger X, is that dip in rogue worth delaying feats and extra attack? The power boost at 5th level is huge.
The issue right now is that by just moving subclasses to 3, there are going to be even less prominent combos. Talk will be even more focused on those combos because it is much harder to try other combos. If we make it easier for multiclass characters to gain access to feats and features like extra attack, we bring up a bunch of lesser used combos. Spell Progression delay likely has to be kept, but on the martial end, you can find people mixing martial classes like Barbarian and Fighter more easily.
It is so incredibly easy to make a multiclass combo that ends up with you becoming overshadowed by others. I've seen it happen plenty of times and it is one of the huge flaws with the current multiclass systems. I focus on the maximum potential, because that maximum potential should not overshadow the average. That's why looking at the optimized setups is important when looking at balance.
I love how all of this still makes the faulty assumption that you take your multiclass before your main class without taking into consideration one dnd changes. Optimization is doing what is optimal within the system you are given, not doing what you used to do amd expecting the same results when the system changed.
I already compared the current classes to their multi-class variants.
You don't need to start cleric to get the armor proficiency anymore. If you take it at 6 it still provides the armor proficiency. If you go 5 ranger then 1 rogue you get expertise 3 levels early and gain slme extra damage from sneak attack no delay of extra attack. You delay your subclass features, roving, an ASI, A THIRD rank of expertise and your third level spell by ONE level. For every level after 5 the ranger X/ rogue 1 is going to be just as strong if not stronger than pure ranger. Same with multiclassing into cleric. It won't delay spell levels at all. In fact ranger X/cleric 1 will get 3rd level slots a level early. Yes they will delay their 3rd level spell preps one level, at the very end of campaign. While benefiting for extra out of combat healing and more in combat emergency healing and TURN UNDEAD for more than 1/3 of the campaign, as my experience is most of the game time is spent between 5 and 8. Not only does this compete with pure ranger, but depending on the campaign it could massively out preform pure ranger.
That is multi-class. That is optimization. Making decisions about how to progress your ranger and comparing it to other ways of progressing your ranger. Not comparing your long bow shooting ranger to the heavy armor melee paladin and saying "well I cant do the same stuff the pally does". That is apples and oranges.
You want to compare a single class cleric to a multiclass option than compare it to a cleric X/ 1 of another class. Not to a completely unrelated multiclass.
Guidance, cantrip, reaction, 10 foot range, 1d4 added to failed skill check.
Resistance, cantrip, reaction, 10 foot range, 1d4 added to failed saving throw.
True Strike, cantrip, reaction, 10 foot range, 1d4 added to failed "to hit" roll.
Blade Ward, cantrip, reaction, 10 foot range, 1d4 added to AC against "to hit" roll.
Expending a reaction to gain a minor advantage in a particular situation is sufficient to make the various cantrips useful, but not overpowering.
What?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yep. And add the last two to divine spell list, they really fit clerics.
I understand what he was saying regarding the reaction spells. I don't understand why he said it.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I was responding to something I read several pages ago, but unfortunately it gets tacked to the end of the thread rather than where I was reading.
I should have quoted for clarity.
Since I like "skill monkey" characters I don't mind delaying progression by one level to take Level 1 Rogue. The second level for Cunning Action is something that can be left for later levels, if taken at all.
Rogue 1/Barbarian X (inspired by Chetney in Critical Role Season 3, but actually using a moderately competent class) gives a character that can be sneaky (expertise in stealth and perception) while still able to break heads. Level 1 feat: Tough.
Rogue 1/Warlock X gives a character who can be extremely persuasive (expertise in Persuasion and Deception) while not giving up too much in casting power (since Eldritch Blast is a cantrip you're still getting the extra beams at level 5). Level 1 feat: Skilled or Magic Initiate.
Rogue 1/Ranger X doubles up on expertise over two levels, and in my opinion that would be the uber Rogue option. You start with four proficiencies and two expertise from Rogue, then add another proficiency and two expertise for Ranger. Add two from your background, and then double up on the Skilled Feat by taking Human, plus their extra skill proficiency, and you have fourteen skill proficiencies, four with expertise, at level 2. I'd take a second level of Rogue for Cunning Action after getting extra attack from Ranger.
I have a suspicion that Expertise might get the treatment of Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, and Unarmored Defense. It might end up not stacking. Though expertise in skills isn't such a game-breaking deal...
I'm late to the party but wanted to add my thoughts and opinions. Read some of the thread, but after it got bogged down early on should warlocks be INT or CHA etc, I skipped most everything else so I'm sure most of this has been mentioned.
Clerics:
From the Cleric description:
Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods’ will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies.
Once you’ve chosen a deity, consider your cleric’s relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes? How do the temple priests of your faith regard you: as a champion or a troublemaker? What are your ultimate goals? Does your deity have a special task in mind for you? Or are you striving to prove yourself worthy of a great quest?
I don't see a problem with the subclass at 3rd level. It can fit narratively quite easily. You pick a deity at level 1, the additional abilities of the domain come on at level 3. Some of these "choices" are player choices, not character choices. The cleric doesn't know it's 3rd level and doesn't all of a sudden decide that "Hey, I like nature, I will be a nature cleric" it is a gift from their deity and manifests itself in the cleric. (see the spoiler above).
Plus there will be only 4 domains in the PHB and they may change how deities have power over domains and may be expanded to cover more than just one or two. So you can believe in the god JoeBlow at level 1 and at 3rd level become a Nature Cleric bestowed upon you by your deity, while Frank who follows JoeBlow becomes a Knowledge cleric, and Suzie who also follows JoeBlow becomes a War cleric.
Sorcerer:
Magic is a part of every sorcerer, suffusing body, mind, and spirit with a latent power that waits to be tapped.
The appearance of sorcerous powers is wildly unpredictable. Some draconic bloodlines produce exactly one sorcerer in every generation, but in other lines of descent every individual is a sorcerer. Most of the time, the talents of sorcery appear as apparent flukes. Some sorcerers can’t name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby’s birth, or a taste of the water from a mysterious spring might spark the gift of sorcery. So too might the gift of a deity of magic, exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner Planes or the maddening chaos of Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality.
The innate magic of the sorcerer becomes apparent at level 1. They can start casting spells, and as was mentioned earlier they will probably get metamagic earlier as well as Sorcery points. It isn't until level 3 that the origin of their power starts to manifest (makes me think of the first Sam Rami Spiderman movie. Peter didn't immediately realize it was the spider bite that allowed him to see without his glasses or gave him six pack abs. That was figured out later). There will be 4 Sorcerous Origins in the PHB, but we don't know which ones outside of the 2014 PHB ones. I don't believe there is any narrative disconnect between choosing the Origin at level 3 compared to level 1.
Warlock:
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.
Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. This thirst drives warlocks into their pacts and shapes their later careers as well.
Stories of warlocks binding themselves to fiends are widely known. But many warlocks serve patrons that are not fiendish. Sometimes a traveler in the wilds comes to a strangely beautiful tower, meets its fey lord or lady, and stumbles into a pact without being fully aware of it. And sometimes, while poring over tomes of forbidden lore, a brilliant but crazed student’s mind is opened to realities beyond the material world and to the alien beings that dwell in the outer void.
I think Warlock is the hardest with the choice at 3rd level. But since this is a new edition, I can see some fairly big changes, or rearranging coming. Yes, it has to be backwards compatible, but it all depends on how you define that term, which I won't get into here to stay on topic.
I can see Warlocks being treated more like Clerics. You choose your patron at level 1, just like a cleric picks their deity, but the features of that pact that come on at level 3 will be handled differently. It may be a bit more modular, and not necessarily tied to the patron, so you can pick a Pact (out of the 4 that will be in the 2024 PHB) no matter who your patron is. And there will be Invocations that have prerequisites for the different patrons that can help flesh out the abilities that currently the patron provides, like Hurl through Hell could be a Fiendish Invocation instead of a pact feature.
So your spellcasting and Invocations come from your patron starting at level 1, but pacts may be handled more like domains, and you can choose a pact from that patron. I mean you are making a deal with this patron so what you might want from your Fiendish pact may not be what I want from my Fiendish pact. You negotiate your deal, and I will negotiate mine, kind of thing. (Edit: Think of the 2014 Warlock pacts as early McDonalds. They offered burgers and that's it. The Fiend offered Dark One's Blessing, Dark One's Own Luck, Fiendish Resilience, and Hurl Through Hell, and that's it. But 2024 Warlock Pacts are more like modern McDonalds where you can get burgers, but you can also get chicken sandwiches, and Salads, and all-day Breakfast. Your Fiend patron may offer more options in pacts and supplement them with specific invocations)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Taking the dip before the main class still ends up being more optimal than taking it later in the long run. It isn't a faulty assumption. With Cleric 1/Wizard X as an example: Taking cleric at 1 gives you more HP and better starting gear. Also, charisma saving throws tend to be a tad more relevant than intelligence saving throw. Turn Undead is also situational.
Also, when I mentioned proficiencies, I was not looking at Cleric specifically. Fighters in 5E for example, only give heavy armor if they are taken at first level. Same with paladin.
Also, spell slot progression is not the important part and not what I was referring to when I meant spell progression. I never referred to spell progression as being based on spell slots. Being able to cast spells on time, e.g. third level spells at 5th level is massive. It is a huge downside having to wait that extra level.
If you are dipping into rogue for the extra expertise, then you are likely aiming for a skill monkey set up. In that situation, dipping into rogue at first level actually gives you another skill proficiency. Both rogue and ranger give 1 skill proficiency when multiclassed into. Rogue however starts with 4 skills while ranger starts with 3. So by starting as rogue, you end up with 5 skill proficiencies from the class versus 4 from starting as ranger.
Also, even if you don't delay extra attack, you are still delaying your 2nd feat and spell progression. Rangers got a spell list buff due to them getting the primal spell list minus evocation spells.
Also, it isn't wrong to compare other multiclass combos to single class cleric if we are looking at overall power rather than specifics. If a single class cleric remains stronger, then that means there is a flaw with the balancing. However, if you want another comparison, lets compare it to bard as ranger and rogue are considered expert classes with bard. Even while overall nerfed from its 5e version, Lore Bard will end up with 6 skill proficiencies from class due to the extra 3 that Lore bard grants it, all while having Jack of All Trades to give non proficient skills a boost and having fullcaster access. So even if bard does not do the same level of damage, it has still has spells like Hypnotic Pattern. Even earlier on, there are spells like sleep to ensure bard has combat relevancy. Not to mention, being a fullcaster gives bard an insane level of versatility. The damage issue for bard also solves itself at higher tiers when they finally gain access to magical secrets, letting them poach the damage spells that they were lacking or they could use it to gain even more utility or crowd control. I don'5 see the rogue 1/ranger x combo being on par.
I am overall fine with subclasses being moved to 3rd level. However, if one of the reasons why is to make the current prominent multiclass combos less prominent, it is only going to make certain ones even more prominent.
We haven't seen fighter yet. Cleric didnt used to give armor if you didn't take it at 1. I am fully aware about what you meant about spell progression. I mentioned it in my post in addition to the spell slot progression. Because when talking about trade-offs both are relevant.
Cleric single class power is relevant to 2 things.
1. Cleric multiclass.
2. Single class of any other class.
That is it. If your argument is Cleric needs to be brought down to the power level of other classes say that. If you think other classes need to be brought up to cleric say that, but it is not relevant to a multiclass of another class combination. Because if you are doing choosing those other classes you are clearly getting something from them that cleric isn't giving you.
For those multiclasses what is relevant is what could you have done if you stayed a single class.
As far as "better in the 'long run' for starting with the dip". No. Level 1-5 is half of the campaign with level 4 and 5 being the longest part of that journey. 2 health is not big difference, nor is trading one minor save for another. It is not worth being weaker for half the campaign. So if you are an optimizer and you are optimizing for a standard 1 to 10 campaign with the classes we have seen so far. No it is not better to start your off class before your main class, and I PREFER it that way. I want people to feel punished for taking their dip before their main class and rewarded for waiting.
As far as the rogue/ranger thing. The skilled feat exists. There is still a limit to the number of skills that are going to be useful to the skill monkey based on Ability scores and the only 6 expertise. If you are going more ranger than rogue 1 skill isn't worth being worse for 1/4th the campaign. If you are going more rogue than ranger then you aren't delaying anything.
Edit: human starts with 1 skill. + can start with the skilled feat+ as part of the background can take the skilled feat AGAIN for an additional 7 skills. 1 extra skill is not going to make a big difference here.
Edit 2: for DnD, much like life, the journey is what matters not the destination.
I personally just don't care if a multiclass character is as strong as a single class one. They trade raw strength for versatility. It doesn't matter if a Wizard/Cleric doesn't get fireball at level 5. They can cast both arcane and divine spells, have better armor and HP, etc. That's a big benefit. It will never show up in a DPR calculation, but it has a massive impact on the character and the game.
To me, multiclassing should be about getting the right combination of abilities to make the character concept you want, or for roleplaying purposes during the game. It shouldn't feel incredibly punishing to do so, but you also shouldn't expect to get all the benefits of the single class on top of all the extra abilities of the multiclass. Some more powerful things will get delayed. That's a feature, not a bug, to me.
Single class characters should feel stronger and more stable in their raw power, because they are more specialized. They give up on all those extra proficiencies, or expanded spell lists, or cool invocations, etc. They do one thing, and they do it well.
I just want all single classes to feel roughly equal to each other at the same levels. Does the 1st level Cleric feel about as useful as the 1st level Bard? Does the 5th level Ranger feel about equal to the 5th level Rogue? If they do, then that's awesome. And every multiclass combination will work as a result. Because whether you dip into Warlock or dip into Paladin, your getting about the same amount of good stuff for every level spent.
Which is why I'm 100% for standardizing subclass progression. I don't care if everyone gets it at level 3, or level 1, or level 5, as long as it's the same all around. It just so happens that most Classes already got it at level 3. So moving the few outliers to 3 was the easiest move, and most backwards compatible. It was a good choice.
All they have to do now is balance out the abilities each class gets at any given level. All level 1 features should be equally nice. All subclass features should be equally good or bad. Subclasses can all be ribbon features and it won't bother me. As long as it's the same for everyone.
This is why Rogue feels bad and Channel Divinity is too good. A few languages don't compare with healing/damage/turn undead that scales off proficiency bonus in multiple ways. A Rogue has to keep leveling in rogue to increase their sneak attack damage. That should be true of everyone or no one. Limit Channel Divinity or let sneak attack damage scale on proficiency. Or give Rogues something else that scales better. Whatever way they want to go, if they make them equal, it's a better game to me.
That's exactly what I wrote in the survey. 1-level dip in cleric and 1-level dip in rogue do not measure up against each other at all. they have to settle on whether such features scale with class level or with proficiency bonus.