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.
I wrote similar that PB/LR is a fine mechanic but not for low level class features. It actuall encourages dipping instead of what they were going after by making subclasses at 3rd level.
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
5E cleric gives Light, Medium Armor, and Shields if taken at a later level. I haven't seen any difference in multiclass proficiencies and they aren't likely to change.
Also, taking the skilled feat means not taking other feats, which can be a large trade off. For example, Magic Initiate can be used to gain access to spells like Shield or Bless, both of which are amazing spells to have, especially when you can cast them with your spell slots now. Taking skilled for your first feat has even bigger trade offs, considering how 4th level feats are half feats, meaning you can miss getting a stat to 18 and miss out on some potent feats. Warcaster for example would go great with Magic Initiate.
Also, depending on what your party needs, that extra bit of prociency can go a long way, and some times you need it a bit earlier.
2 extra HP early on can also save you with how swingy first level can be. I've personally found Tier 1 to be the deadliest out of the four tiers of play.
Also, I disagree with the idea that taking the dip early should result in a punishing the player. You shouldn't be rewarded nor punished for when you take your dip. That's what caused certain combos to be more prominent to begin with, because it was worth that punishment.
Another thing to note is that if the Rogue 1 dip is so good, why wasn't it used more in 5E. The dip is near identical to 5E's rogue dip, only One D&D's rogue has a worse sneak attack. Even pre-Xanathar, before Hexblade dips, you didn't really hear much about it.
Cleric Single Class power is relevant to any multiclass when we are looking at overall balance. Not just in the two situations you pointed out. A multiclass combo should be as welcome of an addition to a party that already has its bases covered as a straight bard or cleric at any level, but in 5E and right now in 1D&D, the straight fullcaster is more preferred, especially at 5th level.
Multiclass is already tricky for most people to begin with and I've seen so many people make mistakes with it that just made their character mechanically unfun to play. Easing up on things like Feats or the 5th level Extra attack can go a long way in making multiclass more accessible, especially when people want to go beyond dips.
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
5E cleric gives Light, Medium Armor, and Shields if taken at a later level. I haven't seen any difference in multiclass proficiencies and they aren't likely to change.
Also, taking the skilled feat means not taking other feats, which can be a large trade off. For example, Magic Initiate can be used to gain access to spells like Shield or Bless, both of which are amazing spells to have, especially when you can cast them with your spell slots now. Taking skilled for your first feat has even bigger trade offs, considering how 4th level feats are half feats, meaning you can miss getting a stat to 18 and miss out on some potent feats. Warcaster for example would go great with Magic Initiate.
Also, depending on what your party needs, that extra bit of prociency can go a long way, and some times you need it a bit earlier.
2 extra HP early on can also save you with how swingy first level can be. I've personally found Tier 1 to be the deadliest out of the four tiers of play.
Also, I disagree with the idea that taking the dip early should result in a punishing the player. You shouldn't be rewarded nor punished for when you take your dip. That's what caused certain combos to be more prominent to begin with, because it was worth that punishment.
Another thing to note is that if the Rogue 1 dip is so good, why wasn't it used more in 5E. The dip is near identical to 5E's rogue dip, only One D&D's rogue has a worse sneak attack. Even pre-Xanathar, before Hexblade dips, you didn't really hear much about it.
Cleric Single Class power is relevant to any multiclass when we are looking at overall balance. Not just in the two situations you pointed out. A multiclass combo should be as welcome of an addition to a party that already has its bases covered as a straight bard or cleric at any level, but in 5E and right now in 1D&D, the straight fullcaster is more preferred, especially at 5th level.
Multiclass is already tricky for most people to begin with and I've seen so many people make mistakes with it that just made their character mechanically unfun to play. Easing up on things like Feats or the 5th level Extra attack can go a long way in making multiclass more accessible, especially when people want to go beyond dips.
So what I just read is you think spell casters need a heavy nerf. To make non-casters and non-caster multi-classes more compelling. That is the only useful bit I got out of this. I see no reason why you should take your dip before you main class from a story perspective. It doesn't make sense from a character growth part. If it is being done it is not being done for story reasons, so we will just have to disagree. I want people who try to take multi-classing before getting the feel for their main class to be punished in those mid levels, and I am happy with it as is.
Cleric is a fine 1 level dip, Ranger is a fine 1 level dip. Bard is meh, and Rogue is just a bad class in general. Rogue being bad has nothing to do with multi-classing or subclasses at level 3. Everyone who has actually play tested it with the idea of balance in mind has even said they think cleric is TOO strong now. I disagree I think it is fine. But this is an agree to disagree thing. We want different things. I can optimize no matter what the system makes. For me that is what optimizing is about. Limitations are a good thing.
I really have to disagree with rogue being a bad class. Sure, put them on melee combat they’re not going to do very great, but after getting the Cunbing Action, and if they take expertise in stealth, they can be granted advantage on most attacks, and providing that the attack hits-which it should if the dice gods don’t have something against that particular rogue- at 20th level, a rogue will deal 6 damage at the very minimum (only if they roll ones and all the dice and have a negative 5 modifier) with the maximum being 75 damage and the average being 45-50 in a single attack. Plus, they can be great for other things as well. Traps, sneaking, even casting with the Arcane Trickster subclass. Not to mention the Uncanny Dodge, which straight up halves damage from any one visible attack per round (not as great as Rage, I know, but they’re not intended to be tanks and it says damage from any visible attack, not limited to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing )
So all in all, I wouldn’t say it’s bad. It’s not my favorite (fighter is) but it doesn’t suck, to my way of thinking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I haven’t offended you, don’t worry. I’m sure I’ll get to you eventually.
I really have to disagree with rogue being a bad class. Sure, put them on melee combat they’re not going to do very great, but after getting the Cunbing Action, and if they take expertise in stealth, they can be granted advantage on most attacks, and providing that the attack hits-which it should if the dice gods don’t have something against that particular rogue- at 20th level, a rogue will deal 6 damage at the very minimum (only if they roll ones and all the dice and have a negative 5 modifier) with the maximum being 75 damage and the average being 45-50 in a single attack. Plus, they can be great for other things as well. Traps, sneaking, even casting with the Arcane Trickster subclass. Not to mention the Uncanny Dodge, which straight up halves damage from any one visible attack per round (not as great as Rage, I know, but they’re not intended to be tanks and it says damage from any visible attack, not limited to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing )
So all in all, I wouldn’t say it’s bad. It’s not my favorite (fighter is) but it doesn’t suck, to my way of thinking.
The problem is usually the game doesn't go to 20 for one and for 2 most of the skill stuff can be done by the ranger or the bard and they get a lot more spell casting in addition. Uncanny dodge is great for making up the difference in survival between the ranger and rogue, but that costs the rogue's reaction, while more armor and health doesn't cost the ranger anything. Of course, we aren't sure how arcane trickster will look when all is said and done, but it definitely was the best PHB subclass. It may still be going forward, but that doesn't mean the base rogue class is great.
Most classes can deal more than Rogue for most of the campaign.
I think its less that the rogue is a "bad" class - bad is a rather subjective word that comes with a lot of loaded connotations that will depend on a host of factors. But I think its a fair statement to say that rogue is on the lower end of the bell curve compared to the power and abilities two other existing Expert classes, and even that depends on how much value you give a skill proficiency versus spellcasting.
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
5E cleric gives Light, Medium Armor, and Shields if taken at a later level. I haven't seen any difference in multiclass proficiencies and they aren't likely to change.
Also, taking the skilled feat means not taking other feats, which can be a large trade off. For example, Magic Initiate can be used to gain access to spells like Shield or Bless, both of which are amazing spells to have, especially when you can cast them with your spell slots now. Taking skilled for your first feat has even bigger trade offs, considering how 4th level feats are half feats, meaning you can miss getting a stat to 18 and miss out on some potent feats. Warcaster for example would go great with Magic Initiate.
Also, depending on what your party needs, that extra bit of prociency can go a long way, and some times you need it a bit earlier.
2 extra HP early on can also save you with how swingy first level can be. I've personally found Tier 1 to be the deadliest out of the four tiers of play.
Also, I disagree with the idea that taking the dip early should result in a punishing the player. You shouldn't be rewarded nor punished for when you take your dip. That's what caused certain combos to be more prominent to begin with, because it was worth that punishment.
Another thing to note is that if the Rogue 1 dip is so good, why wasn't it used more in 5E. The dip is near identical to 5E's rogue dip, only One D&D's rogue has a worse sneak attack. Even pre-Xanathar, before Hexblade dips, you didn't really hear much about it.
Cleric Single Class power is relevant to any multiclass when we are looking at overall balance. Not just in the two situations you pointed out. A multiclass combo should be as welcome of an addition to a party that already has its bases covered as a straight bard or cleric at any level, but in 5E and right now in 1D&D, the straight fullcaster is more preferred, especially at 5th level.
Multiclass is already tricky for most people to begin with and I've seen so many people make mistakes with it that just made their character mechanically unfun to play. Easing up on things like Feats or the 5th level Extra attack can go a long way in making multiclass more accessible, especially when people want to go beyond dips.
So what I just read is you think spell casters need a heavy nerf. To make non-casters and non-caster multi-classes more compelling. That is the only useful bit I got out of this. I see no reason why you should take your dip before you main class from a story perspective. It doesn't make sense from a character growth part. If it is being done it is not being done for story reasons, so we will just have to disagree. I want people who try to take multi-classing before getting the feel for their main class to be punished in those mid levels, and I am happy with it as is.
Cleric is a fine 1 level dip, Ranger is a fine 1 level dip. Bard is meh, and Rogue is just a bad class in general. Rogue being bad has nothing to do with multi-classing or subclasses at level 3. Everyone who has actually play tested it with the idea of balance in mind has even said they think cleric is TOO strong now. I disagree I think it is fine. But this is an agree to disagree thing. We want different things. I can optimize no matter what the system makes. For me that is what optimizing is about. Limitations are a good thing.
Opposite, other classes need to be buffed to fullcaster standard and multiclassing needs to be easier to do. There is a reason why I also say martials need to be compensated for GWM and SS nerfs. The damage they would have gotten from those feats need to added back in some shape or form whether through fighting styles or some other shared collective feature. Better to buff to standard than to nerf something down. Casters feel good to play, we should buffing martials so they are the same.
Also, I do not get how people find the cleric dip to be too strong when no one complained about it before, even pre-Hexblade dips. 5E Cleric dips are stronger than 1DnD dips but no one complained about it before; it offered the same proficiencies and while it did not offer channel divinity, it gave subclass features and spells. It was possible to gain heavy armor and martial weapon access through a cleric dip, or gain access to additional skill proficiencies; even expertise for knowledge skills was there for the taking (which synergized amazingly with Wizard for scribing spells). Also, remember how strong 5e Guidance was. So it seems strange that people are complaining about the cleric dip now.
I think its less that the rogue is a "bad" class - bad is a rather subjective word that comes with a lot of loaded connotations that will depend on a host of factors. But I think its a fair statement to say that rogue is on the lower end of the bell curve compared to the power and abilities two other existing Expert classes, and even that depends on how much value you give a skill proficiency versus spellcasting.
Lore Bard ends up with 6 Skill proficiencies as you gain another 3 when you take the subclass. So at third level, bars can have more skilk proficiencies than rogue on top of being a fullcaster. So it really does not depend if you weigh skill proficiencies more.
A lot of the complaints on rogue was how it was nerfed. Sneak attack requiring your action prevents synergy with other team mates, namely with abilities that gave party members a reactionary attack or having someone cast Haste on the Rogue. There was nothing wrong with the rogue sneak attacking twice a round; it wasn't outrageous damage when you compared it to what other classes could output and generally doing it required help from other party members, meaning it required teamwork. They should be promoting those types of combat interactions, not removing them. Plus it costed the rogue their reaction, so no uncanny dodge for that round or no shield if they were an arcane trickster.
Lore Bard ends up with 6 Skill proficiencies as you gain another 3 when you take the subclass. So at third level, bars can have more skilk proficiencies than rogue on top of being a fullcaster. So it really does not depend if you weigh skill proficiencies more.
A lot of the complaints on rogue was how it was nerfed. Sneak attack requiring your action prevents synergy with other team mates, namely with abilities that gave party members a reactionary attack or having someone cast Haste on the Rogue. There was nothing wrong with the rogue sneak attacking twice a round; it wasn't outrageous damage when you compared it to what other classes could output and generally doing it required help from other party members, meaning it required teamwork. They should be promoting those types of combat interactions, not removing them. Plus it costed the rogue their reaction, so no uncanny dodge for that round or no shield if they were an arcane trickster.
Optimized Build =/= Entirety of Class
Until you can agree on that point, there's nothing to discuss with you, Mana. Sorry, but I'm done. There's just no way for me to have a meaningful discourse argue with someone who fundamentally sees the game so wildly different.
Also, I do not get how people find the cleric dip to be too strong when no one complained about it before, even pre-Hexblade dips. 5E Cleric dips are stronger than 1DnD dips but no one complained about it before; it offered the same proficiencies and while it did not offer channel divinity, it gave subclass features and spells. It was possible to gain heavy armor and martial weapon access through a cleric dip, or gain access to additional skill proficiencies; even expertise for knowledge skills was there for the taking (which synergized amazingly with Wizard for scribing spells). Also, remember how strong 5e Guidance was. So it seems strange that people are complaining about the cleric dip now.
How many people did you ask in terms of their opinions on dips like Cleric, Artificer, Hexblade, etc?
Especially after Tasha's introduced even stronger Cleric dips like Peace Cleric.
Right. There are DMs on this forum that ban Peace and Twilight clerics from their games.
But more importantly, people aren't saying the 1DnD cleric is too powerful. We're saying that the new Channel Divinity specifically could be too strong because of the way it scales independent of your cleric level. Overall the Cleric is much better balanced in 1DnD, the way it spreads out some of those 1st level subclass features from 5e across levels 1-3 now.
For me, my concern comes from comparing it directly to the other 1DnD classes they have shown us. I'm not looking at 5e classes. They won't matter in the future. I'm looking at the Bard, the Ranger, the Rogue, and the Cleric in 1DnD. They just aren't all equal at 1st level. That's the problem.
Certainly the rogue isn't equal at level 1, but why not bard or ranger? Hunters mark scales with more attacks, and being non-Concentration is the gift that keeps on giving forever. Bardic Inspiration uses are on a proficiency bonus rate, and adding 1d6 to a d20 roll is always useful.
BI does increase in die size over bard levels. But then, I'd also say that BI suffers from being worse than Guidance/Resilience at level 1. Higher die size but limited number of uses. If not for that, however, it'd be a great ability that you could grab with a level 1 dip that's always good.
Certainly the rogue isn't equal at level 1, but why not bard or ranger? Hunters mark scales with more attacks, and being non-Concentration is the gift that keeps on giving forever. Bardic Inspiration uses are on a proficiency bonus rate, and adding 1d6 to a d20 roll is always useful.
BI does increase in die size over bard levels. But then, I'd also say that BI suffers from being worse than Guidance/Resilience at level 1. Higher die size but limited number of uses. If not for that, however, it'd be a great ability that you could grab with a level 1 dip that's always good.
Bardic Inspiration is half based on your Bard level. The uses go up but the dice don't. With a 1 level dip in Bard, you have two uses of a 1d6 heal per day (or bonus to a roll). At level 17, you still use the 1d6, six times per day. That's a total of 6d6 healing over 6 turns.
Channel Divinity gives you 2d8 healing (or other uses) twice a day at level 1. But the same 1 level dip gets you 6d8 healing at level 17, six times per day. That's a total of 36d8 healing. It's a very big difference from the Bard.
Favored Enemy is, essentially, one extra prepared spell with a nice buff that makes it viable. It does get better if you also have more spell slots. Or extra attacks. But that's further investment somewhere.
Overall the 1st level of these classes just aren't equal. I'd say that Cleric is the best, Ranger and Bard are about right for what I'd expect, and Rogue falls a little short. I would just like to see the Rogue get a small boost, and Channel Divinity get limited in either the dice or uses to bring it in line with the other classes. It's just better balance.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of Bardic Inspiration to heal versus Channel Divinity.
Part of the reason a lot of people have been dismissive of Channel Divinity's healing disrupting balance for multi-classing, especially at high levels, is that its an Action to use it. That makes it pretty lackluster healing mid combat, according to many I've spoken to. You effectively have free healing potions. Very nice, but hardly game changing, at least according to many people I've spoken (typed?) to.
Meanwhile, Bardic Inspiration? Reaction. That changes everything. If Channel Divinity is going to be primarily out of combat healing, then Bardic Inspiration is a purely in combat healing, save your ally from dropping, move. If a monster drops one of your allies to 0, you can use your reaction to heal them up, get them on their feet, all on someone else's turn. Sure, there's some timing issues, where the monster could get more attacks to drop them right back down, but... honestly, I can see some cleric players* that really dedicate to healing wanting to dip bard for that ability because its a very nice tool in the healing arsenal that I don't think we have a spell equivalent for. Plus, BI is raising people from 0 HP, so the size of the die doesn't really matter, tbh, especially at higher levels - its never going to be enough to keep you up if you get smacked again. You drop, you bounce back up, but a strong sneeze knocks you back down again, irregardless of die size.
You're right that these two aren't equal. Personally, I would far and away say that Bardic Inspiration is the stronger of the two, but that's an entirely different argument.
* It should be noted that, in my experience, most people do NOT enjoy playing pure healers. It was also a design philosophy behind Leaders in 4e - being able to heal and do other stuff on your turn instead of having to be a dedicated heal bot - which carried over to 5e's Healing Word spell. Which makes me feel its not just me, but rather a significant portion of the D&D population that don't care for playing dedicated healers. So, even if you consider Channel Divinity dips to be powerful... a really good question we should ask ourselves is this: Is it powerful in a good way that improves the fun at the table? The cleric gets help healing, so they waste less spell slots on it out of combat, which in turn lets them use more both in and out of fights to do other things, which is, if I'm reading things aright, a popular move?
Might exaggerate the caster-martial divide a bit by letting the healer have more slots, but any cleric MC will effectively be a caster too, so that's a hard one...
On the matter of Favored Enemy. Sure, it requires further investment elsewhere, but "conditionally powerful" is something that realistically applies to all classes in one way or another. Channel Divinity healing value is increased or decreased based on the presence and availability of healing items in game. Hunters Mark is conditional on being used by someone with Extra Attack and using Light weapons, but when it goes off, that's effectively a +3d6 bonus action.
I think its important that, when considering these, we need to consider how easy it is to fulfill the conditions for something to be strong. Everyone's going to be taking damage, everyone's going to be rolling to hit or deal damage, so the conditions to satisfy when healing or needing a boost to hitting is easily satisfied. Hunter's Mark value is predicated on player choices only, which actually makes it a bit better than the others, because its always as useful as you make it. That's pretty good. But Channel Divinity? Its Action use means that the condition for it being strong is out of combat healing, which puts it in direct competition with short rests and healing items, something that's in DM control. Thieve's Cant? In theory, you can have games where knowing an extra two languages is a Big Fricking Deal. The chances of that happening, however, is small, which makes the value of TC shrink. DM control, setting dependent, game style dependent...
I don't misunderstand the value of reaction healing. I just don't think it's as important as some others do. I would much rather have what a 1 level dip of Channel Divinity healing gives you over the same for Bardic Inspiration any day. I can use the spell slots I saved to cast Healing Word if I need to. But I can't replace the healing from Channel Divinity with the same spell slots.
You can cast 6 Healing Word spells in a day using level 1 and 2 spell slots, and get better healing than Bardic Inspiration. At any level. It's better at level 1. It's better at level 17.
If I want to match the healing from Channel Divinity at level 1, I can't. A first level Cure Wounds won't do it because the Divinity has a more consistent average by rolling two dice. It's close, but the divinity is slightly better, and if you're lucky on your roll it's a lot better. The higher level I get, the bigger that gap gets. To match one use of Channel Divinity at level 17, I'd have to use a 6th level slot. Which is obviously something no one would probably do. So just from pure math alone, Divinity is better. Because it's replacing better slots. You can replicate Bardic Inspiration with the worst slots you have, but you can't go the other way.
But more importantly, not everyone likes playing Whack-a-Mole healing. A lot of people despise that part of 5e. Many DMs look for ways to house rule around it. My table doesn't play that way. Both myself and my players don't enjoy a game where you do just enough healing to get back on your feet just to fall again in the next stiff breeze. We prefer real healing.
I like playing dedicated healers. It's my favorite role in any game. I like it when players care enough about their characters that they don't want to jump up and fall down all fight from the bare minimum healing. Sometimes it's necessary, yes. Sometimes a fight is just going so badly that you throw a hail Mary. In those cases, it's better to use a 1st level slot to replace Bardic Inspiration than it is to have to use a high level slot to replace Channel Divinity in all of the other situations that exist in the game. Combat is not the only place healing happens. Not even the most common place.
At level 1, Channel Divinity will do more just get people on their feet with 3 HP. It will get them to full HP in most cases. Even at high levels it's enough to survive more than one hit a lot of the time. It's also very useful to have free healing that's actually good outside of combat. It's great to skip a short rest when you can. Or to use one ability to save someone from spending 6 hit dice to heal during a short rest. Hit dice are a very limited resource. Bardic Inspiration can't do that. It's not even as good as one hit dice. If a character takes a lot of damage out of combat, Bardic Inspiration won't help there either. You need real healing.
So yeah, Bardic Inspiration is a decent ability. It's useful in its own way. I don't think it's bad. But it's just not the same or better than Channel Divinity. Except, it seems, for certain optimizer circles that play the game a certain way. And that's totally fine. The optimizers are free to dip Bard over Cleric every time. They're more than welcome to play Whack a Mole combats and find the best builds for it. That's part of the joy of the game. Playing it your own way. But there is also all of the rest of us. And we see a very different thing when we look at these abilities.
Hunters Mark is dependant on a character taking more levels in a class that takes advantage of it to improve after level 1. There is a cost to make it more effective. But you don't have to do anything at all to make a 1 level dip for Channel Divinity better the rest of the campaign. It just happens. That's what I meant about it.
So if an optimizer is never going to care about the healing from Channel Divinity because it takes an action, then it doesn't affect them. (Though there is a popular optimizer YouTube channel that made a whole video about how broken this Channel Divinity is, so I guess there isn't a consensus.) The rest of us think it's pretty strong too. Maybe too strong. And it's worth talking about it.
But maybe you're right. Maybe I should be encouraging OP healing. Maybe people will stop playing Whack a Mole if healers can actually do more than just get people back up at 3 HP. If that's the case, then Bardic Inspiration should get a boost too. Because it's not close to keeping up. And all of the healing spells need to get stronger too. And players might complain about Clerics even more if they get more buffs. We aren't seeing any of that yet. Until then, Channel Divinity looks like a huge outlier.
I think the four classes we've seen for 1DnD are pretty nice. One needs a boost. And one needs some restraint. That to me sounds much better than rewriting everything.
I think channel divinity and bardic inspiration have different jobs, and that is a good thing. BI is for keeping someone up who just went down. CD is for extending the day for the party. BI is for helping skill checks when someone is out of range of guidance (30 foot vs 10 foot range, personally I would love to see BI become 60 feet). CD is for dealing with undead. I don't think either is too strong personally.
Imagine if WotC makes gaining a level of exhaustion upon dropping to 0 a base rule. Dangling around 0 like a damage sponge that can negate big amounts of damage with 1 hp of healing will be much less attractive.
Imagine if WotC makes gaining a level of exhaustion upon dropping to 0 a base rule. Dangling around 0 like a damage sponge that can negate big amounts of damage with 1 hp of healing will be much less attractive.
After a few intense days, that would really screw adventurers up.
I like it.
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)
I don't misunderstand the value of reaction healing. I just don't think it's as important as some others do. I would much rather have what a 1 level dip of Channel Divinity healing gives you over the same for Bardic Inspiration any day. I can use the spell slots I saved to cast Healing Word if I need to. But I can't replace the healing from Channel Divinity with the same spell slots.
...
So yeah, Bardic Inspiration is a decent ability. It's useful in its own way. I don't think it's bad. But it's just not the same or better than Channel Divinity.
Fair enough, its a whole thing that I suspect we'll really need to see heavily playtested over longer periods of time that we have right now to really get a strong feel of both of them, if either of them are truly powerful or more powerful or whatever. I will say that I appreciate the extra healing as a low level cleric without needing spell slots, so I can do something other than heal with them and spam the same cantrip.
I like playing dedicated healers.
Sure, sure. But, I'm just saying that, with all due respect, people who enjoy playing dedicated healers tend to be more rare. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten from others.
So, forget "powerful" for a minute. Lets ask this instead. Is this ability making it less fun for you to play as a healer? Is it making it harder on DMs to organize challenging encounters if the PCs on average now?
Hunters Mark is dependant on a character taking more levels in a class that takes advantage of it to improve after level 1. There is a cost to make it more effective. But you don't have to do anything at all to make a 1 level dip for Channel Divinity better the rest of the campaign. It just happens. That's what I meant about it.
Ehh.... that's less a cost and more "stuff I was going to be doing anyways." Cost implies trade off. This is just "better with some options than others" which makes it value fluxuate, based on individual builds.
Channel Divinity, meanwhile, will have its value fluxuate based on the amount of free healing the campaign has, which is going to be based on the DM's style and campaign in question. Like... lets talk about The Wild Beyond the Witchlight campaign for a moment. It actually has the potential for a short rest between almost every fight. There's no timer, no pressing need to push forwards all at once, so there's never a need for a lot of extra healing that couldn't just be taken care of by resting.
Its value is going to fluxuate between adventures and tables instead of builds, but the same problem arises. Its going to fluxuate.
So if an optimizer
Forget optimizers. We're talking about players in general, and what would make things fun for the most number of the playerbase, and attract more people to playing a cleric or a healer or whatever.
But maybe you're right. Maybe I should be encouraging OP healing. Maybe people will stop playing Whack a Mole if healers can actually do more than just get people back up at 3 HP. If that's the case, then Bardic Inspiration should get a boost too. Because it's not close to keeping up. And all of the healing spells need to get stronger too. And players might complain about Clerics even more if they get more buffs. We aren't seeing any of that yet. Until then, Channel Divinity looks like a huge outlier.
I think the four classes we've seen for 1DnD are pretty nice. One needs a boost. And one needs some restraint. That to me sounds much better than rewriting everything.
Bard... isn't a healer, though. Or at least not a Priest, who specialize in it. BI gives minor healing, Song of Rest gives Healing Word and the Mass version, and the two Restorations. That's it. Bards are good at... well, being an emergency medic that stabilizes a person before a real healer gets to them.
Bards are supposed to be Jacks, who dabble in a bit of everything and have weird tricks and synergies. And people are already complaining they don't want bard to feel shoehorned into being a healer, which I suspect the devs will listen to, given the uncomfy feeling lots of people have with bard spell lists, and that will be taken as part of it. People shouldn't expect the bard to be a full time healer, even with their two healing abilities, because while decent abilities... they're all very limited by design.
Under the new system, its the Paladin and Druid who need to have lots of healing on par with the Cleric.
Imagine if WotC makes gaining a level of exhaustion upon dropping to 0 a base rule. Dangling around 0 like a damage sponge that can negate big amounts of damage with 1 hp of healing will be much less attractive.
I really do think that they're going to implement this. I suspected that rule would have dropped with the Priest group, but now that we had just Cleric, we might not get all Priests at once.
It really is a good rule. And it fits with the new Exhaustion rules
Sure, sure. But, I'm just saying that, with all due respect, people who enjoy playing dedicated healers tend to be more rare. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten from others.
So, forget "powerful" for a minute. Lets ask this instead. Is this ability making it less fun for you to play as a healer? Is it making it harder on DMs to organize challenging encounters if the PCs on average now?
Yeah, you're right, healer is not the most popular role in the party for sure. I don't know why people don't like it more. I suspect there's a lot of psychology to it that we probably don't need to get into haha. And then lots of game design issues on top.
I pulled this part out rather than go on debating math and different playstyles. Because I think you've hit on one of the most important things. I don't know the answer to the question yet, but it is the right question for most of the playtesting. Does it make the game better/ more fun/ easier to play? I'm just going to basically think out loud from here on. I'm not making any points, just considering it.
I know that power feels good to people. And it can seem like every buff is exciting and cool and will make the game more fun. But I'm just not sure it's true. In all the games I've played or run, TTRPGs and video and board games, the more a game activates 'easy mode' the quicker it gets boring. That's not to say that the opposite is always better either. Ultra hard mode can be frustrating and turn into a chore. But easy win buttons quickly become dull by taking away the suspense.
Or they force the power of the enemies to jump up so quickly to match the players that it feels silly. One day you're saving the local village from goblins and the next you have to fight a family of giants for a challenge. Soon you're flying off to another plane to find your match by level 10.
The healing from Channel Divinity isn't that extreme. But it is a somewhat big resource pool that a DM now has to try to deplete on top of everything else. That can make encounter building harder. In 5e I could have a party of 3 characters at level 5, one a Cleric. I know they all have 5 hit dice each to recover after battles. And the Cleric will probably add the equivalent of a few more from healing spells. And maybe they have 3 healing potions. I can figure out that I need to wear down their HP totals, plus about 20d8 additional HP during a day, to make it a challenging quest. With Channel Divinity, the Cleric would add 9d8 more to the pool. That's almost half again as much healing.
For encounter building, it is a challenge to burn through that much more healing. One party might have two characters with a dip into Cleric. It will double its recovery pool. While another party might have none. That makes CR calculations harder.
Then there are the issues with healing the game has always had. Like the fact that any healing in battle only serves to make the fight longer. And the dance around 0 HP so many players do because the healing spells aren't strong enough.
Is the new Channel Divinity fun for the player? Probably at first. I like healing, so I should be very excited about more of it. My DM side just feels something is off. And I wonder if a Sorcerer with one level in Cleric is going to feel like almost as good of a healer as my dedicated Cleric.
I honestly don't have anything more until I test them. I'll try a lot of builds at different levels and try to run as many encounters as I can. I've definitely been known to be wrong and change my mind after testing before. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wrote similar that PB/LR is a fine mechanic but not for low level class features. It actuall encourages dipping instead of what they were going after by making subclasses at 3rd level.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
5E cleric gives Light, Medium Armor, and Shields if taken at a later level. I haven't seen any difference in multiclass proficiencies and they aren't likely to change.
Also, taking the skilled feat means not taking other feats, which can be a large trade off. For example, Magic Initiate can be used to gain access to spells like Shield or Bless, both of which are amazing spells to have, especially when you can cast them with your spell slots now. Taking skilled for your first feat has even bigger trade offs, considering how 4th level feats are half feats, meaning you can miss getting a stat to 18 and miss out on some potent feats. Warcaster for example would go great with Magic Initiate.
Also, depending on what your party needs, that extra bit of prociency can go a long way, and some times you need it a bit earlier.
2 extra HP early on can also save you with how swingy first level can be. I've personally found Tier 1 to be the deadliest out of the four tiers of play.
Also, I disagree with the idea that taking the dip early should result in a punishing the player. You shouldn't be rewarded nor punished for when you take your dip. That's what caused certain combos to be more prominent to begin with, because it was worth that punishment.
Another thing to note is that if the Rogue 1 dip is so good, why wasn't it used more in 5E. The dip is near identical to 5E's rogue dip, only One D&D's rogue has a worse sneak attack. Even pre-Xanathar, before Hexblade dips, you didn't really hear much about it.
Cleric Single Class power is relevant to any multiclass when we are looking at overall balance. Not just in the two situations you pointed out. A multiclass combo should be as welcome of an addition to a party that already has its bases covered as a straight bard or cleric at any level, but in 5E and right now in 1D&D, the straight fullcaster is more preferred, especially at 5th level.
Multiclass is already tricky for most people to begin with and I've seen so many people make mistakes with it that just made their character mechanically unfun to play. Easing up on things like Feats or the 5th level Extra attack can go a long way in making multiclass more accessible, especially when people want to go beyond dips.
So what I just read is you think spell casters need a heavy nerf. To make non-casters and non-caster multi-classes more compelling. That is the only useful bit I got out of this. I see no reason why you should take your dip before you main class from a story perspective. It doesn't make sense from a character growth part. If it is being done it is not being done for story reasons, so we will just have to disagree. I want people who try to take multi-classing before getting the feel for their main class to be punished in those mid levels, and I am happy with it as is.
Cleric is a fine 1 level dip, Ranger is a fine 1 level dip. Bard is meh, and Rogue is just a bad class in general. Rogue being bad has nothing to do with multi-classing or subclasses at level 3. Everyone who has actually play tested it with the idea of balance in mind has even said they think cleric is TOO strong now. I disagree I think it is fine. But this is an agree to disagree thing. We want different things. I can optimize no matter what the system makes. For me that is what optimizing is about. Limitations are a good thing.
I really have to disagree with rogue being a bad class. Sure, put them on melee combat they’re not going to do very great, but after getting the Cunbing Action, and if they take expertise in stealth, they can be granted advantage on most attacks, and providing that the attack hits-which it should if the dice gods don’t have something against that particular rogue- at 20th level, a rogue will deal 6 damage at the very minimum (only if they roll ones and all the dice and have a negative 5 modifier) with the maximum being 75 damage and the average being 45-50 in a single attack. Plus, they can be great for other things as well. Traps, sneaking, even casting with the Arcane Trickster subclass. Not to mention the Uncanny Dodge, which straight up halves damage from any one visible attack per round (not as great as Rage, I know, but they’re not intended to be tanks and it says damage from any visible attack, not limited to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing )
So all in all, I wouldn’t say it’s bad. It’s not my favorite (fighter is) but it doesn’t suck, to my way of thinking.
If I haven’t offended you, don’t worry. I’m sure I’ll get to you eventually.
The problem is usually the game doesn't go to 20 for one and for 2 most of the skill stuff can be done by the ranger or the bard and they get a lot more spell casting in addition. Uncanny dodge is great for making up the difference in survival between the ranger and rogue, but that costs the rogue's reaction, while more armor and health doesn't cost the ranger anything. Of course, we aren't sure how arcane trickster will look when all is said and done, but it definitely was the best PHB subclass. It may still be going forward, but that doesn't mean the base rogue class is great.
Most classes can deal more than Rogue for most of the campaign.
Like I said, that’s just my opinion. I line the rogue, but that doesn’t mean that you have to.
If I haven’t offended you, don’t worry. I’m sure I’ll get to you eventually.
I think its less that the rogue is a "bad" class - bad is a rather subjective word that comes with a lot of loaded connotations that will depend on a host of factors. But I think its a fair statement to say that rogue is on the lower end of the bell curve compared to the power and abilities two other existing Expert classes, and even that depends on how much value you give a skill proficiency versus spellcasting.
Opposite, other classes need to be buffed to fullcaster standard and multiclassing needs to be easier to do. There is a reason why I also say martials need to be compensated for GWM and SS nerfs. The damage they would have gotten from those feats need to added back in some shape or form whether through fighting styles or some other shared collective feature. Better to buff to standard than to nerf something down. Casters feel good to play, we should buffing martials so they are the same.
Also, I do not get how people find the cleric dip to be too strong when no one complained about it before, even pre-Hexblade dips. 5E Cleric dips are stronger than 1DnD dips but no one complained about it before; it offered the same proficiencies and while it did not offer channel divinity, it gave subclass features and spells. It was possible to gain heavy armor and martial weapon access through a cleric dip, or gain access to additional skill proficiencies; even expertise for knowledge skills was there for the taking (which synergized amazingly with Wizard for scribing spells). Also, remember how strong 5e Guidance was. So it seems strange that people are complaining about the cleric dip now.
Lore Bard ends up with 6 Skill proficiencies as you gain another 3 when you take the subclass. So at third level, bars can have more skilk proficiencies than rogue on top of being a fullcaster. So it really does not depend if you weigh skill proficiencies more.
A lot of the complaints on rogue was how it was nerfed. Sneak attack requiring your action prevents synergy with other team mates, namely with abilities that gave party members a reactionary attack or having someone cast Haste on the Rogue. There was nothing wrong with the rogue sneak attacking twice a round; it wasn't outrageous damage when you compared it to what other classes could output and generally doing it required help from other party members, meaning it required teamwork. They should be promoting those types of combat interactions, not removing them. Plus it costed the rogue their reaction, so no uncanny dodge for that round or no shield if they were an arcane trickster.
Optimized Build =/= Entirety of Class
Until you can agree on that point, there's nothing to discuss with you, Mana. Sorry, but I'm done. There's just no way for me to have a meaningful discourse argue with someone who fundamentally sees the game so wildly different.
Right. There are DMs on this forum that ban Peace and Twilight clerics from their games.
But more importantly, people aren't saying the 1DnD cleric is too powerful. We're saying that the new Channel Divinity specifically could be too strong because of the way it scales independent of your cleric level. Overall the Cleric is much better balanced in 1DnD, the way it spreads out some of those 1st level subclass features from 5e across levels 1-3 now.
For me, my concern comes from comparing it directly to the other 1DnD classes they have shown us. I'm not looking at 5e classes. They won't matter in the future. I'm looking at the Bard, the Ranger, the Rogue, and the Cleric in 1DnD. They just aren't all equal at 1st level. That's the problem.
Certainly the rogue isn't equal at level 1, but why not bard or ranger? Hunters mark scales with more attacks, and being non-Concentration is the gift that keeps on giving forever. Bardic Inspiration uses are on a proficiency bonus rate, and adding 1d6 to a d20 roll is always useful.
BI does increase in die size over bard levels. But then, I'd also say that BI suffers from being worse than Guidance/Resilience at level 1. Higher die size but limited number of uses. If not for that, however, it'd be a great ability that you could grab with a level 1 dip that's always good.
Bardic Inspiration is half based on your Bard level. The uses go up but the dice don't. With a 1 level dip in Bard, you have two uses of a 1d6 heal per day (or bonus to a roll). At level 17, you still use the 1d6, six times per day. That's a total of 6d6 healing over 6 turns.
Channel Divinity gives you 2d8 healing (or other uses) twice a day at level 1. But the same 1 level dip gets you 6d8 healing at level 17, six times per day. That's a total of 36d8 healing. It's a very big difference from the Bard.
Favored Enemy is, essentially, one extra prepared spell with a nice buff that makes it viable. It does get better if you also have more spell slots. Or extra attacks. But that's further investment somewhere.
Overall the 1st level of these classes just aren't equal. I'd say that Cleric is the best, Ranger and Bard are about right for what I'd expect, and Rogue falls a little short. I would just like to see the Rogue get a small boost, and Channel Divinity get limited in either the dice or uses to bring it in line with the other classes. It's just better balance.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of Bardic Inspiration to heal versus Channel Divinity.
Part of the reason a lot of people have been dismissive of Channel Divinity's healing disrupting balance for multi-classing, especially at high levels, is that its an Action to use it. That makes it pretty lackluster healing mid combat, according to many I've spoken to. You effectively have free healing potions. Very nice, but hardly game changing, at least according to many people I've spoken (typed?) to.
Meanwhile, Bardic Inspiration? Reaction. That changes everything. If Channel Divinity is going to be primarily out of combat healing, then Bardic Inspiration is a purely in combat healing, save your ally from dropping, move. If a monster drops one of your allies to 0, you can use your reaction to heal them up, get them on their feet, all on someone else's turn. Sure, there's some timing issues, where the monster could get more attacks to drop them right back down, but... honestly, I can see some cleric players* that really dedicate to healing wanting to dip bard for that ability because its a very nice tool in the healing arsenal that I don't think we have a spell equivalent for. Plus, BI is raising people from 0 HP, so the size of the die doesn't really matter, tbh, especially at higher levels - its never going to be enough to keep you up if you get smacked again. You drop, you bounce back up, but a strong sneeze knocks you back down again, irregardless of die size.
You're right that these two aren't equal. Personally, I would far and away say that Bardic Inspiration is the stronger of the two, but that's an entirely different argument.
* It should be noted that, in my experience, most people do NOT enjoy playing pure healers. It was also a design philosophy behind Leaders in 4e - being able to heal and do other stuff on your turn instead of having to be a dedicated heal bot - which carried over to 5e's Healing Word spell. Which makes me feel its not just me, but rather a significant portion of the D&D population that don't care for playing dedicated healers. So, even if you consider Channel Divinity dips to be powerful... a really good question we should ask ourselves is this: Is it powerful in a good way that improves the fun at the table? The cleric gets help healing, so they waste less spell slots on it out of combat, which in turn lets them use more both in and out of fights to do other things, which is, if I'm reading things aright, a popular move?
Might exaggerate the caster-martial divide a bit by letting the healer have more slots, but any cleric MC will effectively be a caster too, so that's a hard one...
On the matter of Favored Enemy. Sure, it requires further investment elsewhere, but "conditionally powerful" is something that realistically applies to all classes in one way or another. Channel Divinity healing value is increased or decreased based on the presence and availability of healing items in game. Hunters Mark is conditional on being used by someone with Extra Attack and using Light weapons, but when it goes off, that's effectively a +3d6 bonus action.
I think its important that, when considering these, we need to consider how easy it is to fulfill the conditions for something to be strong. Everyone's going to be taking damage, everyone's going to be rolling to hit or deal damage, so the conditions to satisfy when healing or needing a boost to hitting is easily satisfied. Hunter's Mark value is predicated on player choices only, which actually makes it a bit better than the others, because its always as useful as you make it. That's pretty good. But Channel Divinity? Its Action use means that the condition for it being strong is out of combat healing, which puts it in direct competition with short rests and healing items, something that's in DM control. Thieve's Cant? In theory, you can have games where knowing an extra two languages is a Big Fricking Deal. The chances of that happening, however, is small, which makes the value of TC shrink. DM control, setting dependent, game style dependent...
I don't misunderstand the value of reaction healing. I just don't think it's as important as some others do. I would much rather have what a 1 level dip of Channel Divinity healing gives you over the same for Bardic Inspiration any day. I can use the spell slots I saved to cast Healing Word if I need to. But I can't replace the healing from Channel Divinity with the same spell slots.
You can cast 6 Healing Word spells in a day using level 1 and 2 spell slots, and get better healing than Bardic Inspiration. At any level. It's better at level 1. It's better at level 17.
If I want to match the healing from Channel Divinity at level 1, I can't. A first level Cure Wounds won't do it because the Divinity has a more consistent average by rolling two dice. It's close, but the divinity is slightly better, and if you're lucky on your roll it's a lot better. The higher level I get, the bigger that gap gets. To match one use of Channel Divinity at level 17, I'd have to use a 6th level slot. Which is obviously something no one would probably do. So just from pure math alone, Divinity is better. Because it's replacing better slots. You can replicate Bardic Inspiration with the worst slots you have, but you can't go the other way.
But more importantly, not everyone likes playing Whack-a-Mole healing. A lot of people despise that part of 5e. Many DMs look for ways to house rule around it. My table doesn't play that way. Both myself and my players don't enjoy a game where you do just enough healing to get back on your feet just to fall again in the next stiff breeze. We prefer real healing.
I like playing dedicated healers. It's my favorite role in any game. I like it when players care enough about their characters that they don't want to jump up and fall down all fight from the bare minimum healing. Sometimes it's necessary, yes. Sometimes a fight is just going so badly that you throw a hail Mary. In those cases, it's better to use a 1st level slot to replace Bardic Inspiration than it is to have to use a high level slot to replace Channel Divinity in all of the other situations that exist in the game. Combat is not the only place healing happens. Not even the most common place.
At level 1, Channel Divinity will do more just get people on their feet with 3 HP. It will get them to full HP in most cases. Even at high levels it's enough to survive more than one hit a lot of the time. It's also very useful to have free healing that's actually good outside of combat. It's great to skip a short rest when you can. Or to use one ability to save someone from spending 6 hit dice to heal during a short rest. Hit dice are a very limited resource. Bardic Inspiration can't do that. It's not even as good as one hit dice. If a character takes a lot of damage out of combat, Bardic Inspiration won't help there either. You need real healing.
So yeah, Bardic Inspiration is a decent ability. It's useful in its own way. I don't think it's bad. But it's just not the same or better than Channel Divinity. Except, it seems, for certain optimizer circles that play the game a certain way. And that's totally fine. The optimizers are free to dip Bard over Cleric every time. They're more than welcome to play Whack a Mole combats and find the best builds for it. That's part of the joy of the game. Playing it your own way. But there is also all of the rest of us. And we see a very different thing when we look at these abilities.
Hunters Mark is dependant on a character taking more levels in a class that takes advantage of it to improve after level 1. There is a cost to make it more effective. But you don't have to do anything at all to make a 1 level dip for Channel Divinity better the rest of the campaign. It just happens. That's what I meant about it.
So if an optimizer is never going to care about the healing from Channel Divinity because it takes an action, then it doesn't affect them. (Though there is a popular optimizer YouTube channel that made a whole video about how broken this Channel Divinity is, so I guess there isn't a consensus.) The rest of us think it's pretty strong too. Maybe too strong. And it's worth talking about it.
But maybe you're right. Maybe I should be encouraging OP healing. Maybe people will stop playing Whack a Mole if healers can actually do more than just get people back up at 3 HP. If that's the case, then Bardic Inspiration should get a boost too. Because it's not close to keeping up. And all of the healing spells need to get stronger too. And players might complain about Clerics even more if they get more buffs. We aren't seeing any of that yet. Until then, Channel Divinity looks like a huge outlier.
I think the four classes we've seen for 1DnD are pretty nice. One needs a boost. And one needs some restraint. That to me sounds much better than rewriting everything.
I think channel divinity and bardic inspiration have different jobs, and that is a good thing. BI is for keeping someone up who just went down. CD is for extending the day for the party. BI is for helping skill checks when someone is out of range of guidance (30 foot vs 10 foot range, personally I would love to see BI become 60 feet). CD is for dealing with undead. I don't think either is too strong personally.
Imagine if WotC makes gaining a level of exhaustion upon dropping to 0 a base rule. Dangling around 0 like a damage sponge that can negate big amounts of damage with 1 hp of healing will be much less attractive.
After a few intense days, that would really screw adventurers up.
I like 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)
Fair enough, its a whole thing that I suspect we'll really need to see heavily playtested over longer periods of time that we have right now to really get a strong feel of both of them, if either of them are truly powerful or more powerful or whatever. I will say that I appreciate the extra healing as a low level cleric without needing spell slots, so I can do something other than heal with them and spam the same cantrip.
So, forget "powerful" for a minute. Lets ask this instead. Is this ability making it less fun for you to play as a healer? Is it making it harder on DMs to organize challenging encounters if the PCs on average now?
Ehh.... that's less a cost and more "stuff I was going to be doing anyways." Cost implies trade off. This is just "better with some options than others" which makes it value fluxuate, based on individual builds.
Channel Divinity, meanwhile, will have its value fluxuate based on the amount of free healing the campaign has, which is going to be based on the DM's style and campaign in question. Like... lets talk about The Wild Beyond the Witchlight campaign for a moment. It actually has the potential for a short rest between almost every fight. There's no timer, no pressing need to push forwards all at once, so there's never a need for a lot of extra healing that couldn't just be taken care of by resting.
Its value is going to fluxuate between adventures and tables instead of builds, but the same problem arises. Its going to fluxuate.
Forget optimizers. We're talking about players in general, and what would make things fun for the most number of the playerbase, and attract more people to playing a cleric or a healer or whatever.
Bard... isn't a healer, though. Or at least not a Priest, who specialize in it. BI gives minor healing, Song of Rest gives Healing Word and the Mass version, and the two Restorations. That's it. Bards are good at... well, being an emergency medic that stabilizes a person before a real healer gets to them.
Bards are supposed to be Jacks, who dabble in a bit of everything and have weird tricks and synergies. And people are already complaining they don't want bard to feel shoehorned into being a healer, which I suspect the devs will listen to, given the uncomfy feeling lots of people have with bard spell lists, and that will be taken as part of it. People shouldn't expect the bard to be a full time healer, even with their two healing abilities, because while decent abilities... they're all very limited by design.
Under the new system, its the Paladin and Druid who need to have lots of healing on par with the Cleric.
I really do think that they're going to implement this. I suspected that rule would have dropped with the Priest group, but now that we had just Cleric, we might not get all Priests at once.
It really is a good rule. And it fits with the new Exhaustion rules
Yeah, you're right, healer is not the most popular role in the party for sure. I don't know why people don't like it more. I suspect there's a lot of psychology to it that we probably don't need to get into haha. And then lots of game design issues on top.
I pulled this part out rather than go on debating math and different playstyles. Because I think you've hit on one of the most important things. I don't know the answer to the question yet, but it is the right question for most of the playtesting. Does it make the game better/ more fun/ easier to play? I'm just going to basically think out loud from here on. I'm not making any points, just considering it.
I know that power feels good to people. And it can seem like every buff is exciting and cool and will make the game more fun. But I'm just not sure it's true. In all the games I've played or run, TTRPGs and video and board games, the more a game activates 'easy mode' the quicker it gets boring. That's not to say that the opposite is always better either. Ultra hard mode can be frustrating and turn into a chore. But easy win buttons quickly become dull by taking away the suspense.
Or they force the power of the enemies to jump up so quickly to match the players that it feels silly. One day you're saving the local village from goblins and the next you have to fight a family of giants for a challenge. Soon you're flying off to another plane to find your match by level 10.
The healing from Channel Divinity isn't that extreme. But it is a somewhat big resource pool that a DM now has to try to deplete on top of everything else. That can make encounter building harder. In 5e I could have a party of 3 characters at level 5, one a Cleric. I know they all have 5 hit dice each to recover after battles. And the Cleric will probably add the equivalent of a few more from healing spells. And maybe they have 3 healing potions. I can figure out that I need to wear down their HP totals, plus about 20d8 additional HP during a day, to make it a challenging quest. With Channel Divinity, the Cleric would add 9d8 more to the pool. That's almost half again as much healing.
For encounter building, it is a challenge to burn through that much more healing. One party might have two characters with a dip into Cleric. It will double its recovery pool. While another party might have none. That makes CR calculations harder.
Then there are the issues with healing the game has always had. Like the fact that any healing in battle only serves to make the fight longer. And the dance around 0 HP so many players do because the healing spells aren't strong enough.
Is the new Channel Divinity fun for the player? Probably at first. I like healing, so I should be very excited about more of it. My DM side just feels something is off. And I wonder if a Sorcerer with one level in Cleric is going to feel like almost as good of a healer as my dedicated Cleric.
I honestly don't have anything more until I test them. I'll try a lot of builds at different levels and try to run as many encounters as I can. I've definitely been known to be wrong and change my mind after testing before. :)