Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
I think that if we accept 3rd level subclasses as a given, Mana's idea here is worth exploring for extra attack and feat progression.
It seems like a simple fix for 5 levels in any Warrior-group class (including both Ranger and Paladin as exceptions from their groups) could give a character extra attack. Additional extra attacks could come online from certain levels of Fighter specifically. Feats also seem like they could be detached from class to a certain extent as well. Everyone might get feats/ASIs every four character levels, while Rogue and Fighter might get bonus feats/ASIs at specific levels for them.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
I don't think the fact that D&D is a story-telling game is an excuse for bad power balancing. Especially since proper balancing can result in new avenues that, even if they made narrative sense, would be abandoned because they would result in a character who was just too weak to do anything. I may want to play a specific type of character, but getting the abilities to play them as I want might take not only a heavy investment in levels, but leaves me simply lagging behind the rest of the party. If that happens I would rather avoid that. It's not about having ALL the power, it's about having enough power so you're not swinging a pool noodle while Big Brother 'I didn't multiclass' gets to swing the Sword of a Thousand Truths.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
I don't think the fact that D&D is a story-telling game is an excuse for bad power balancing. Especially since proper balancing can result in new avenues that, even if they made narrative sense, would be abandoned because they would result in a character who was just too weak to do anything. I may want to play a specific type of character, but getting the abilities to play them as I want might take not only a heavy investment in levels, but leaves me simply lagging behind the rest of the party. If that happens I would rather avoid that. It's not about having ALL the power, it's about having enough power so you're not swinging a pool noodle while Big Brother 'I didn't multiclass' gets to swing the Sword of a Thousand Truths.
I'm saying that because it's a storytelling game, balance should be a large focus. And that balance should be achieved by making every category of class an essential part of the party.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. Inspiration and expertise is at 1. it seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it.
Exactly. The new classes we have seen so far are very front loaded with their power and theme. You can now take 18 levels in one class and still get your capstone, and 2 levels in another and have all of their basic features. Even Ranger spellcasting starts at level 1 to not mess up your progression overall. And the Cleric's Orders and new uses for Channel Divinity give them much of the classes feel right out the gate. It is almost certain that Warlocks and Sorcerers will look very similar. Which makes every multiclass more viable, not just a few.
Even Ranger spellcasting starts at level 1 to not mess up your progression overall. And the Cleric's Orders and new uses for Channel Divinity give them much of the classes feel right out the gate. It is almost certain that Warlocks and Sorcerers will look very similar.
Speaking of 1st-3rd level warlock progression, what do we think it'll look like?
Considering what we've seen with Ranger and Cleric, and assuming no drastic changes to spellcasting, I'd say there's a fair argument for:
1st level: Pact Magic and Eldritch Blast as Class Features, whatever that looks like for Eldritch Blast.
(Possibility of Hex becoming a feature in the same way as Hunter's Mark but that might be too similar to Ranger. 🤷♂️ WoTC's fault for designing two spells so similar. Would also overlap with Hexblade's Curse*.)
2nd level: Pact Boon and Invocations.
Taking inspiration from the Holy Orders of the Cleric, I suspect some balancing adjustments might occur to the Pact Boons (inclusion of Hex warrior** for Pact of Blade?) or even have built-in improvements at level 5 & 9 (invocation taxes like Thirsting Blade, etc.). Would free up Invocation choices for flavour/customisation.
3rd level: Patron Subclasses. Probably wouldn't need much changing as most of the current 1st level features scale already.
*Hexblades could have their first Subclass feature changed to enhance the Class feature Hex rather than duplicate.
**WoTC would need to be willing to redesign Hexblades as Hexweavers/warriors/etc focusing on the 'Hex' and transfer the single 'Blade' feature to Pact of the Blade.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
Except the curve was already quite flat. You couldn't really optimize a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. Even the most optimized characters still needed their party if the encounters are appropriate for their level.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
Didn't they say one of their intentions was to reduce the number of 1 level dips, the issue is that 1 level dips were popular because often going further wasn't really viable for most games since they tend to end before you can really get a multiclass combo up and running. If nerfing multiclass wasn't their intention, I feel like they are off in practice.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
I feel that would be Origin and Patron respectively.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
Except the curve was already quite flat. You couldn't really optimize a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. Even the most optimized characters still needed their party if the encounters are appropriate for their level.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
Didn't they say one of their intentions was to reduce the number of 1 level dips, the issue is that 1 level dips were popular because often going further wasn't really viable for most games since they tend to end before you can really get a multiclass combo up and running. If nerfing multiclass wasn't their intention, I feel like they are off in practice.
Also, bards get expertise at level 2, not 1.
They aren't trying to reduce 1 level dips. They are trying to reduce the specific 1 level dips that 'make people grit their teeth.' The 1 level dips that are most common are the ones where the classes get their subclasses at level 1. Sorcerer and Warlock just happen to also share the same primary ability score with each other, and the most powerful burst damage class. We all know why these combinations are the most popular.
The new class progressions we have seen are still really solid 1st level dips. Even more so than before in some cases. That's a good thing. Even optimizers should be happy with more good combinations opening up. It will give them something new to do for a few years.
Yes, the same old easy power combos won't be so easy anymore. But we get so much more in return. And now all three early levels offer something good
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
I feel that would be Origin and Patron respectively.
I would think so but there are other ways of re doing or labeling it.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
Except the curve was already quite flat. You couldn't really optimize a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. Even the most optimized characters still needed their party if the encounters are appropriate for their level.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
Didn't they say one of their intentions was to reduce the number of 1 level dips, the issue is that 1 level dips were popular because often going further wasn't really viable for most games since they tend to end before you can really get a multiclass combo up and running. If nerfing multiclass wasn't their intention, I feel like they are off in practice.
Also, bards get expertise at level 2, not 1.
They aren't trying to reduce 1 level dips. They are trying to reduce the specific 1 level dips that 'make people grit their teeth.' The 1 level dips that are most common are the ones where the classes get their subclasses at level 1. Sorcerer and Warlock just happen to also share the same primary ability score with each other, and the most powerful burst damage class. We all know why these combinations are the most popular.
The new class progressions we have seen are still really solid 1st level dips. Even more so than before in some cases. That's a good thing. Even optimizers should be happy with more good combinations opening up. It will give them something new to do for a few years.
Yes, the same old easy power combos won't be so easy anymore. But we get so much more in return. And now all three early levels offer something good
I am an optimizer and I have my hesitation on multiclassing in any game that does not reach mid tier 3. Going deeper in a class outside of certain combos like Paladin/Sorcerer, generally results in you delaying critical features or spell progression. If the reason new options open up is because the overall power level of multiclassing dropped, then depending on how much it dropped it is kind of moot as it may no longer be competitive with single classing. I haven't seen anything absolutely amazing in the recent class changes, not even with ranger. Cleric may still be okay for medium armor and first level cleric spells as a wizard dip. For example, one of the better domains was knowledge cleric for the expertise in knowledge skills letting you get arcana expertise to have a higher chance of scribing spells; however it is definitely not worthwhile to go 3 levels into Cleric for that same benefit as that would delay spell progression far too much. There has to be a very high amount of synergy for fullcaster multiclassing to be worthwhile due to the delayed spell progression.
As an optimizer, I have yet to see any real return.
This is also why I suggested Gestalt rules (what does that even mean?) be included in the core rulebook a while back. Because it allows for a lot of avenues and unique combinations that you simply couldn't do with normal multi-classing; either at all or at least without heavy investment that could be potentially crippling to a character.
I just want to see more viable options for multiclass combos than the same ones we see again and again. Those overused combos are often because of level 1 subclasses and complimentary ability scores. So they could either push a few subclasses back to level 3, or change all of the others to level 1.
There are many problems with making them all level 1. It would be a massive overhaul that takes them even further from backwards compatibility. It would put more strain on new players everywhere. And probably worst of all, it would encourage tons of 1 level dips all over the place. Everyone would be better off multiclassing at least a few times. The benefits are just too good. The only way to balance it would be to push other features back, which starts the whole thing over again.
By pushing Cleric domains back to level 3, but giving players some of the subclass perks before that, it feels like a good compromise. I imagine the same will be true for Sorcerer and Warlock. We'll probably see some of their subclass abilities rolled into other features and come online before level 3.
Now, I'm all for taking another look at other parts of the progression. I've long felt that the standard ASIs should be based on character level, not class. I've tried to implement it in my own games, to mixed results. It's tough to get right. But I did fully expect them to try something new with it. Spell progression and extra attacks could use some fixing too for multiclassing. Those are three areas I would focus more attention than the subclass.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
Except the curve was already quite flat. You couldn't really optimize a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. Even the most optimized characters still needed their party if the encounters are appropriate for their level.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
Didn't they say one of their intentions was to reduce the number of 1 level dips, the issue is that 1 level dips were popular because often going further wasn't really viable for most games since they tend to end before you can really get a multiclass combo up and running. If nerfing multiclass wasn't their intention, I feel like they are off in practice.
Also, bards get expertise at level 2, not 1.
They aren't trying to reduce 1 level dips. They are trying to reduce the specific 1 level dips that 'make people grit their teeth.' The 1 level dips that are most common are the ones where the classes get their subclasses at level 1. Sorcerer and Warlock just happen to also share the same primary ability score with each other, and the most powerful burst damage class. We all know why these combinations are the most popular.
The new class progressions we have seen are still really solid 1st level dips. Even more so than before in some cases. That's a good thing. Even optimizers should be happy with more good combinations opening up. It will give them something new to do for a few years.
Yes, the same old easy power combos won't be so easy anymore. But we get so much more in return. And now all three early levels offer something good
I am an optimizer and I have my hesitation on multiclassing in any game that does not reach mid tier 3. Going deeper in a class outside of certain combos like Paladin/Sorcerer, generally results in you delaying critical features or spell progression. If the reason new options open up is because the overall power level of multiclassing dropped, then depending on how much it dropped it is kind of moot as it may no longer be competitive with single classing. I haven't seen anything absolutely amazing in the recent class changes, not even with ranger. Cleric may still be okay for medium armor and first level cleric spells as a wizard dip. For example, one of the better domains was knowledge cleric for the expertise in knowledge skills letting you get arcana expertise to have a higher chance of scribing spells; however it is definitely not worthwhile to go 3 levels into Cleric for that same benefit as that would delay spell progression far too much. There has to be a very high amount of synergy for fullcaster multiclassing to be worthwhile due to the delayed spell progression.
As an optimizer, I have yet to see any real return.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
Except the curve was already quite flat. You couldn't really optimize a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. Even the most optimized characters still needed their party if the encounters are appropriate for their level.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
Didn't they say one of their intentions was to reduce the number of 1 level dips, the issue is that 1 level dips were popular because often going further wasn't really viable for most games since they tend to end before you can really get a multiclass combo up and running. If nerfing multiclass wasn't their intention, I feel like they are off in practice.
Also, bards get expertise at level 2, not 1.
They aren't trying to reduce 1 level dips. They are trying to reduce the specific 1 level dips that 'make people grit their teeth.' The 1 level dips that are most common are the ones where the classes get their subclasses at level 1. Sorcerer and Warlock just happen to also share the same primary ability score with each other, and the most powerful burst damage class. We all know why these combinations are the most popular.
The new class progressions we have seen are still really solid 1st level dips. Even more so than before in some cases. That's a good thing. Even optimizers should be happy with more good combinations opening up. It will give them something new to do for a few years.
Yes, the same old easy power combos won't be so easy anymore. But we get so much more in return. And now all three early levels offer something good
I am an optimizer and I have my hesitation on multiclassing in any game that does not reach mid tier 3. Going deeper in a class outside of certain combos like Paladin/Sorcerer, generally results in you delaying critical features or spell progression. If the reason new options open up is because the overall power level of multiclassing dropped, then depending on how much it dropped it is kind of moot as it may no longer be competitive with single classing. I haven't seen anything absolutely amazing in the recent class changes, not even with ranger. Cleric may still be okay for medium armor and first level cleric spells as a wizard dip. For example, one of the better domains was knowledge cleric for the expertise in knowledge skills letting you get arcana expertise to have a higher chance of scribing spells; however it is definitely not worthwhile to go 3 levels into Cleric for that same benefit as that would delay spell progression far too much. There has to be a very high amount of synergy for fullcaster multiclassing to be worthwhile due to the delayed spell progression.
As an optimizer, I have yet to see any real return.
As Steg pointed out, at least the current 1DnD Ranger and Cleric have some outstanding benefits as 1 level dips from an optimization standpoint. Of course, more classes and subclasses have to be presented before an optimizer could really find where the synergies may lie to really take advantage.
I think optimizers want the feeling of discovering smaller, less obvious exploits, and there is more of that feeling when it is a combination of subclass features, species' features, particular spells, and feats rather than simple class features that seem more plain and easily available.
I guess my point is, there is far to little information to make broad-ranging assessments at this point, but as the selection of diverse feats, features, and spells grows, so does the ability to optimize. A new version of a game will always be more simplified at first, before a multitude of supplements are provided.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
Except the curve was already quite flat. You couldn't really optimize a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. Even the most optimized characters still needed their party if the encounters are appropriate for their level.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
Didn't they say one of their intentions was to reduce the number of 1 level dips, the issue is that 1 level dips were popular because often going further wasn't really viable for most games since they tend to end before you can really get a multiclass combo up and running. If nerfing multiclass wasn't their intention, I feel like they are off in practice.
Also, bards get expertise at level 2, not 1.
They aren't trying to reduce 1 level dips. They are trying to reduce the specific 1 level dips that 'make people grit their teeth.' The 1 level dips that are most common are the ones where the classes get their subclasses at level 1. Sorcerer and Warlock just happen to also share the same primary ability score with each other, and the most powerful burst damage class. We all know why these combinations are the most popular.
The new class progressions we have seen are still really solid 1st level dips. Even more so than before in some cases. That's a good thing. Even optimizers should be happy with more good combinations opening up. It will give them something new to do for a few years.
Yes, the same old easy power combos won't be so easy anymore. But we get so much more in return. And now all three early levels offer something good
I am an optimizer and I have my hesitation on multiclassing in any game that does not reach mid tier 3. Going deeper in a class outside of certain combos like Paladin/Sorcerer, generally results in you delaying critical features or spell progression. If the reason new options open up is because the overall power level of multiclassing dropped, then depending on how much it dropped it is kind of moot as it may no longer be competitive with single classing. I haven't seen anything absolutely amazing in the recent class changes, not even with ranger. Cleric may still be okay for medium armor and first level cleric spells as a wizard dip. For example, one of the better domains was knowledge cleric for the expertise in knowledge skills letting you get arcana expertise to have a higher chance of scribing spells; however it is definitely not worthwhile to go 3 levels into Cleric for that same benefit as that would delay spell progression far too much. There has to be a very high amount of synergy for fullcaster multiclassing to be worthwhile due to the delayed spell progression.
As an optimizer, I have yet to see any real return.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
Except the curve was already quite flat. You couldn't really optimize a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. Even the most optimized characters still needed their party if the encounters are appropriate for their level.
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
Didn't they say one of their intentions was to reduce the number of 1 level dips, the issue is that 1 level dips were popular because often going further wasn't really viable for most games since they tend to end before you can really get a multiclass combo up and running. If nerfing multiclass wasn't their intention, I feel like they are off in practice.
Also, bards get expertise at level 2, not 1.
They aren't trying to reduce 1 level dips. They are trying to reduce the specific 1 level dips that 'make people grit their teeth.' The 1 level dips that are most common are the ones where the classes get their subclasses at level 1. Sorcerer and Warlock just happen to also share the same primary ability score with each other, and the most powerful burst damage class. We all know why these combinations are the most popular.
The new class progressions we have seen are still really solid 1st level dips. Even more so than before in some cases. That's a good thing. Even optimizers should be happy with more good combinations opening up. It will give them something new to do for a few years.
Yes, the same old easy power combos won't be so easy anymore. But we get so much more in return. And now all three early levels offer something good
I am an optimizer and I have my hesitation on multiclassing in any game that does not reach mid tier 3. Going deeper in a class outside of certain combos like Paladin/Sorcerer, generally results in you delaying critical features or spell progression. If the reason new options open up is because the overall power level of multiclassing dropped, then depending on how much it dropped it is kind of moot as it may no longer be competitive with single classing. I haven't seen anything absolutely amazing in the recent class changes, not even with ranger. Cleric may still be okay for medium armor and first level cleric spells as a wizard dip. For example, one of the better domains was knowledge cleric for the expertise in knowledge skills letting you get arcana expertise to have a higher chance of scribing spells; however it is definitely not worthwhile to go 3 levels into Cleric for that same benefit as that would delay spell progression far too much. There has to be a very high amount of synergy for fullcaster multiclassing to be worthwhile due to the delayed spell progression.
As an optimizer, I have yet to see any real return.
As Steg pointed out, at least the current 1DnD Ranger and Cleric have some outstanding benefits as 1 level dips from an optimization standpoint. Of course, more classes and subclasses have to be presented before an optimizer could really find where the synergies may lie to really take advantage.
I think optimizers want the feeling of discovering smaller, less obvious exploits, and there is more of that feeling when it is a combination of subclass features, species' features, particular spells, and feats rather than simple class features that seem more plain and easily available.
I guess my point is, there is far to little information to make broad-ranging assessments at this point, but as the selection of diverse feats, features, and spells grows, so does the ability to optimize. A new version of a game will always be more simplified at first, before a multitude of supplements are provided.
I wouldn't call One D&D's Ranger nor Cleric outstanding as level 1 dips. They seem average at best. Also, this is the time to make those assessments so the developers know there is support for improving the multiclass progression. We shouldn't be complacent and just think future releases will fix the issue, especially during the play test period. Nor should additional splat books be necessary to make up for any multiclass nerfs when it can be fixed in the PHB.
The way multiclass is set up, 1 level dips were popular because games don't tend to last long enough to actually use some builds that require a significant number of levels in 2 or more classes. However, level 1 dips are also the "obvious" power boost; so if we remove them, we should take a look at the multiclass progression so early T2 doesn't suck so much. I also would not call them exploits.
I wouldn't call One D&D's Ranger nor Cleric outstanding as level 1 dips. They seem average at best. Also, this is the time to make those assessments so the developers know there is support for improving the multiclass progression. We shouldn't be complacent and just think future releases will fix the issue, especially during the play test period. Nor should additional splat books be necessary to make up for any multiclass nerfs when it can be fixed in the PHB.
The way multiclass is set up, 1 level dips were popular because games don't tend to last long enough to actually use some builds that require a significant number of levels in 2 or more classes. However, level 1 dips are also the "obvious" power boost; so if we remove them, we should take a look at the multiclass progression so early T2 doesn't suck so much. I also would not call them exploits.
One level of cleric grants you medium armor, shields, divine spellcasting, and channel divinity that scales with proficiency bonus, so any class with one level in cleric gets a healing feature that stays relevant with level. Though it ain't coffeelock or hexadin, it's still tempting enough to justify a 1-level dip. Same for ranger - medium armor, martial weapons, shields, spellcasting, expertise, and no-concentration hunter's mark is a hell of a package for a dip. Point is, some people got used to outright game-breaking combos that exploit design flaws. Hopefully, there will be no more of that, and the main reason for multiclassing will be narrative, rather than mechanical.
A Concentration free casting of hunters mark allows per hit extra damage.
With the new light weapon rules any class can get two attacks without Ba cost.
Now wildshapes, monks, fighters, dual-wield rogues will all consider trying that ranger dip. Even a barbarian may try to find a benefit.
However that may change, the point is multi-class is fun for some but it created mechanics abuse at some tables.
To appeal to a widespread group multi-class needs to be fun but not overly powerful. So the few that felt they had to multi-class to be viable no longer feel that way.
Instead multi-classing should be a flavor or narrative preference. That seems to be wotc preferred design. And subclass at 3 main class before may bring it closer in line with that goal.
Completely agree with kamchatmonk and Roscoeivan. The new classes offer very good 1 level dips. They aren't as gamebreaking as the handful of popular dips now. That's a very good thing. When we get all the classes, I imagine they will all be smoothed out. That should be encouraging for everyone. It puts all multiclass options back on the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cue Thanatos. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Remember that D&D is a storytelling game. Obviously it's fun to make powerful characters, but I really dislike the trend of optimising a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. In an ideal world, every possible build would be equally as powerful, and that's obviously impossible. However, changing subclasses to 3rd level helps to flatten the curve.
I think it would be nice to see some UA that takes D&D in the direction of older systems, where each class (or group of classes) is effectively essential to the party; Fighters are the combat specialists, Clerics are the support/healing, Rogues are the skilled lockpicking thieves, and Wizards are the utility/blaster, and you need each of these to not die. As it is now, you can play in a party solely comprised of squishy spellcasters and be completely fine.
[REDACTED]
I think that if we accept 3rd level subclasses as a given, Mana's idea here is worth exploring for extra attack and feat progression.
It seems like a simple fix for 5 levels in any Warrior-group class (including both Ranger and Paladin as exceptions from their groups) could give a character extra attack. Additional extra attacks could come online from certain levels of Fighter specifically. Feats also seem like they could be detached from class to a certain extent as well. Everyone might get feats/ASIs every four character levels, while Rogue and Fighter might get bonus feats/ASIs at specific levels for them.
I don't think the fact that D&D is a story-telling game is an excuse for bad power balancing. Especially since proper balancing can result in new avenues that, even if they made narrative sense, would be abandoned because they would result in a character who was just too weak to do anything. I may want to play a specific type of character, but getting the abilities to play them as I want might take not only a heavy investment in levels, but leaves me simply lagging behind the rest of the party. If that happens I would rather avoid that. It's not about having ALL the power, it's about having enough power so you're not swinging a pool noodle while Big Brother 'I didn't multiclass' gets to swing the Sword of a Thousand Truths.
I'm saying that because it's a storytelling game, balance should be a large focus. And that balance should be achieved by making every category of class an essential part of the party.
[REDACTED]
There is a point about multiclassing with the new design that is being glossed over.
Subclass identity is moved to 3 but class identity is actually being moved to 1. If you want a rogue feel added to your character you get sneak and expertise at 1. ranger dips actually look more appealing. bards get Inspiration and expertise is at 1. It seems you still get good features by multiclassing 1 with all classes ...just not the specialized features. The specialized ones are the hardest for wotc to account for balance wise.
So whatever makes a "general sorcerer a sorcerer" or "warlock a warlock" should still be available at 1.
They seem to have rebalanced multiclassing not encouraging or discouraging it [at least as an intention if not in practice ].
Exactly. The new classes we have seen so far are very front loaded with their power and theme. You can now take 18 levels in one class and still get your capstone, and 2 levels in another and have all of their basic features. Even Ranger spellcasting starts at level 1 to not mess up your progression overall. And the Cleric's Orders and new uses for Channel Divinity give them much of the classes feel right out the gate. It is almost certain that Warlocks and Sorcerers will look very similar. Which makes every multiclass more viable, not just a few.
Speaking of 1st-3rd level warlock progression, what do we think it'll look like?
Considering what we've seen with Ranger and Cleric, and assuming no drastic changes to spellcasting, I'd say there's a fair argument for:
1st level: Pact Magic and Eldritch Blast as Class Features, whatever that looks like for Eldritch Blast.
(Possibility of Hex becoming a feature in the same way as Hunter's Mark but that might be too similar to Ranger. 🤷♂️ WoTC's fault for designing two spells so similar. Would also overlap with Hexblade's Curse*.)
2nd level: Pact Boon and Invocations.
Taking inspiration from the Holy Orders of the Cleric, I suspect some balancing adjustments might occur to the Pact Boons (inclusion of Hex warrior** for Pact of Blade?) or even have built-in improvements at level 5 & 9 (invocation taxes like Thirsting Blade, etc.). Would free up Invocation choices for flavour/customisation.
3rd level: Patron Subclasses. Probably wouldn't need much changing as most of the current 1st level features scale already.
*Hexblades could have their first Subclass feature changed to enhance the Class feature Hex rather than duplicate.
**WoTC would need to be willing to redesign Hexblades as Hexweavers/warriors/etc focusing on the 'Hex' and transfer the single 'Blade' feature to Pact of the Blade.
Except the curve was already quite flat. You couldn't really optimize a character to the point of overshadowing the rest of the party. Even the most optimized characters still needed their party if the encounters are appropriate for their level.
Didn't they say one of their intentions was to reduce the number of 1 level dips, the issue is that 1 level dips were popular because often going further wasn't really viable for most games since they tend to end before you can really get a multiclass combo up and running. If nerfing multiclass wasn't their intention, I feel like they are off in practice.
Also, bards get expertise at level 2, not 1.
I feel that would be Origin and Patron respectively.
They aren't trying to reduce 1 level dips. They are trying to reduce the specific 1 level dips that 'make people grit their teeth.' The 1 level dips that are most common are the ones where the classes get their subclasses at level 1. Sorcerer and Warlock just happen to also share the same primary ability score with each other, and the most powerful burst damage class. We all know why these combinations are the most popular.
The new class progressions we have seen are still really solid 1st level dips. Even more so than before in some cases. That's a good thing. Even optimizers should be happy with more good combinations opening up. It will give them something new to do for a few years.
Yes, the same old easy power combos won't be so easy anymore. But we get so much more in return. And now all three early levels offer something good
I would think so but there are other ways of re doing or labeling it.
I am an optimizer and I have my hesitation on multiclassing in any game that does not reach mid tier 3. Going deeper in a class outside of certain combos like Paladin/Sorcerer, generally results in you delaying critical features or spell progression. If the reason new options open up is because the overall power level of multiclassing dropped, then depending on how much it dropped it is kind of moot as it may no longer be competitive with single classing. I haven't seen anything absolutely amazing in the recent class changes, not even with ranger. Cleric may still be okay for medium armor and first level cleric spells as a wizard dip. For example, one of the better domains was knowledge cleric for the expertise in knowledge skills letting you get arcana expertise to have a higher chance of scribing spells; however it is definitely not worthwhile to go 3 levels into Cleric for that same benefit as that would delay spell progression far too much. There has to be a very high amount of synergy for fullcaster multiclassing to be worthwhile due to the delayed spell progression.
As an optimizer, I have yet to see any real return.
This is also why I suggested Gestalt rules (what does that even mean?) be included in the core rulebook a while back. Because it allows for a lot of avenues and unique combinations that you simply couldn't do with normal multi-classing; either at all or at least without heavy investment that could be potentially crippling to a character.
I just want to see more viable options for multiclass combos than the same ones we see again and again. Those overused combos are often because of level 1 subclasses and complimentary ability scores. So they could either push a few subclasses back to level 3, or change all of the others to level 1.
There are many problems with making them all level 1. It would be a massive overhaul that takes them even further from backwards compatibility. It would put more strain on new players everywhere. And probably worst of all, it would encourage tons of 1 level dips all over the place. Everyone would be better off multiclassing at least a few times. The benefits are just too good. The only way to balance it would be to push other features back, which starts the whole thing over again.
By pushing Cleric domains back to level 3, but giving players some of the subclass perks before that, it feels like a good compromise. I imagine the same will be true for Sorcerer and Warlock. We'll probably see some of their subclass abilities rolled into other features and come online before level 3.
Now, I'm all for taking another look at other parts of the progression. I've long felt that the standard ASIs should be based on character level, not class. I've tried to implement it in my own games, to mixed results. It's tough to get right. But I did fully expect them to try something new with it. Spell progression and extra attacks could use some fixing too for multiclassing. Those are three areas I would focus more attention than the subclass.
As Steg pointed out, at least the current 1DnD Ranger and Cleric have some outstanding benefits as 1 level dips from an optimization standpoint. Of course, more classes and subclasses have to be presented before an optimizer could really find where the synergies may lie to really take advantage.
I think optimizers want the feeling of discovering smaller, less obvious exploits, and there is more of that feeling when it is a combination of subclass features, species' features, particular spells, and feats rather than simple class features that seem more plain and easily available.
I guess my point is, there is far to little information to make broad-ranging assessments at this point, but as the selection of diverse feats, features, and spells grows, so does the ability to optimize. A new version of a game will always be more simplified at first, before a multitude of supplements are provided.
I wouldn't call One D&D's Ranger nor Cleric outstanding as level 1 dips. They seem average at best. Also, this is the time to make those assessments so the developers know there is support for improving the multiclass progression. We shouldn't be complacent and just think future releases will fix the issue, especially during the play test period. Nor should additional splat books be necessary to make up for any multiclass nerfs when it can be fixed in the PHB.
The way multiclass is set up, 1 level dips were popular because games don't tend to last long enough to actually use some builds that require a significant number of levels in 2 or more classes. However, level 1 dips are also the "obvious" power boost; so if we remove them, we should take a look at the multiclass progression so early T2 doesn't suck so much. I also would not call them exploits.
One level of cleric grants you medium armor, shields, divine spellcasting, and channel divinity that scales with proficiency bonus, so any class with one level in cleric gets a healing feature that stays relevant with level. Though it ain't coffeelock or hexadin, it's still tempting enough to justify a 1-level dip. Same for ranger - medium armor, martial weapons, shields, spellcasting, expertise, and no-concentration hunter's mark is a hell of a package for a dip. Point is, some people got used to outright game-breaking combos that exploit design flaws. Hopefully, there will be no more of that, and the main reason for multiclassing will be narrative, rather than mechanical.
A Concentration free casting of hunters mark allows per hit extra damage.
With the new light weapon rules any class can get two attacks without Ba cost.
Now wildshapes, monks, fighters, dual-wield rogues will all consider trying that ranger dip. Even a barbarian may try to find a benefit.
However that may change, the point is multi-class is fun for some but it created mechanics abuse at some tables.
To appeal to a widespread group multi-class needs to be fun but not overly powerful. So the few that felt they had to multi-class to be viable no longer feel that way.
Instead multi-classing should be a flavor or narrative preference. That seems to be wotc preferred design. And subclass at 3 main class before may bring it closer in line with that goal.
Completely agree with kamchatmonk and Roscoeivan. The new classes offer very good 1 level dips. They aren't as gamebreaking as the handful of popular dips now. That's a very good thing. When we get all the classes, I imagine they will all be smoothed out. That should be encouraging for everyone. It puts all multiclass options back on the table.