Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3. Yo fighter you can't become a champion unless you do a iron man while being tied down by 1,000 pound weights, wizard you can't become a evoker unless you stand in the flames of a ancient dragons breath weapon and survive etc. It does not really fit the classes to be in a class and then have to do something to continue, last time I saw that was monks needing to fight it out fore the top slots as you level. A paladins oath is comparable but not the same, I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3,
That assumes the “1st level patron and third level patron aren’t the same being” interpretation, as opposed to the “warlock deals with the patrons underlings until 3rd level, but the 3rd level patron was their patron all along” interpretation. The latter works just fine all through the levels.
“I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.”
Thats the DM’s job: to be sure the backstories and side plots all work together into the story as a whole. If the DM is giving out, or approving, quests that don’t matter to the plot and party, then the DM is failing the entire game group.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3,
That assumes the “1st level patron and third level patron aren’t the same being” interpretation, as opposed to the “warlock deals with the patrons underlings until 3rd level, but the 3rd level patron was their patron all along” interpretation. The latter works just fine all through the levels.
“I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.”
Thats the DM’s job: to be sure the backstories and side plots all work together into the story as a whole. If the DM is giving out, or approving, quests that don’t matter to the plot and party, then the DM is failing the entire game group.
It does not matter if its the same of different patrons, you are still making a pact with a patron at level 3. A new deal. That is weird design for the game.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3. Yo fighter you can't become a champion unless you do a iron man while being tied down by 1,000 pound weights, wizard you can't become a evoker unless you stand in the flames of a ancient dragons breath weapon and survive etc. It does not really fit the classes to be in a class and then have to do something to continue, last time I saw that was monks needing to fight it out fore the top slots as you level. A paladins oath is comparable but not the same, I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.
how did our fighter learn blind fighting during a nap after that long dungeon? how should a druid feel about horses? and do clerics really spend enough time praying? all of them? have you Jester'd your Traveler today? wizards have always had level-up spell book spell origin issues: are those free chosen spells inspiration, result of study, or mailed from your school bursars? poof, it's magic, I guess. then there's spell components too, if this thread required more slippery slope. there's no need to get absurd with dragonfire or half-ton traing montages when regular examples abound.
warlock patrons, like a lot of other character hooks, can be as much or as little a part of the story as your table likes. there's nothing saying the patron must send you out on sidequests. if the party has another focus then maybe pawn your character's soul and worry about getting it back later. easy. or maybe it's enough to simply report on what monsters were in the last dungeon, or hand over any old maps, or tempt a party member into secretly taking an extra gold coin from one encounter. even if you do get questy, you start small.
Asmodeus doesn't have a plan for every black knight or newly minted warlock for that matter. I find it more absurd to start with a super powerful patron than to work your way up a chain of promotions from merit. shrug.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3. Yo fighter you can't become a champion unless you do a iron man while being tied down by 1,000 pound weights, wizard you can't become a evoker unless you stand in the flames of a ancient dragons breath weapon and survive etc. It does not really fit the classes to be in a class and then have to do something to continue, last time I saw that was monks needing to fight it out fore the top slots as you level. A paladins oath is comparable but not the same, I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.
how did our fighter learn blind fighting during a nap after that long dungeon? how should a druid feel about horses? and do clerics really spend enough time praying? all of them? have you Jester'd your Traveler today? wizards have always had level-up spell book spell origin issues: are those free chosen spells inspiration, result of study, or mailed from your school bursars? poof, it's magic, I guess. then there's spell components too, if this thread required more slippery slope. there's no need to get absurd with dragonfire or half-ton traing montages when regular examples abound.
warlock patrons, like a lot of other character hooks, can be as much or as little a part of the story as your table likes. there's nothing saying the patron must send you out on sidequests. if the party has another focus then maybe pawn your character's soul and worry about getting it back later. easy. or maybe it's enough to simply report on what monsters were in the last dungeon, or hand over any old maps, or tempt a party member into secretly taking an extra gold coin from one encounter. even if you do get questy, you start small.
Asmodeus doesn't have a plan for every black knight or newly minted warlock for that matter. I find it more absurd to start with a super powerful patron than to work your way up a chain of promotions from merit. shrug.
It does not have to be a side quest but its a pact of some kind. Your soul, blood of innocents, your sanity, who knows. They are asking for something though. This is something much easier to do in your back story, as its your back story. This one is asking for a good DM. You don't need a good DM to explain why you are a champion now, or got your 2 spells as a wizard , you just do. While a DM can roll that way, this one really seems to be begging for a DM to come up with your pact. Sure you get to pick fiend, like a fighter gets to pick champion. But it distinctly says you are making a pact. That is part of it. It used to assumed you made the pact and no extra cost was needed once you started to play the character. Here you do have to cut the deal to continue. Maybe you can just tell the DM what your deal is at your table, I'd pretty much do that at mine. But that is not written down anywhere. It just seems to be asking for trouble at the table. With all the tables incapable of getting a short rest, the DM making the pact harder than it should be doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.
And besides you are level 3 you did not work your way up through merit, you are still a new hire.
Why not simply remove dip? I mean allow to multi-class, but grant the class and subclass features only when reach level 3. So the multi-class would be more like a multi-subclass, as the character shows commitment about wants to be multiple classes. Then you would get the HP, maybe proficiencies (or maybe not, for not getting too many with only one level), but not the features listed at the table until reach level 3, and you need level 3 in all classes involved.
I am not much against customizing a character development in multiple areas, but against cheating looking for great and convenient benefits at a very low cost exploiting weaknesses of the game system that seems hard to fix.
This is because there are class features that is required to get soon, as are key features that allows the character to be not useless at start. So is not the class itself the one which would suffer a big nerf because of the multi-class system, it should be the multi-class the one to suffer it as is the addition, the side one.
The Warlock is a classic, but even getting only 1 level of Fighter, you get at least the equivalent to 4 feats: armor/shield, martial weapons, weapon mastery, combat style.
Why not simply remove dip? I mean allow to multi-class, but grant the class and subclass features only when reach level 3. So the multi-class would be more like a multi-subclass, as the character shows commitment about wants to be multiple classes. Then you would get the HP, maybe proficiencies (or maybe not, for not getting too many with only one level), but not the features listed at the table until reach level 3, and you need level 3 in all classes involved.
I am not much against customizing a character development in multiple areas, but against cheating looking for great and convenient benefits at a very low cost exploiting weaknesses of the game system that seems hard to fix.
This is because there are class features that is required to get soon, as are key features that allows the character to be not useless at start. So is not the class itself the one which would suffer a big nerf because of the multi-class system, it should be the multi-class the one to suffer it as is the addition, the side one.
The Warlock is a classic, but even getting only 1 level of Fighter, you get at least the equivalent to 4 feats: armor/shield, martial weapons, weapon mastery, combat style.
That kind of goes to the heart of it. They really need to fix the base multi classing system instead of trying to make the classes multi class proof.
I think they needed to expand their heavy armor rule. It does not make much sense that you can gain all there is from a class except heavy armor. Spell casting, martial weapons, whatever you want but heavy armor was a bridge too far. It seems out of place on its own. But if you tagged certain abilities as something like core class abilities and you could only gain and keep them if at least 1/2 your levels were in that class with heavy armor being one of those, and heck the level 2 cleric ability for heavy armor the same, pacts the same etc. It would solve a lot of the issues without needing to level gate and have other weird class changes to protect from a dip.
That kind of goes to the heart of it. They really need to fix the base multi classing system instead of trying to make the classes multi class proof.
I doubt they're going to do anything major to multi-classing; if they were going to go that route they'd be better off changing how we build characters altogether (e.g- ditch classes and just give us feature trees to mix and match from), but they'd still need to balance features with that in mind so that no path becomes an easy single level dip.
Personally I think the best fix is to move the attack using spellcasting feature to 3rd- or 5th-level; this way blade-locks are encouraged to build for some baseline ability with a weapon (instead of being a noodle-armed weakling who can outperform a trained warrior simply by being a bit sexy), and the dip is a much bigger investment. A typical Bladelock with average stats shouldn't be maxing out their spellcasting ability before 5th-level so this shouldn't affect "pure" bladelocks much.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That kind of goes to the heart of it. They really need to fix the base multi classing system instead of trying to make the classes multi class proof.
The core problem is trying to start characters at level 1, because it means level 1 has to provide enough stuff to produce a playable and distinctive character.
That kind of goes to the heart of it. They really need to fix the base multi classing system instead of trying to make the classes multi class proof.
The core problem is trying to start characters at level 1, because it means level 1 has to provide enough stuff to produce a playable and distinctive character.
I thought one of 5e's design principles was actually to have characters mostly start at 3rd or 4th character level? And that would also explain why all subclasses are moving to 3rd class level. Starting at 1st and 2nd level was supposed to be for the old-school-grognards who absolutely insist on it.
That way, if you want to start as the old-school-ish Elven Fighter/Wizard, you can do it without the 3e hack of "half-level"s at 1st character level. Or even the 1e triple-multiclass (Cleric/Fighter/Wizard or Cleric/Thief/Wizard were the two main ones IIRC). Instead of having those half-level starting points, you just start at 3rd or 4th character level, with some number of levels spread around your multiclass concept.
Start at 3rd level with: Fighter 3, or Wizard 3, etc.: You get a full subclass and all that goes with it, as your starting point. And if you're a full caster, you've already got 2nd level spells.
Or: Fighter 1/Wizard 1 (and another level somewhere, maybe fighter, maybe wizard ... maybe cleric, etc.) : you get the basics of each of your multiclass paths, but you don't get any of your subclasses yet. You've got the seeds, but you don't have any depth at all.
The point being: moving anything controversial to 3rd level (SADblading, etc.), to make 1 level dips far less attractive, wouldn't actually be that horrible. 3rd level is where you start to come into your class build's true identity & role. For something like Pact Blade, move the ability score SADblading to 3rd level in the class, move the Extra Attack to 6th level.
As for limiting multiclassing in general? I think that's one of those things that is so core to the D&D class concept that it will never go away, and being severely limited will probably also never be accepted by the fan-base at large. Didn't they try to get rid of it in 4e? How well did that go over with the overall D&D crowd?
I thought one of 5e's design principles was actually to have characters mostly start at 3rd or 4th character level?
While a lot of people do that, an awful lot of games still start at 1 so they have to make sure the game is playable at 1.
They could in principle change the multiclass rules so you can't dip, though -- perhaps require certain distributions of levels (say, 'if a multiclass character has fewer than three levels in any of their classes, on gaining a level they must advance one of those classes').
I thought one of 5e's design principles was actually to have characters mostly start at 3rd or 4th character level?
While a lot of people do that, an awful lot of games still start at 1 so they have to make sure the game is playable at 1.
They could in principle change the multiclass rules so you can't dip, though -- perhaps require certain distributions of levels (say, 'if a multiclass character has fewer than three levels in any of their classes, on gaining a level they must advance one of those classes').
That's kind of, but not exactly, re-inventing the "Preferred Class" mechanic from 3e, which was supposed to prevent a lot of that kind of shenanigans. I think it was not brought back to 5e as part of the "more streamlined and minimalist" approach. But it's an easy to add homebrew rule, whether species based (like 3e) or not.
multiclass dip isn't really the problem for this thread, is it? more like a symptom. if warlock multiclass requirements were set at CHA 13 and INT 13, then standard array stats would balance out the dip cost. but the dip isn't the issue as much as the Eldritch Warrior casting stat bonus to attack. right? so max that at +2 or something. and make it a feat so anyone who needs a finger-snap-bamf sword can pay for it fair and square! does that about cover it? okay, now someone can start a "class quests, backgrounds, and level 1 are weird" thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Either using casting stat for weapon attacks should be a feat available to everyone equally, or it shouldn't be included anywhere. I personally would choose the latter. 5e warlock was totally fine before they introduced Hexblade, it should go back to that, just like how 5e was totally fine before the blade cantrips. Both of these just help casters infringe on the role of martials which is bad for the game.
That kind of goes to the heart of it. They really need to fix the base multi classing system instead of trying to make the classes multi class proof.
The core problem is trying to start characters at level 1, because it means level 1 has to provide enough stuff to produce a playable and distinctive character.
I disagree. The core of the problem is having "Tier 1" be all of level 1-4. When there is much bigger difference between a level 1 character and a level 4 character than between a level 6 character and a level 10 character. Level 1 and 2 adventures should be designed significantly differently than level 3 and 4 adventures.
Either using casting stat for weapon attacks should be a feat available to everyone equally, or it shouldn't be included anywhere. I personally would choose the latter. 5e warlock was totally fine before they introduced Hexblade, it should go back to that, just like how 5e was totally fine before the blade cantrips. Both of these just help casters infringe on the role of martials which is bad for the game.
I dunno if I'd drop the blade cantrips entirely; personally I like them, but they need to be rebalanced. The only drawback to the current versions is limiting your number of attacks, but on classes that only get one anyway, who cares? Plus cantrip scaling means they do plenty of damage anyway. And then they released stuff like Bladesinger for whom that wasn't even a problem!
By all means give me the ability to light my sword on fire early on or whatever, but they should be balanced against shillelagh with comparatively minor benefits, e.g- green-flame blade might just change the damage type to fire, and deal casting modifier in secondary spill damage, and booming blade would just be a d6 + modifier trap damage, but with no scaling.
Since everybody's getting the ability to swap out cantrips in OneD&D it doesn't matter if some cantrips aren't as good later in the game, as we have spells like flame blade and shadow blade for later (though hopefully flame blade will be improved).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That kind of goes to the heart of it. They really need to fix the base multi classing system instead of trying to make the classes multi class proof.
The core problem is trying to start characters at level 1, because it means level 1 has to provide enough stuff to produce a playable and distinctive character.
I disagree. The core of the problem is having "Tier 1" be all of level 1-4. When there is much bigger difference between a level 1 character and a level 4 character than between a level 6 character and a level 10 character. Level 1 and 2 adventures should be designed significantly differently than level 3 and 4 adventures.
How is that a problem outside of Adventurer's League?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3. Yo fighter you can't become a champion unless you do a iron man while being tied down by 1,000 pound weights, wizard you can't become a evoker unless you stand in the flames of a ancient dragons breath weapon and survive etc. It does not really fit the classes to be in a class and then have to do something to continue, last time I saw that was monks needing to fight it out fore the top slots as you level. A paladins oath is comparable but not the same, I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.
That assumes the “1st level patron and third level patron aren’t the same being” interpretation, as opposed to the “warlock deals with the patrons underlings until 3rd level, but the 3rd level patron was their patron all along” interpretation. The latter works just fine all through the levels.
“I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.”
Thats the DM’s job: to be sure the backstories and side plots all work together into the story as a whole. If the DM is giving out, or approving, quests that don’t matter to the plot and party, then the DM is failing the entire game group.
It does not matter if its the same of different patrons, you are still making a pact with a patron at level 3. A new deal. That is weird design for the game.
how did our fighter learn blind fighting during a nap after that long dungeon? how should a druid feel about horses? and do clerics really spend enough time praying? all of them? have you Jester'd your Traveler today? wizards have always had level-up spell book spell origin issues: are those free chosen spells inspiration, result of study, or mailed from your school bursars? poof, it's magic, I guess. then there's spell components too, if this thread required more slippery slope. there's no need to get absurd with dragonfire or half-ton traing montages when regular examples abound.
warlock patrons, like a lot of other character hooks, can be as much or as little a part of the story as your table likes. there's nothing saying the patron must send you out on sidequests. if the party has another focus then maybe pawn your character's soul and worry about getting it back later. easy. or maybe it's enough to simply report on what monsters were in the last dungeon, or hand over any old maps, or tempt a party member into secretly taking an extra gold coin from one encounter. even if you do get questy, you start small.
Asmodeus doesn't have a plan for every black knight or newly minted warlock for that matter. I find it more absurd to start with a super powerful patron than to work your way up a chain of promotions from merit. shrug.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
It does not have to be a side quest but its a pact of some kind. Your soul, blood of innocents, your sanity, who knows. They are asking for something though. This is something much easier to do in your back story, as its your back story. This one is asking for a good DM. You don't need a good DM to explain why you are a champion now, or got your 2 spells as a wizard , you just do. While a DM can roll that way, this one really seems to be begging for a DM to come up with your pact. Sure you get to pick fiend, like a fighter gets to pick champion. But it distinctly says you are making a pact. That is part of it. It used to assumed you made the pact and no extra cost was needed once you started to play the character. Here you do have to cut the deal to continue. Maybe you can just tell the DM what your deal is at your table, I'd pretty much do that at mine. But that is not written down anywhere. It just seems to be asking for trouble at the table. With all the tables incapable of getting a short rest, the DM making the pact harder than it should be doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.
And besides you are level 3 you did not work your way up through merit, you are still a new hire.
Why not simply remove dip? I mean allow to multi-class, but grant the class and subclass features only when reach level 3. So the multi-class would be more like a multi-subclass, as the character shows commitment about wants to be multiple classes. Then you would get the HP, maybe proficiencies (or maybe not, for not getting too many with only one level), but not the features listed at the table until reach level 3, and you need level 3 in all classes involved.
I am not much against customizing a character development in multiple areas, but against cheating looking for great and convenient benefits at a very low cost exploiting weaknesses of the game system that seems hard to fix.
This is because there are class features that is required to get soon, as are key features that allows the character to be not useless at start. So is not the class itself the one which would suffer a big nerf because of the multi-class system, it should be the multi-class the one to suffer it as is the addition, the side one.
The Warlock is a classic, but even getting only 1 level of Fighter, you get at least the equivalent to 4 feats: armor/shield, martial weapons, weapon mastery, combat style.
That kind of goes to the heart of it. They really need to fix the base multi classing system instead of trying to make the classes multi class proof.
I think they needed to expand their heavy armor rule. It does not make much sense that you can gain all there is from a class except heavy armor. Spell casting, martial weapons, whatever you want but heavy armor was a bridge too far. It seems out of place on its own. But if you tagged certain abilities as something like core class abilities and you could only gain and keep them if at least 1/2 your levels were in that class with heavy armor being one of those, and heck the level 2 cleric ability for heavy armor the same, pacts the same etc. It would solve a lot of the issues without needing to level gate and have other weird class changes to protect from a dip.
I doubt they're going to do anything major to multi-classing; if they were going to go that route they'd be better off changing how we build characters altogether (e.g- ditch classes and just give us feature trees to mix and match from), but they'd still need to balance features with that in mind so that no path becomes an easy single level dip.
Personally I think the best fix is to move the attack using spellcasting feature to 3rd- or 5th-level; this way blade-locks are encouraged to build for some baseline ability with a weapon (instead of being a noodle-armed weakling who can outperform a trained warrior simply by being a bit sexy), and the dip is a much bigger investment. A typical Bladelock with average stats shouldn't be maxing out their spellcasting ability before 5th-level so this shouldn't affect "pure" bladelocks much.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The core problem is trying to start characters at level 1, because it means level 1 has to provide enough stuff to produce a playable and distinctive character.
I thought one of 5e's design principles was actually to have characters mostly start at 3rd or 4th character level? And that would also explain why all subclasses are moving to 3rd class level. Starting at 1st and 2nd level was supposed to be for the old-school-grognards who absolutely insist on it.
That way, if you want to start as the old-school-ish Elven Fighter/Wizard, you can do it without the 3e hack of "half-level"s at 1st character level. Or even the 1e triple-multiclass (Cleric/Fighter/Wizard or Cleric/Thief/Wizard were the two main ones IIRC). Instead of having those half-level starting points, you just start at 3rd or 4th character level, with some number of levels spread around your multiclass concept.
Start at 3rd level with:
Fighter 3, or Wizard 3, etc.: You get a full subclass and all that goes with it, as your starting point. And if you're a full caster, you've already got 2nd level spells.
Or:
Fighter 1/Wizard 1 (and another level somewhere, maybe fighter, maybe wizard ... maybe cleric, etc.) : you get the basics of each of your multiclass paths, but you don't get any of your subclasses yet. You've got the seeds, but you don't have any depth at all.
The point being: moving anything controversial to 3rd level (SADblading, etc.), to make 1 level dips far less attractive, wouldn't actually be that horrible. 3rd level is where you start to come into your class build's true identity & role. For something like Pact Blade, move the ability score SADblading to 3rd level in the class, move the Extra Attack to 6th level.
As for limiting multiclassing in general? I think that's one of those things that is so core to the D&D class concept that it will never go away, and being severely limited will probably also never be accepted by the fan-base at large. Didn't they try to get rid of it in 4e? How well did that go over with the overall D&D crowd?
While a lot of people do that, an awful lot of games still start at 1 so they have to make sure the game is playable at 1.
They could in principle change the multiclass rules so you can't dip, though -- perhaps require certain distributions of levels (say, 'if a multiclass character has fewer than three levels in any of their classes, on gaining a level they must advance one of those classes').
That's kind of, but not exactly, re-inventing the "Preferred Class" mechanic from 3e, which was supposed to prevent a lot of that kind of shenanigans. I think it was not brought back to 5e as part of the "more streamlined and minimalist" approach. But it's an easy to add homebrew rule, whether species based (like 3e) or not.
multiclass dip isn't really the problem for this thread, is it? more like a symptom. if warlock multiclass requirements were set at CHA 13 and INT 13, then standard array stats would balance out the dip cost. but the dip isn't the issue as much as the Eldritch Warrior casting stat bonus to attack. right? so max that at +2 or something. and make it a feat so anyone who needs a finger-snap-bamf sword can pay for it fair and square! does that about cover it? okay, now someone can start a "class quests, backgrounds, and level 1 are weird" thread.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Either using casting stat for weapon attacks should be a feat available to everyone equally, or it shouldn't be included anywhere. I personally would choose the latter. 5e warlock was totally fine before they introduced Hexblade, it should go back to that, just like how 5e was totally fine before the blade cantrips. Both of these just help casters infringe on the role of martials which is bad for the game.
I disagree. The core of the problem is having "Tier 1" be all of level 1-4. When there is much bigger difference between a level 1 character and a level 4 character than between a level 6 character and a level 10 character. Level 1 and 2 adventures should be designed significantly differently than level 3 and 4 adventures.
I dunno if I'd drop the blade cantrips entirely; personally I like them, but they need to be rebalanced. The only drawback to the current versions is limiting your number of attacks, but on classes that only get one anyway, who cares? Plus cantrip scaling means they do plenty of damage anyway. And then they released stuff like Bladesinger for whom that wasn't even a problem!
By all means give me the ability to light my sword on fire early on or whatever, but they should be balanced against shillelagh with comparatively minor benefits, e.g- green-flame blade might just change the damage type to fire, and deal casting modifier in secondary spill damage, and booming blade would just be a d6 + modifier trap damage, but with no scaling.
Since everybody's getting the ability to swap out cantrips in OneD&D it doesn't matter if some cantrips aren't as good later in the game, as we have spells like flame blade and shadow blade for later (though hopefully flame blade will be improved).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
How is that a problem outside of Adventurer's League?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
They could have solved the blade pact problem by deleting the blade pact, but as long as it exists, it should be made into a credible choice.