If I had to rebuild True Strike from the ground up, here's what I'd do.
True Strike Cantrip Bonus Action One target within 60 yards. No Concentration. On your next physical melee, melee spell, or thrown weapon attack, you gain advantage. You may reroll any 1's or 2's you roll. If the attack connects you deal an additional 1d6 of the damage type on the hit. This does not apply to any subsiquent hits. This effect remains in place even if the foe moves out of range for up to three rounds. Once an attack is successful using true strike the effect cannot be applied to the same creature again until after a short rest.
I think it takes away a lot of the spell's simplicity, and making it a bonus action kinda breaks it. Also, bit of a nitpick, but the wording is way off. And distance is measured in increments of 5 feet, not yards.
Well, the idea here is that it's something you can cast to gain advantage but it won't apply to ranged weapons like bows or spells like firebolt. So you can't use it to give some powerful ranged spell advantage but you can use it to amplify your physical attacks. The range increase makes it so you can actually target foes you probably couldn't before to actually get the true strike targeting someone with the 'still applies even if they move out of range' making it so they can't just step out of range to negate it. The damage buff is there to make it a bit more desirable since there's plenty of less... intensive... ways to get advantage without restrictions or difficult set-ups (A wild-magic sorc could just give themselves advantage for example. Course that necessitates you playing what's the worst sorc subclass.) Finally the limit on the number of times you can apply it ensures you won't be cheesing it to gain a massive step up on other foes. You get one strike with advantage and enhanced damage (that they can't resist to boot) but after that it won't likely work ever again.
The old spell may have been simple but it was just useless and moving it to a bonus action doesn't change that any class capable of casting it is a class that doesn't want to be in a situation where they are casting it unless they are one of a very few and select niche builds.
We kinda derailed from the topic of subclasses at 1st level. Not that there was much left to discuss, though...
Probably not, but it should probably go to it's own thread of discussion, so to bring it back. Personally I don't think any class needs subclass at level 1 and the classes with the most broken multi-classes all had sub-classes at level 1 in 5E. However I'd still say there are class balance issues in 5E, classes get more power per level in tiers 1 & 2 than 3 & 4. Tiers 1 & 2 need to be toned down slightly and tiers 3 & 4 up.
To help restore this topic here is an idea I don’t necessarily like, but could shake things up. All classes get their subclass at level 1. I stated this jokingly earlier to shoot down someone who was claiming clerics and sorcerers needed subclass at level 1 for thematic purposes, but it this could be the bad idea that works. Might not be great for newer players, but all multiclass dips would get you something unique.
Probably not, but it should probably go to it's own thread of discussion, so to bring it back. Personally I don't think any class needs subclass at level 1 and the classes with the most broken multi-classes all had sub-classes at level 1 in 5E. However I'd still say there are class balance issues in 5E, classes get more power per level in tiers 1 & 2 than 3 & 4. Tiers 1 & 2 need to be toned down slightly and tiers 3 & 4 up.
I think it's a common trend of diminishing returns and softcaps in gaming. Progress feels stronger at first, then it gradually slows down so that you spend more time around the middle tier of power. I personally don't object it.
If I had to rebuild True Strike from the ground up, here's what I'd do.
True Strike Cantrip Bonus Action One target within 60 yards. No Concentration. On your next physical melee, melee spell, or thrown weapon attack, you gain advantage. You may reroll any 1's or 2's you roll. If the attack connects you deal an additional 1d6 of the damage type on the hit. This does not apply to any subsiquent hits. This effect remains in place even if the foe moves out of range for up to three rounds. Once an attack is successful using true strike the effect cannot be applied to the same creature again until after a short rest.
I think it takes away a lot of the spell's simplicity, and making it a bonus action kinda breaks it. Also, bit of a nitpick, but the wording is way off. And distance is measured in increments of 5 feet, not yards.
Well, the idea here is that it's something you can cast to gain advantage but it won't apply to ranged weapons like bows or spells like firebolt. So you can't use it to give some powerful ranged spell advantage but you can use it to amplify your physical attacks. The range increase makes it so you can actually target foes you probably couldn't before to actually get the true strike targeting someone with the 'still applies even if they move out of range' making it so they can't just step out of range to negate it. The damage buff is there to make it a bit more desirable since there's plenty of less... intensive... ways to get advantage without restrictions or difficult set-ups (A wild-magic sorc could just give themselves advantage for example. Course that necessitates you playing what's the worst sorc subclass.) Finally the limit on the number of times you can apply it ensures you won't be cheesing it to gain a massive step up on other foes. You get one strike with advantage and enhanced damage (that they can't resist to boot) but after that it won't likely work ever again.
The old spell may have been simple but it was just useless and moving it to a bonus action doesn't change that any class capable of casting it is a class that doesn't want to be in a situation where they are casting it unless they are one of a very few and select niche builds.
The issue of making it a bonus action isn't because casters will find it useless, but because it would be too good for martials to *not* take.
And again, spells are never measured in yards. It should be 180 feet.
We kinda derailed from the topic of subclasses at 1st level. Not that there was much left to discuss, though...
Probably not, but it should probably go to it's own thread of discussion, so to bring it back. Personally I don't think any class needs subclass at level 1 and the classes with the most broken multi-classes all had sub-classes at level 1 in 5E. However I'd still say there are class balance issues in 5E, classes get more power per level in tiers 1 & 2 than 3 & 4. Tiers 1 & 2 need to be toned down slightly and tiers 3 & 4 up.
To help restore this topic here is an idea I don’t necessarily like, but could shake things up. All classes get their subclass at level 1. I stated this jokingly earlier to shoot down someone who was claiming clerics and sorcerers needed subclass at level 1 for thematic purposes, but it this could be the bad idea that works. Might not be great for newer players, but all multiclass dips would get you something unique.
I might be for that, as long as all of the best abilities required 20 levels in your class. There needs to be some incentive to not build characters like 17 aberrant mind sorc/1 vengeance paladin/1 hexblade warlock/1 twilight cleric and have it be better in all ways than a straight sorc build. Multiclassing should grant you some benefits in flexibility, at the cost of being worse at whatever your primary role was than a mono class build.
We kinda derailed from the topic of subclasses at 1st level. Not that there was much left to discuss, though...
Probably not, but it should probably go to it's own thread of discussion, so to bring it back. Personally I don't think any class needs subclass at level 1 and the classes with the most broken multi-classes all had sub-classes at level 1 in 5E. However I'd still say there are class balance issues in 5E, classes get more power per level in tiers 1 & 2 than 3 & 4. Tiers 1 & 2 need to be toned down slightly and tiers 3 & 4 up.
To help restore this topic here is an idea I don’t necessarily like, but could shake things up. All classes get their subclass at level 1. I stated this jokingly earlier to shoot down someone who was claiming clerics and sorcerers needed subclass at level 1 for thematic purposes, but it this could be the bad idea that works. Might not be great for newer players, but all multiclass dips would get you something unique.
The whole point of changing subclasses to 3rd level is to discourage players from "dipping" into 1 or 2 classes.
If I had to rebuild True Strike from the ground up, here's what I'd do.
True Strike Cantrip Bonus Action One target within 60 yards. No Concentration. On your next physical melee, melee spell, or thrown weapon attack, you gain advantage. You may reroll any 1's or 2's you roll. If the attack connects you deal an additional 1d6 of the damage type on the hit. This does not apply to any subsiquent hits. This effect remains in place even if the foe moves out of range for up to three rounds. Once an attack is successful using true strike the effect cannot be applied to the same creature again until after a short rest.
I think it takes away a lot of the spell's simplicity, and making it a bonus action kinda breaks it. Also, bit of a nitpick, but the wording is way off. And distance is measured in increments of 5 feet, not yards.
Well, the idea here is that it's something you can cast to gain advantage but it won't apply to ranged weapons like bows or spells like firebolt. So you can't use it to give some powerful ranged spell advantage but you can use it to amplify your physical attacks. The range increase makes it so you can actually target foes you probably couldn't before to actually get the true strike targeting someone with the 'still applies even if they move out of range' making it so they can't just step out of range to negate it. The damage buff is there to make it a bit more desirable since there's plenty of less... intensive... ways to get advantage without restrictions or difficult set-ups (A wild-magic sorc could just give themselves advantage for example. Course that necessitates you playing what's the worst sorc subclass.) Finally the limit on the number of times you can apply it ensures you won't be cheesing it to gain a massive step up on other foes. You get one strike with advantage and enhanced damage (that they can't resist to boot) but after that it won't likely work ever again.
The old spell may have been simple but it was just useless and moving it to a bonus action doesn't change that any class capable of casting it is a class that doesn't want to be in a situation where they are casting it unless they are one of a very few and select niche builds.
The issue of making it a bonus action isn't because casters will find it useless, but because it would be too good for martials to *not* take.
And again, spells are never measured in yards. It should be 180 feet.
Awhoops. Didn't see that. Should be feet, you're right.
And really? A martial would either need to dip a whole level into a casting class or at least a feat just to gain 1 attack, not even a full attack action, just one attack (their first to hit to boot, so you can't even really choose it) on a foe with advantage?
Also, not to snark, but shouldn't we be encouraging multi-classing? In fact, that would also feed back into the main topic since moving all the stuff to level 3 and leaving casters with little in the way of defining features early on means that anyone wishing to multiclass has to invest 3 levels to get anything good which is a REALLY heavy investment! There would only be a few multi-classes that are even viable at that point since you couldn't just dip a level or two into a caster to pick up some really useful support abilities before returning focus to your main class. A solid cantrip that is suited for martials seems like good incentive for them to multi-class or at least find some way to pick it up (like via feat) resulting in more diverse and varied play.
I personally don't want to encourage multiclassing.
Nor do I want to discourage it.
I would really prefer it if both options were equally viable. A single class character and a multiclass character should feel just as good to play. The decision to multiclass or not should only be based on fulfilling your vision for your character. If someone wants to be a Paladin/Warlock, it should be because that fits their character concept. Not because it's the most powerful combo.
To this end, I think shifting every subclass to level 3 is a good step. That's why I also liked making armor training a level 1 feat. A fighter that becomes a wizard later in life is a cool concept sometimes. It's not nearly as interesting when it's just for optimization. That's not to say that people can't find really good RP inspiration from optimized builds. They certainly can. But it would be nice if there was more variety of viable builds so everyone could find inspiration in thousands of different combinations instead. Or feel really good about sticking to one class the whole way through too.
If I had to rebuild True Strike from the ground up, here's what I'd do.
True Strike Cantrip Bonus Action One target within 60 yards. No Concentration. On your next physical melee, melee spell, or thrown weapon attack, you gain advantage. You may reroll any 1's or 2's you roll. If the attack connects you deal an additional 1d6 of the damage type on the hit. This does not apply to any subsiquent hits. This effect remains in place even if the foe moves out of range for up to three rounds. Once an attack is successful using true strike the effect cannot be applied to the same creature again until after a short rest.
I think it takes away a lot of the spell's simplicity, and making it a bonus action kinda breaks it. Also, bit of a nitpick, but the wording is way off. And distance is measured in increments of 5 feet, not yards.
Well, the idea here is that it's something you can cast to gain advantage but it won't apply to ranged weapons like bows or spells like firebolt. So you can't use it to give some powerful ranged spell advantage but you can use it to amplify your physical attacks. The range increase makes it so you can actually target foes you probably couldn't before to actually get the true strike targeting someone with the 'still applies even if they move out of range' making it so they can't just step out of range to negate it. The damage buff is there to make it a bit more desirable since there's plenty of less... intensive... ways to get advantage without restrictions or difficult set-ups (A wild-magic sorc could just give themselves advantage for example. Course that necessitates you playing what's the worst sorc subclass.) Finally the limit on the number of times you can apply it ensures you won't be cheesing it to gain a massive step up on other foes. You get one strike with advantage and enhanced damage (that they can't resist to boot) but after that it won't likely work ever again.
The old spell may have been simple but it was just useless and moving it to a bonus action doesn't change that any class capable of casting it is a class that doesn't want to be in a situation where they are casting it unless they are one of a very few and select niche builds.
The issue of making it a bonus action isn't because casters will find it useless, but because it would be too good for martials to *not* take.
And again, spells are never measured in yards. It should be 180 feet.
Also, not to snark, but shouldn't we be encouraging multi-classing? In fact, that would also feed back into the main topic since moving all the stuff to level 3 and leaving casters with little in the way of defining features early on means that anyone wishing to multiclass has to invest 3 levels to get anything good which is a REALLY heavy investment! There would only be a few multi-classes that are even viable at that point since you couldn't just dip a level or two into a caster to pick up some really useful support abilities before returning focus to your main class. A solid cantrip that is suited for martials seems like good incentive for them to multi-class or at least find some way to pick it up (like via feat) resulting in more diverse and varied play.
People shouldn't be multiclassing because of "viability", they should be multiclassing because it fits the kind of story they want to tell with their character. Refer to Stegodorkus' comment.
You might be right regarding True Strike, or I might be right. It's hard to tell with these things before you test them. Maybe the next UA will change it to a bonus action, so WotC (and us) can get some feedback and insight. It'll probably be worth it to test out myself.
Int the area of multiclassing and in turn feats. A dm I had offered the option of one or the other at the table but not both it was a fascinating experience. I then learned alot about 5e design by exploring such styles of play. personally I think by playing that way you gain a new appreciation of certain design choices, ribbon abilities, and progression. I also think dms would be less afraid of high level play with such options adjusted from the normal way of play.
Now many people don't like having features turned off( in Their minds not in technicality) and It reminds me of my brother. He use to hate elder scrolls games (while i thought they were amazing) because alchemy and stealing and such made it so "OP". Then he decided to play without stealing. Then played without other options, switching them on and off per playthrough roleplaying each build. The game became fun again for him. I on the other hand enjoyed breaking the game just as much as roleplaying it out. part of the genius of 5e was they found a decent middle ground between simulationist, optimizer and narrative focus. 1 dnd will also need to allow multiple styles to survive for any length of time (preferably at the same time/table).
my concern has always been catering to the Perceived "preferred method" while cutting out those less common styles. Having a place for everyone is superior to Consensus design. I have been thinking about trying to quantify a good way of organizing and explaining such breath of appeal and may make a thread if i ever figure out how to engage such a discussion.
Now 1 dnd doesn't make such feature play to renew interest impossible but it is a step towards ensuring common standards instead of tweaks. This makes it clearly custom or homebrew territory to have "interesting table choices" as such they put the responsibility of renewed interest back on the players build choices. To me this standard framework requires such concessions (such as all subclasses at 3)
People shouldn't be multiclassing because of "viability", they should be multiclassing because it fits the kind of story they want to tell with their character. Refer to Stegodorkus' comment.
You might be right regarding True Strike, or I might be right. It's hard to tell with these things before you test them. Maybe the next UA will change it to a bonus action, so WotC (and us) can get some feedback and insight. It'll probably be worth it to test out myself.
Viability is still very important though. A lot of people do care a decent amount with how strong their characters are. Also, don't forget that there are players who enjoy the mechanics more and you cannot fault them for that; it is very much a valid playstyle.
People shouldn't be multiclassing because of "viability", they should be multiclassing because it fits the kind of story they want to tell with their character. Refer to Stegodorkus' comment.
You might be right regarding True Strike, or I might be right. It's hard to tell with these things before you test them. Maybe the next UA will change it to a bonus action, so WotC (and us) can get some feedback and insight. It'll probably be worth it to test out myself.
Viability is still very important though. A lot of people do care a decent amount with how strong their characters are. Also, don't forget that there are players who enjoy the mechanics more and you cannot fault them for that; it is very much a valid playstyle.
Which is why I said everything should be viable. Single class. Multiclass. Whatever you want to make should feel equally good. Whether that's a level 20 Fighter, a Sorlock, or a Wizard/Druid/Rogue. Right now we're stuck with a few ultra-optimal combinations and it only serves to restrict players.
People shouldn't be multiclassing because of "viability", they should be multiclassing because it fits the kind of story they want to tell with their character. Refer to Stegodorkus' comment.
You might be right regarding True Strike, or I might be right. It's hard to tell with these things before you test them. Maybe the next UA will change it to a bonus action, so WotC (and us) can get some feedback and insight. It'll probably be worth it to test out myself.
Viability is still very important though. A lot of people do care a decent amount with how strong their characters are. Also, don't forget that there are players who enjoy the mechanics more and you cannot fault them for that; it is very much a valid playstyle.
Which is why I said everything should be viable. Single class. Multiclass. Whatever you want to make should feel equally good. Whether that's a level 20 Fighter, a Sorlock, or a Wizard/Druid/Rogue. Right now we're stuck with a few ultra-optimal combinations and it only serves to restrict players.
The issue is that perfect balance is not possible. There will always be stronger options. Currently, in 5E, outside of the few good options, multiclass is a trap and it will likely remain that no matter what. Some classes will just have better synergy than others. Also, with how ASI/Feats are based on class level, that makes taking multiple classes much harder. Level 3 of fighter is not going to be equal to level 17 of wizard, for example.
However, those few good multiclass options do not warp the balance of the game. A single class character can keep up with an optimized multiclass, and the optimized multiclass can't render the entire party useless.
The balance between a single class character and an optimized multiclass should be the priority.
People will always be multiclassing with viability in mind; it will always have the chance of weakening your character in the long run.
True strike should never be a bonus action cantrip. That’s too strong before 5th level and still very strong even after 5th level. It means advantage every turn without any thought or planning. It doesn’t cost many classes anything. They don’t have much to do with the bonus action anyway. It hard cancels disadvantage. If anything would cause you disadvantage you could get a straight roll. I would like it as a reaction, but Bonus action is too strong.
As far as optimizers I don’t think WotC needs to worry about them as far as making sure they feel powerful. They will find a way to get extra mileage out of feats, features, and play styles. Honestly the harder you make it for them to find something to exploit the better they feel about discovering it. I did love my Elven Accuracy, Lucky, Sharpshooter, Samurai Archer. Some people have told me battle master archer is a better build, but I just loved the crit chance.
People shouldn't be multiclassing because of "viability", they should be multiclassing because it fits the kind of story they want to tell with their character. Refer to Stegodorkus' comment.
You might be right regarding True Strike, or I might be right. It's hard to tell with these things before you test them. Maybe the next UA will change it to a bonus action, so WotC (and us) can get some feedback and insight. It'll probably be worth it to test out myself.
Viability is still very important though. A lot of people do care a decent amount with how strong their characters are. Also, don't forget that there are players who enjoy the mechanics more and you cannot fault them for that; it is very much a valid playstyle.
Which is why I said everything should be viable. Single class. Multiclass. Whatever you want to make should feel equally good. Whether that's a level 20 Fighter, a Sorlock, or a Wizard/Druid/Rogue. Right now we're stuck with a few ultra-optimal combinations and it only serves to restrict players.
The issue is that perfect balance is not possible. There will always be stronger options. Currently, in 5E, outside of the few good options, multiclass is a trap and it will likely remain that no matter what. Some classes will just have better synergy than others. Also, with how ASI/Feats are based on class level, that makes taking multiple classes much harder. Level 3 of fighter is not going to be equal to level 17 of wizard, for example.
However, those few good multiclass options do not warp the balance of the game. A single class character can keep up with an optimized multiclass, and the optimized multiclass can't render the entire party useless.
The balance between a single class character and an optimized multiclass should be the priority.
People will always be multiclassing with viability in mind; it will always have the chance of weakening your character in the long run.
Perfect balance isn't possible, but it can be better than it is. Delaying all subclasses until 3rd is a step in the right direction. Some classes will always synergize better with others because of their main ability scores. I would just love to see that be one of the only factors. There are too few ultimate combos that happen so often it's boring. Anything to even those out more will help make more breathing room for creativity.
True strike should never be a bonus action cantrip. That’s too strong before 5th level and still very strong even after 5th level. It means advantage every turn without any thought or planning. It doesn’t cost many classes anything. They don’t have much to do with the bonus action anyway. It hard cancels disadvantage. If anything would cause you disadvantage you could get a straight roll. I would like it as a reaction, but Bonus action is too strong.
As far as optimizers I don’t think WotC needs to worry about them as far as making sure they feel powerful. They will find a way to get extra mileage out of feats, features, and play styles. Honestly the harder you make it for them to find something to exploit the better they feel about discovering it. I did love my Elven Accuracy, Lucky, Sharpshooter, Samurai Archer. Some people have told me battle master archer is a better build, but I just loved the crit chance.
I agree. The optimizers should be thrilled with any changes the most. It will give them something new to play with over the next few years.
People shouldn't be multiclassing because of "viability", they should be multiclassing because it fits the kind of story they want to tell with their character. Refer to Stegodorkus' comment.
You might be right regarding True Strike, or I might be right. It's hard to tell with these things before you test them. Maybe the next UA will change it to a bonus action, so WotC (and us) can get some feedback and insight. It'll probably be worth it to test out myself.
Viability is still very important though. A lot of people do care a decent amount with how strong their characters are. Also, don't forget that there are players who enjoy the mechanics more and you cannot fault them for that; it is very much a valid playstyle.
Which is why I said everything should be viable. Single class. Multiclass. Whatever you want to make should feel equally good. Whether that's a level 20 Fighter, a Sorlock, or a Wizard/Druid/Rogue. Right now we're stuck with a few ultra-optimal combinations and it only serves to restrict players.
The problem with this statement is the assumption that the current set-up is viable now.
While there are clearly some combinations that work well (EX: Sorcerer and Paladin) the fact is that the majority simply either have no synergy or take so long to attain synergy that multi-classing is basically something reserved for far more dedicated players in terms of viability. For the majority of people it's simply just more viable to focus on your sunk cost in your main class than it is to invest in a different classes. Prestige classes fix the gap between single-focus and multi-class a lot by rewarding players who choose to specialize and providing clear build paths, especially to newer players, but D&D doesn't have prestige classes. What this means is that you basically need to hit level 6 in order to really *get* a decent multi-class build. Which is terrible. At levels 4 and 5 you're basically hoping whatever you picked is going to be enough to make up for whatever you missed out on, which is stuff like ASI's and extra attacks or whatever. Currently that gets negated somewhat by letting you get key class features early. This whole notion basically makes it so that you wouldn't get those features till level 3. So for those two levels you're simply under-performing and, once you DO hit level 6, how good or bad your character will be depends super heavily on how well you know the game. While there will be some good builds for sure (I doubt Sorc/Paladin will never not be at least somewhat effective) most of the time you will end up being either very specialized or just flat-out underperforming.
So, yea, delaying bonuses until heavy investment is done hurts a system that was already lopsided toward focusing on a single class.
People shouldn't be multiclassing because of "viability", they should be multiclassing because it fits the kind of story they want to tell with their character. Refer to Stegodorkus' comment.
You might be right regarding True Strike, or I might be right. It's hard to tell with these things before you test them. Maybe the next UA will change it to a bonus action, so WotC (and us) can get some feedback and insight. It'll probably be worth it to test out myself.
Viability is still very important though. A lot of people do care a decent amount with how strong their characters are. Also, don't forget that there are players who enjoy the mechanics more and you cannot fault them for that; it is very much a valid playstyle.
Which is why I said everything should be viable. Single class. Multiclass. Whatever you want to make should feel equally good. Whether that's a level 20 Fighter, a Sorlock, or a Wizard/Druid/Rogue. Right now we're stuck with a few ultra-optimal combinations and it only serves to restrict players.
The issue is that perfect balance is not possible. There will always be stronger options. Currently, in 5E, outside of the few good options, multiclass is a trap and it will likely remain that no matter what. Some classes will just have better synergy than others. Also, with how ASI/Feats are based on class level, that makes taking multiple classes much harder. Level 3 of fighter is not going to be equal to level 17 of wizard, for example.
However, those few good multiclass options do not warp the balance of the game. A single class character can keep up with an optimized multiclass, and the optimized multiclass can't render the entire party useless.
The balance between a single class character and an optimized multiclass should be the priority.
People will always be multiclassing with viability in mind; it will always have the chance of weakening your character in the long run.
Perfect balance isn't possible, but it can be better than it is. Delaying all subclasses until 3rd is a step in the right direction. Some classes will always synergize better with others because of their main ability scores. I would just love to see that be one of the only factors. There are too few ultimate combos that happen so often it's boring. Anything to even those out more will help make more breathing room for creativity.
Or it could reduce the number of possible combos due to the nerfs making multiclass even less viable. Remember that ASI's, spell progression, and extra attack are tied to class level, not character level. I feel like if we move subclasses and features down the line, then some other restriction should go, like the basic 5 ASI/Feats being based on character level or the 5th level extra attack being based on how many levels of martial classes you have, so if you have 3 levels of fighter and 2 levels lf barbarian, you would still have extra attack at 5th level (would still need 11 levels of fighter specifically for 3 extra attacks however).
Moving features and subclasses down definitely nerfs multiclassing. The current upper power limit of 5e multiclassing was already in a good spot. So we don't want to nerf multiclassing; we want for more viable options. However, the few combos we have are because those combos properly make up for the short comings of multiclassing: delaying and having less ASI/Feats, delayed spell progression, delayed key features like Extra Attack etc. The frontloaded nature and synergy between certain classes made up for those short coming and that's why they were used so often. Most multiclass combos were essentially gimping the character.
Nerfing something won't always make more options appear, especially when you were already hitting the targetted overall power level. In this situation, if you take something away, you need to give something back so you prevent the power level from falling too low.
Well, the idea here is that it's something you can cast to gain advantage but it won't apply to ranged weapons like bows or spells like firebolt. So you can't use it to give some powerful ranged spell advantage but you can use it to amplify your physical attacks. The range increase makes it so you can actually target foes you probably couldn't before to actually get the true strike targeting someone with the 'still applies even if they move out of range' making it so they can't just step out of range to negate it. The damage buff is there to make it a bit more desirable since there's plenty of less... intensive... ways to get advantage without restrictions or difficult set-ups (A wild-magic sorc could just give themselves advantage for example. Course that necessitates you playing what's the worst sorc subclass.) Finally the limit on the number of times you can apply it ensures you won't be cheesing it to gain a massive step up on other foes. You get one strike with advantage and enhanced damage (that they can't resist to boot) but after that it won't likely work ever again.
The old spell may have been simple but it was just useless and moving it to a bonus action doesn't change that any class capable of casting it is a class that doesn't want to be in a situation where they are casting it unless they are one of a very few and select niche builds.
To help restore this topic here is an idea I don’t necessarily like, but could shake things up. All classes get their subclass at level 1. I stated this jokingly earlier to shoot down someone who was claiming clerics and sorcerers needed subclass at level 1 for thematic purposes, but it this could be the bad idea that works. Might not be great for newer players, but all multiclass dips would get you something unique.
I think it's a common trend of diminishing returns and softcaps in gaming. Progress feels stronger at first, then it gradually slows down so that you spend more time around the middle tier of power. I personally don't object it.
The issue of making it a bonus action isn't because casters will find it useless, but because it would be too good for martials to *not* take.
And again, spells are never measured in yards. It should be 180 feet.
[REDACTED]
I might be for that, as long as all of the best abilities required 20 levels in your class. There needs to be some incentive to not build characters like 17 aberrant mind sorc/1 vengeance paladin/1 hexblade warlock/1 twilight cleric and have it be better in all ways than a straight sorc build. Multiclassing should grant you some benefits in flexibility, at the cost of being worse at whatever your primary role was than a mono class build.
The whole point of changing subclasses to 3rd level is to discourage players from "dipping" into 1 or 2 classes.
[REDACTED]
Nitpick - it's not to discourage multiclasses, it's to make it easier to write subclasses without unintentional synergies that make OP 1 level dips.
It's anti-optimizer, not anti-multiclass
Right. I must have misremembered what Jeremy Crawford said in the UA video.
[REDACTED]
Awhoops. Didn't see that. Should be feet, you're right.
And really? A martial would either need to dip a whole level into a casting class or at least a feat just to gain 1 attack, not even a full attack action, just one attack (their first to hit to boot, so you can't even really choose it) on a foe with advantage?
Also, not to snark, but shouldn't we be encouraging multi-classing? In fact, that would also feed back into the main topic since moving all the stuff to level 3 and leaving casters with little in the way of defining features early on means that anyone wishing to multiclass has to invest 3 levels to get anything good which is a REALLY heavy investment! There would only be a few multi-classes that are even viable at that point since you couldn't just dip a level or two into a caster to pick up some really useful support abilities before returning focus to your main class. A solid cantrip that is suited for martials seems like good incentive for them to multi-class or at least find some way to pick it up (like via feat) resulting in more diverse and varied play.
I personally don't want to encourage multiclassing.
Nor do I want to discourage it.
I would really prefer it if both options were equally viable. A single class character and a multiclass character should feel just as good to play. The decision to multiclass or not should only be based on fulfilling your vision for your character. If someone wants to be a Paladin/Warlock, it should be because that fits their character concept. Not because it's the most powerful combo.
To this end, I think shifting every subclass to level 3 is a good step. That's why I also liked making armor training a level 1 feat. A fighter that becomes a wizard later in life is a cool concept sometimes. It's not nearly as interesting when it's just for optimization. That's not to say that people can't find really good RP inspiration from optimized builds. They certainly can. But it would be nice if there was more variety of viable builds so everyone could find inspiration in thousands of different combinations instead. Or feel really good about sticking to one class the whole way through too.
People shouldn't be multiclassing because of "viability", they should be multiclassing because it fits the kind of story they want to tell with their character. Refer to Stegodorkus' comment.
You might be right regarding True Strike, or I might be right. It's hard to tell with these things before you test them. Maybe the next UA will change it to a bonus action, so WotC (and us) can get some feedback and insight. It'll probably be worth it to test out myself.
[REDACTED]
Int the area of multiclassing and in turn feats. A dm I had offered the option of one or the other at the table but not both it was a fascinating experience. I then learned alot about 5e design by exploring such styles of play. personally I think by playing that way you gain a new appreciation of certain design choices, ribbon abilities, and progression. I also think dms would be less afraid of high level play with such options adjusted from the normal way of play.
Now many people don't like having features turned off( in Their minds not in technicality) and It reminds me of my brother. He use to hate elder scrolls games (while i thought they were amazing) because alchemy and stealing and such made it so "OP". Then he decided to play without stealing. Then played without other options, switching them on and off per playthrough roleplaying each build. The game became fun again for him. I on the other hand enjoyed breaking the game just as much as roleplaying it out. part of the genius of 5e was they found a decent middle ground between simulationist, optimizer and narrative focus. 1 dnd will also need to allow multiple styles to survive for any length of time (preferably at the same time/table).
my concern has always been catering to the Perceived "preferred method" while cutting out those less common styles. Having a place for everyone is superior to Consensus design. I have been thinking about trying to quantify a good way of organizing and explaining such breath of appeal and may make a thread if i ever figure out how to engage such a discussion.
Now 1 dnd doesn't make such feature play to renew interest impossible but it is a step towards ensuring common standards instead of tweaks. This makes it clearly custom or homebrew territory to have "interesting table choices" as such they put the responsibility of renewed interest back on the players build choices. To me this standard framework requires such concessions (such as all subclasses at 3)
Viability is still very important though. A lot of people do care a decent amount with how strong their characters are. Also, don't forget that there are players who enjoy the mechanics more and you cannot fault them for that; it is very much a valid playstyle.
Which is why I said everything should be viable. Single class. Multiclass. Whatever you want to make should feel equally good. Whether that's a level 20 Fighter, a Sorlock, or a Wizard/Druid/Rogue. Right now we're stuck with a few ultra-optimal combinations and it only serves to restrict players.
The issue is that perfect balance is not possible. There will always be stronger options. Currently, in 5E, outside of the few good options, multiclass is a trap and it will likely remain that no matter what. Some classes will just have better synergy than others. Also, with how ASI/Feats are based on class level, that makes taking multiple classes much harder. Level 3 of fighter is not going to be equal to level 17 of wizard, for example.
However, those few good multiclass options do not warp the balance of the game. A single class character can keep up with an optimized multiclass, and the optimized multiclass can't render the entire party useless.
The balance between a single class character and an optimized multiclass should be the priority.
People will always be multiclassing with viability in mind; it will always have the chance of weakening your character in the long run.
True strike should never be a bonus action cantrip. That’s too strong before 5th level and still very strong even after 5th level. It means advantage every turn without any thought or planning. It doesn’t cost many classes anything. They don’t have much to do with the bonus action anyway. It hard cancels disadvantage. If anything would cause you disadvantage you could get a straight roll. I would like it as a reaction, but Bonus action is too strong.
As far as optimizers I don’t think WotC needs to worry about them as far as making sure they feel powerful. They will find a way to get extra mileage out of feats, features, and play styles. Honestly the harder you make it for them to find something to exploit the better they feel about discovering it. I did love my Elven Accuracy, Lucky, Sharpshooter, Samurai Archer. Some people have told me battle master archer is a better build, but I just loved the crit chance.
Perfect balance isn't possible, but it can be better than it is. Delaying all subclasses until 3rd is a step in the right direction. Some classes will always synergize better with others because of their main ability scores. I would just love to see that be one of the only factors. There are too few ultimate combos that happen so often it's boring. Anything to even those out more will help make more breathing room for creativity.
I agree. The optimizers should be thrilled with any changes the most. It will give them something new to play with over the next few years.
The problem with this statement is the assumption that the current set-up is viable now.
While there are clearly some combinations that work well (EX: Sorcerer and Paladin) the fact is that the majority simply either have no synergy or take so long to attain synergy that multi-classing is basically something reserved for far more dedicated players in terms of viability. For the majority of people it's simply just more viable to focus on your sunk cost in your main class than it is to invest in a different classes. Prestige classes fix the gap between single-focus and multi-class a lot by rewarding players who choose to specialize and providing clear build paths, especially to newer players, but D&D doesn't have prestige classes. What this means is that you basically need to hit level 6 in order to really *get* a decent multi-class build. Which is terrible. At levels 4 and 5 you're basically hoping whatever you picked is going to be enough to make up for whatever you missed out on, which is stuff like ASI's and extra attacks or whatever. Currently that gets negated somewhat by letting you get key class features early. This whole notion basically makes it so that you wouldn't get those features till level 3. So for those two levels you're simply under-performing and, once you DO hit level 6, how good or bad your character will be depends super heavily on how well you know the game. While there will be some good builds for sure (I doubt Sorc/Paladin will never not be at least somewhat effective) most of the time you will end up being either very specialized or just flat-out underperforming.
So, yea, delaying bonuses until heavy investment is done hurts a system that was already lopsided toward focusing on a single class.
Or it could reduce the number of possible combos due to the nerfs making multiclass even less viable. Remember that ASI's, spell progression, and extra attack are tied to class level, not character level. I feel like if we move subclasses and features down the line, then some other restriction should go, like the basic 5 ASI/Feats being based on character level or the 5th level extra attack being based on how many levels of martial classes you have, so if you have 3 levels of fighter and 2 levels lf barbarian, you would still have extra attack at 5th level (would still need 11 levels of fighter specifically for 3 extra attacks however).
Moving features and subclasses down definitely nerfs multiclassing. The current upper power limit of 5e multiclassing was already in a good spot. So we don't want to nerf multiclassing; we want for more viable options. However, the few combos we have are because those combos properly make up for the short comings of multiclassing: delaying and having less ASI/Feats, delayed spell progression, delayed key features like Extra Attack etc. The frontloaded nature and synergy between certain classes made up for those short coming and that's why they were used so often. Most multiclass combos were essentially gimping the character.
Nerfing something won't always make more options appear, especially when you were already hitting the targetted overall power level. In this situation, if you take something away, you need to give something back so you prevent the power level from falling too low.