If they did that, it would remove the major price people pay for multi-classing. As an avid muti-classer, I think it would be bad to make the choice so easy for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
If they did that, it would remove the major price people pay for multi-classing. As an avid muti-classer, I think it would be bad to make the choice so easy for me.
If you are splitting ASIs and Feats into separate tracks, you could make just one of them (ASIs) track with total level, while leaving Feats to "compete" with multiclassing.
If they did decide to separate the ASI’s and Feats, how should they be broken up? The OP’s idea of keeping all 5 ASI’s and throwing 5 feats on top of that, all based on character level instead of class, really shifts the power balance. I doubt WotC would even go near that far. In 1DD ASI’s are feats
For those advocating the separation, what do you think would be balanced?
My initial thought is 3 ASI’s based on class level. And 3 feats based on character level.
If they did that, it would remove the major price people pay for multi-classing. As an avid muti-classer, I think it would be bad to make the choice so easy for me.
The price you pay should be the lost high level abilities in the class. The multiclass system needs a complete overall either way.
Also, I was thinking (not always a good thing, according to my wife, lol) that with ASI’s on class level it fits nicely on each class table. They would have to have a separate chart for character level feats or ASI’s (if they changed when you received them) or add it to the advancement chart. And since they moved away from standard subclass feature progression it wouldn’t look as neat and tidy for feats/ASI’s to fall on the same level as class/subclass features.
If they did that, it would remove the major price people pay for multi-classing. As an avid muti-classer, I think it would be bad to make the choice so easy for me.
To put my lot in with MyDudeicus, the cost of multi-classing really should be the missed out class features. If the class is not interesting to invest in... then that's not the fault of multi-classing but of the class design. Multi-classing may still share some of the "blame" though if early level class features grant a front-loaded reward - as an example a 1 level investment into Cleric can grant any multi-classer: All Armor proficiencies, Shield & Martial Weapon proficiencies, and Spell Casting. At the cost of requiring 13 WIS at minimum. Some caveats could be installed for multi-classing, delaying certain otherwise front-loaded benefits in the class. Without hindering the multi-classer's ASIs or Feat acquisition (because they could be tied to character level instead) it could be a fair compromise that multi-classing into Cleric first unlocks the Divine Domain at level 2 for instance.
Personally I find the class design of Warlock highly illogical to include certain support spells at level 1 or 2, but your spell slot levels quickly "outlevel" these spells at level 5, going to 3rd level spell slots, where it feels wasteful to cast these support spells because they don't scale with spell level. Therefore I will almost always seek to include a multiclass into Sorcerer (so no stat hindrance) to acquire some low level spell slots, strictly for utility like Hex. Just 2 levels grants 4x 1st level spell slots, 3x Sorc spells known and 4x cantrips. If the Warlock class included more natural spell slots for low level spell casting, there wouldn't be such an incentive to multiclass, and perhaps we could get to a point where they are not overly relying on Eldritch Blast. I know one of the ideas with Warlock is that their magic wielding is different than arcane users, but it is done in such a weird non-sensical way. Often resulting in Eldritch Blast spammers or Hexblades that basically try to achieve a gish-esque build of fighter/spell-caster - which I cannot see would not be improved by multi-classing to another spell caster class to acquire more spell slots for stuff like Shield. In the UA they made a non-combat ritual that restores half your spell slots (rounded up) once per long rest. Slightly mirroring the Arcane Recovery class feature from Wizard. Still that leaves a lot to be desired by a primary spell caster build. In some places they use Eldritch Invocations to allow the use of certain spells; like Fiendish Vigor that grants access to False Life at no cost. Still these are often restricted to one spell and they are cost-less. Pact of the Tome grants a 1st level spell slot, and in the UA is not prohibited to be taken by someone who has already taken another Pact. I wouldn't mind if they went this way that Invocations could grant you additional spell slots, not even if they want to restrict their use to a handful of pre-selected or player-chosen options. Imagine a Shell Invocation that grants 2x 1st level spell slots that can only be used to cast; Shield, Absorb Element, or Armor of Agathys. And if 2x spell slots is a bit too much for one invocation (in the UA you gain many invocations in the early levels, but fewer on higher levels), then have it grant 1x 1st level spell slot, but allow it to be taken up to twice, or grant it the Thirsting Blade treatment that it upgrades at certain thresholds in the Warlock class.
As for OneDnD and character progression on ASIs/Feats, I think we're too far down 5e's design path, so there's no real purpose in trying to shoehorn the change into 5.5e. But I think it's worthwhile to voice the concern and dissatisfaction of that design choice for the purpose of shaping an eventual 6th edition. And even though WotC wanted OneDnD to be the "final" DnD version... that's unlikely to happen. A new edition grants new difficulties, new opportunities for expansions - in short: money making. And for the Devs/players a new opportunity for a differently structured system that hopefully is engaging to keep players old and new interested in the game. And a new edition doesn't directly take away from older editions, as long as the older edition is considered better.
If they did that, it would remove the major price people pay for multi-classing. As an avid muti-classer, I think it would be bad to make the choice so easy for me.
The price you pay should be the lost high level abilities in the class. The multiclass system needs a complete overall either way.
Thats a really bad solution with a vague vision of the future, if Some design element breaks everything, saying no worries just fix everything else seems like you have solved anything, just created new problems, if you know have an idea that fixes everything else as well, that might be worth discussing.
I'll posit that it kind of defeats the purpose of multiclassing if it makes you always inferior, because nothing competes with high level abilities. IDont think most high level abilities are currently lacking in power.
If they did that, it would remove the major price people pay for multi-classing. As an avid muti-classer, I think it would be bad to make the choice so easy for me.
The price you pay should be the lost high level abilities in the class. The multiclass system needs a complete overall either way.
Thats a really bad solution with a vague vision of the future, if Some design element breaks everything, saying no worries just fix everything else seems like you have solved anything, just created new problems, if you know have an idea that fixes everything else as well, that might be worth discussing.
I'll posit that it kind of defeats the purpose of multiclassing if it makes you always inferior, because nothing competes with high level abilities. IDont think most high level abilities are currently lacking in power.
If the purpose of multi-classing is to get more powerful it should just be removed from the game. The point should be to make new and interesting builds that are not possible with a single class build.
Also, I was thinking (not always a good thing, according to my wife, lol) that with ASI’s on class level it fits nicely on each class table. They would have to have a separate chart for character level feats or ASI’s (if they changed when you received them) or add it to the advancement chart. And since they moved away from standard subclass feature progression it wouldn’t look as neat and tidy for feats/ASI’s to fall on the same level as class/subclass features.
They fit on a class level but they do not fit well imo. what part of hitting 4th level as a barbarian screams and this is where i learn a feat. Its a generic blob on every class at the same levels except the couple bonus ones on fighter and one bonus one on rogue. It does not necessarily need to be separate to do this but those levels don't really do much to build on the class you are investing in. Those levels should have a real class feature there whether ASIs are separate or not
Also, I was thinking (not always a good thing, according to my wife, lol) that with ASI’s on class level it fits nicely on each class table. They would have to have a separate chart for character level feats or ASI’s (if they changed when you received them) or add it to the advancement chart. And since they moved away from standard subclass feature progression it wouldn’t look as neat and tidy for feats/ASI’s to fall on the same level as class/subclass features.
I am 156% supporting the idea of a separate character level table that includes things like ASIs, feats, half-skills, skills, tool/language proficiencies, etc.
If they did that, it would remove the major price people pay for multi-classing. As an avid muti-classer, I think it would be bad to make the choice so easy for me.
The price you pay should be the lost high level abilities in the class. The multiclass system needs a complete overall either way.
Thats a really bad solution with a vague vision of the future, if Some design element breaks everything, saying no worries just fix everything else seems like you have solved anything, just created new problems, if you know have an idea that fixes everything else as well, that might be worth discussing.
I'll posit that it kind of defeats the purpose of multiclassing if it makes you always inferior, because nothing competes with high level abilities. IDont think most high level abilities are currently lacking in power.
If the purpose of multi-classing is to get more powerful it should just be removed from the game. The point should be to make new and interesting builds that are not possible with a single class build.
The two are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be without a ludicrous amount of extra work, if at all. The objective fact is that one can use multiclassing for power-combos, ergo there ought to be a significant baked-in cost to the dip as well. And even if you aren't leaning into major combos, there's the simple fact that people can squeeze stuff at least as good as you get from feats from a dip; one basic example is claiming Fighter as your "starting" class even though most levels will go into another so you get Heavy Armor and possibly Action Surge if you put a second level in, or taking a single "starting level" in Rogue for two extra skill profs and two Expertises. Getting Heavy Armor otherwise requires both a feat and already having Medium Armor, and there's literally no other way to get two Expertises from a single level besides Rogue or Bard. Dipping into any full caster gives significantly more spells than you can get from a feat as well, even if you'll still have limited spell slots. If they keep that last update to Warlocks from the UA, you'll be able to grab one of the Pact options with a 1 level dip once that comes out. Regardless of what any one player's particular intentions are when they multiclass, the simple fact is that dipping can give you returns that are better than what you can get from a feat, so there needs to be some kind of brake put on character progress in other areas to compensate, and putting tier 4 features out of reach is not a notable cost given how few campaigns hit that level.
Personally I find the class design of Warlock highly illogical to include certain support spells at level 1 or 2, but your spell slot levels quickly "outlevel" these spells at level 5, going to 3rd level spell slots, where it feels wasteful to cast these support spells because they don't scale with spell level. Therefore I will almost always seek to include a multiclass into Sorcerer (so no stat hindrance) to acquire some low level spell slots, strictly for utility like Hex.
Hex and Shield are not utility spells they are combat spells. Hex scales with EB beam-number so should cost a higher level slot at higher levels because Hex for an 11th level warlock is 3x as powerful as Hex for a 1st level warlock - why should it cost the same level spell slot? I really wish the UA versions of Hex & Hunter's Mark had survived play testing because they actually fixed the power imbalance of these spells. The whole point of Warlock is that it uses a different spellcasting mechanic than other spellcasting classes, the whole point is that you are primarily an EB / spell-sword gish and NOT a full spellcaster - they play like a Fighter that uses spells rather than a full spellcaster. If you don't like that I'd suggest not playing a warlock and just go full Sorcerer or Bard (or MC between the two of them) as there are plenty of build options for full CHA spellcaster already.
The MC between warlock & sorcerer is incredibly broken, and needs a massive nerf (EB cannot remain a cantrip), there is and will always be a massive incentive to MC purely for power reasons because it is necessary to put a lot of very good class features in the first 3 levels of the game so that classes really feel distinct from each other even at low levels. So there must be costs to MCing as well, or we might as well forget about high level class features because everyone will be MCing.
The two are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be without a ludicrous amount of extra work, if at all. The objective fact is that one can use multiclassing for power-combos, ergo there ought to be a significant baked-in cost to the dip as well. And even if you aren't leaning into major combos, there's the simple fact that people can squeeze stuff at least as good as you get from feats from a dip; one basic example is claiming Fighter as your "starting" class even though most levels will go into another so you get Heavy Armor and possibly Action Surge if you put a second level in, or taking a single "starting level" in Rogue for two extra skill profs and two Expertises. Getting Heavy Armor otherwise requires both a feat and already having Medium Armor, and there's literally no other way to get two Expertises from a single level besides Rogue or Bard. Dipping into any full caster gives significantly more spells than you can get from a feat as well, even if you'll still have limited spell slots. If they keep that last update to Warlocks from the UA, you'll be able to grab one of the Pact options with a 1 level dip once that comes out. Regardless of what any one player's particular intentions are when they multiclass, the simple fact is that dipping can give you returns that are better than what you can get from a feat, so there needs to be some kind of brake put on character progress in other areas to compensate, and putting tier 4 features out of reach is not a notable cost given how few campaigns hit that level.
That is a lot of words to say "I agree, some classes are ridiculously badly designed and front-loaded."
The two are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be without a ludicrous amount of extra work, if at all. The objective fact is that one can use multiclassing for power-combos, ergo there ought to be a significant baked-in cost to the dip as well. And even if you aren't leaning into major combos, there's the simple fact that people can squeeze stuff at least as good as you get from feats from a dip; one basic example is claiming Fighter as your "starting" class even though most levels will go into another so you get Heavy Armor and possibly Action Surge if you put a second level in, or taking a single "starting level" in Rogue for two extra skill profs and two Expertises. Getting Heavy Armor otherwise requires both a feat and already having Medium Armor, and there's literally no other way to get two Expertises from a single level besides Rogue or Bard. Dipping into any full caster gives significantly more spells than you can get from a feat as well, even if you'll still have limited spell slots. If they keep that last update to Warlocks from the UA, you'll be able to grab one of the Pact options with a 1 level dip once that comes out. Regardless of what any one player's particular intentions are when they multiclass, the simple fact is that dipping can give you returns that are better than what you can get from a feat, so there needs to be some kind of brake put on character progress in other areas to compensate, and putting tier 4 features out of reach is not a notable cost given how few campaigns hit that level.
That is a lot of words to say "I agree, some classes are ridiculously badly designed and front-loaded."
That’s an extremely reductive and incorrect interpretation of my position and the facts.
imagine EB was a 1st level spell and warlock could cast one free 1st level warlock spell each round. also assume a feature at warlock levels 5/11/17 increases number of EB beams. what's lost? what's gained?
MC dip for EB would fall off in tier 2, but opens up tier 1 to just using witch bolt instead. although WB doesn't seem like it'd trigger the current hex on successive rounds. oh, and now you wouldn't be able to cast EB in the same round you cast hex. hmm. well, at least if concentration breaks you can just cast hex again. same could be said for armor of agathys: nice to have, but definitely in trade for combat action economy and only truly useful in tier 1. then again, even in later tiers it would be more than a little handy to have near-infinite access to even a 1st level of fear, retreat, or protect from evil at all times. maybe safer just say the free 1st level spell has to be hex, armor, or EB.
...might be fun to playtest. however, seems like the easier fix would be to leave EB as a cantrip and use a "# of EB beams" column in the warlock class table.
The two are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be without a ludicrous amount of extra work, if at all. The objective fact is that one can use multiclassing for power-combos, ergo there ought to be a significant baked-in cost to the dip as well. And even if you aren't leaning into major combos, there's the simple fact that people can squeeze stuff at least as good as you get from feats from a dip; one basic example is claiming Fighter as your "starting" class even though most levels will go into another so you get Heavy Armor and possibly Action Surge if you put a second level in, or taking a single "starting level" in Rogue for two extra skill profs and two Expertises. Getting Heavy Armor otherwise requires both a feat and already having Medium Armor, and there's literally no other way to get two Expertises from a single level besides Rogue or Bard. Dipping into any full caster gives significantly more spells than you can get from a feat as well, even if you'll still have limited spell slots. If they keep that last update to Warlocks from the UA, you'll be able to grab one of the Pact options with a 1 level dip once that comes out. Regardless of what any one player's particular intentions are when they multiclass, the simple fact is that dipping can give you returns that are better than what you can get from a feat, so there needs to be some kind of brake put on character progress in other areas to compensate, and putting tier 4 features out of reach is not a notable cost given how few campaigns hit that level.
That is a lot of words to say "I agree, some classes are ridiculously badly designed and front-loaded."
'badly designed' is subjective, front loaded is seen be many as a good thing overall. They want early levels of classes to feel interesting and unique. And to be honest most multi class things aren't OP, there are a few outliers.
They could design a better multiclass system, but it would probably not be as good a single class system. Any design will involve choices and tradeoffs.
imagine EB was a 1st level spell and warlock could cast one free 1st level warlock spell each round. also assume a feature at warlock levels 5/11/17 increases number of EB beams. what's lost? what's gained?
MC dip for EB would fall off in tier 2, but opens up tier 1 to just using witch bolt instead. although WB doesn't seem like it'd trigger the current hex on successive rounds. oh, and now you wouldn't be able to cast EB in the same round you cast hex. hmm. well, at least if concentration breaks you can just cast hex again. same could be said for armor of agathys: nice to have, but definitely in trade for combat action economy and only truly useful in tier 1. then again, even in later tiers it would be more than a little handy to have near-infinite access to even a 1st level of fear, retreat, or protect from evil at all times. maybe safer just say the free 1st level spell has to be hex, armor, or EB.
...might be fun to playtest. however, seems like the easier fix would be to leave EB as a cantrip and use a "# of EB beams" column in the warlock class table.
EB just needs to be a class feature, rather than a spell. It's not only good for fixing the Sorlock, but it also makes Warlocks less vulnerable to things like Globe of Invulnerability or Magic Immunity.
...seems like the easier fix would be to leave EB as a cantrip and use a "# of EB beams" column in the warlock class table.
EB just needs to be a class feature, rather than a spell. It's not only good for fixing the Sorlock, but it also makes Warlocks less vulnerable to things like Globe of Invulnerability or Magic Immunity.
is getting past magic immunity and globe of invulnerability really equally as reasonable as toning down a multiclass combo? in fact, aren't those both dm tools in reaction to high powered characters??
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!
I completely agree that EB needs to be a class feature, for a variety of reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
RE: the "they can't do it because backwards compatibility" argument...
I don't get where you are coming from. Classes changed. Classes use new tables. If a class in OD&D is using a new table, the table might as well *not* include ASIs, and have a separate "character advancement table". What part is clashing with backwards compatibility? Take races. Ooops, we don't have races any more. So we have something else. "But GM, pretty please, I want to play this harengon/dhampir/whatever, but that is a race, and we now have species and background feats and whatever, so the format kinda doesn't fit..." Is that backwards compatible? In what way is that backwards compatible, but the sentence "If playing a pre-OD&D class that has built-in ASIs, ignore those at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 & 19" is some great clash that demolishes backwards compatibility?
I don't even want to think about any "healing" content from before being "totally compatible" with the new game that has healing spells at double the strength....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If they did that, it would remove the major price people pay for multi-classing. As an avid muti-classer, I think it would be bad to make the choice so easy for me.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
If you are splitting ASIs and Feats into separate tracks, you could make just one of them (ASIs) track with total level, while leaving Feats to "compete" with multiclassing.
If they did decide to separate the ASI’s and Feats, how should they be broken up? The OP’s idea of keeping all 5 ASI’s and throwing 5 feats on top of that, all based on character level instead of class, really shifts the power balance. I doubt WotC would even go near that far. In 1DD ASI’s are feats
For those advocating the separation, what do you think would be balanced?
My initial thought is 3 ASI’s based on class level. And 3 feats based on character level.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The price you pay should be the lost high level abilities in the class. The multiclass system needs a complete overall either way.
Also, I was thinking (not always a good thing, according to my wife, lol) that with ASI’s on class level it fits nicely on each class table. They would have to have a separate chart for character level feats or ASI’s (if they changed when you received them) or add it to the advancement chart. And since they moved away from standard subclass feature progression it wouldn’t look as neat and tidy for feats/ASI’s to fall on the same level as class/subclass features.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
To put my lot in with MyDudeicus, the cost of multi-classing really should be the missed out class features. If the class is not interesting to invest in... then that's not the fault of multi-classing but of the class design. Multi-classing may still share some of the "blame" though if early level class features grant a front-loaded reward - as an example a 1 level investment into Cleric can grant any multi-classer: All Armor proficiencies, Shield & Martial Weapon proficiencies, and Spell Casting. At the cost of requiring 13 WIS at minimum. Some caveats could be installed for multi-classing, delaying certain otherwise front-loaded benefits in the class. Without hindering the multi-classer's ASIs or Feat acquisition (because they could be tied to character level instead) it could be a fair compromise that multi-classing into Cleric first unlocks the Divine Domain at level 2 for instance.
Personally I find the class design of Warlock highly illogical to include certain support spells at level 1 or 2, but your spell slot levels quickly "outlevel" these spells at level 5, going to 3rd level spell slots, where it feels wasteful to cast these support spells because they don't scale with spell level. Therefore I will almost always seek to include a multiclass into Sorcerer (so no stat hindrance) to acquire some low level spell slots, strictly for utility like Hex. Just 2 levels grants 4x 1st level spell slots, 3x Sorc spells known and 4x cantrips. If the Warlock class included more natural spell slots for low level spell casting, there wouldn't be such an incentive to multiclass, and perhaps we could get to a point where they are not overly relying on Eldritch Blast.
I know one of the ideas with Warlock is that their magic wielding is different than arcane users, but it is done in such a weird non-sensical way. Often resulting in Eldritch Blast spammers or Hexblades that basically try to achieve a gish-esque build of fighter/spell-caster - which I cannot see would not be improved by multi-classing to another spell caster class to acquire more spell slots for stuff like Shield.
In the UA they made a non-combat ritual that restores half your spell slots (rounded up) once per long rest. Slightly mirroring the Arcane Recovery class feature from Wizard. Still that leaves a lot to be desired by a primary spell caster build.
In some places they use Eldritch Invocations to allow the use of certain spells; like Fiendish Vigor that grants access to False Life at no cost. Still these are often restricted to one spell and they are cost-less. Pact of the Tome grants a 1st level spell slot, and in the UA is not prohibited to be taken by someone who has already taken another Pact. I wouldn't mind if they went this way that Invocations could grant you additional spell slots, not even if they want to restrict their use to a handful of pre-selected or player-chosen options. Imagine a Shell Invocation that grants 2x 1st level spell slots that can only be used to cast; Shield, Absorb Element, or Armor of Agathys. And if 2x spell slots is a bit too much for one invocation (in the UA you gain many invocations in the early levels, but fewer on higher levels), then have it grant 1x 1st level spell slot, but allow it to be taken up to twice, or grant it the Thirsting Blade treatment that it upgrades at certain thresholds in the Warlock class.
As for OneDnD and character progression on ASIs/Feats, I think we're too far down 5e's design path, so there's no real purpose in trying to shoehorn the change into 5.5e. But I think it's worthwhile to voice the concern and dissatisfaction of that design choice for the purpose of shaping an eventual 6th edition. And even though WotC wanted OneDnD to be the "final" DnD version... that's unlikely to happen. A new edition grants new difficulties, new opportunities for expansions - in short: money making. And for the Devs/players a new opportunity for a differently structured system that hopefully is engaging to keep players old and new interested in the game. And a new edition doesn't directly take away from older editions, as long as the older edition is considered better.
Thats a really bad solution with a vague vision of the future, if Some design element breaks everything, saying no worries just fix everything else seems like you have solved anything, just created new problems, if you know have an idea that fixes everything else as well, that might be worth discussing.
I'll posit that it kind of defeats the purpose of multiclassing if it makes you always inferior, because nothing competes with high level abilities. IDont think most high level abilities are currently lacking in power.
If the purpose of multi-classing is to get more powerful it should just be removed from the game. The point should be to make new and interesting builds that are not possible with a single class build.
They fit on a class level but they do not fit well imo. what part of hitting 4th level as a barbarian screams and this is where i learn a feat. Its a generic blob on every class at the same levels except the couple bonus ones on fighter and one bonus one on rogue. It does not necessarily need to be separate to do this but those levels don't really do much to build on the class you are investing in. Those levels should have a real class feature there whether ASIs are separate or not
I am 156% supporting the idea of a separate character level table that includes things like ASIs, feats, half-skills, skills, tool/language proficiencies, etc.
The two are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be without a ludicrous amount of extra work, if at all. The objective fact is that one can use multiclassing for power-combos, ergo there ought to be a significant baked-in cost to the dip as well. And even if you aren't leaning into major combos, there's the simple fact that people can squeeze stuff at least as good as you get from feats from a dip; one basic example is claiming Fighter as your "starting" class even though most levels will go into another so you get Heavy Armor and possibly Action Surge if you put a second level in, or taking a single "starting level" in Rogue for two extra skill profs and two Expertises. Getting Heavy Armor otherwise requires both a feat and already having Medium Armor, and there's literally no other way to get two Expertises from a single level besides Rogue or Bard. Dipping into any full caster gives significantly more spells than you can get from a feat as well, even if you'll still have limited spell slots. If they keep that last update to Warlocks from the UA, you'll be able to grab one of the Pact options with a 1 level dip once that comes out. Regardless of what any one player's particular intentions are when they multiclass, the simple fact is that dipping can give you returns that are better than what you can get from a feat, so there needs to be some kind of brake put on character progress in other areas to compensate, and putting tier 4 features out of reach is not a notable cost given how few campaigns hit that level.
Hex and Shield are not utility spells they are combat spells. Hex scales with EB beam-number so should cost a higher level slot at higher levels because Hex for an 11th level warlock is 3x as powerful as Hex for a 1st level warlock - why should it cost the same level spell slot? I really wish the UA versions of Hex & Hunter's Mark had survived play testing because they actually fixed the power imbalance of these spells. The whole point of Warlock is that it uses a different spellcasting mechanic than other spellcasting classes, the whole point is that you are primarily an EB / spell-sword gish and NOT a full spellcaster - they play like a Fighter that uses spells rather than a full spellcaster. If you don't like that I'd suggest not playing a warlock and just go full Sorcerer or Bard (or MC between the two of them) as there are plenty of build options for full CHA spellcaster already.
The MC between warlock & sorcerer is incredibly broken, and needs a massive nerf (EB cannot remain a cantrip), there is and will always be a massive incentive to MC purely for power reasons because it is necessary to put a lot of very good class features in the first 3 levels of the game so that classes really feel distinct from each other even at low levels. So there must be costs to MCing as well, or we might as well forget about high level class features because everyone will be MCing.
That is a lot of words to say "I agree, some classes are ridiculously badly designed and front-loaded."
That’s an extremely reductive and incorrect interpretation of my position and the facts.
imagine EB was a 1st level spell and warlock could cast one free 1st level warlock spell each round. also assume a feature at warlock levels 5/11/17 increases number of EB beams. what's lost? what's gained?
MC dip for EB would fall off in tier 2, but opens up tier 1 to just using witch bolt instead. although WB doesn't seem like it'd trigger the current hex on successive rounds. oh, and now you wouldn't be able to cast EB in the same round you cast hex. hmm. well, at least if concentration breaks you can just cast hex again. same could be said for armor of agathys: nice to have, but definitely in trade for combat action economy and only truly useful in tier 1. then again, even in later tiers it would be more than a little handy to have near-infinite access to even a 1st level of fear, retreat, or protect from evil at all times. maybe safer just say the free 1st level spell has to be hex, armor, or EB.
...might be fun to playtest. however, seems like the easier fix would be to leave EB as a cantrip and use a "# of EB beams" column in the warlock class table.
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!
'badly designed' is subjective, front loaded is seen be many as a good thing overall. They want early levels of classes to feel interesting and unique. And to be honest most multi class things aren't OP, there are a few outliers.
They could design a better multiclass system, but it would probably not be as good a single class system. Any design will involve choices and tradeoffs.
EB just needs to be a class feature, rather than a spell. It's not only good for fixing the Sorlock, but it also makes Warlocks less vulnerable to things like Globe of Invulnerability or Magic Immunity.
is getting past magic immunity and globe of invulnerability really equally as reasonable as toning down a multiclass combo? in fact, aren't those both dm tools in reaction to high powered characters??
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!
I completely agree that EB needs to be a class feature, for a variety of reasons.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
RE: the "they can't do it because backwards compatibility" argument...
I don't get where you are coming from. Classes changed. Classes use new tables. If a class in OD&D is using a new table, the table might as well *not* include ASIs, and have a separate "character advancement table". What part is clashing with backwards compatibility?
Take races. Ooops, we don't have races any more. So we have something else. "But GM, pretty please, I want to play this harengon/dhampir/whatever, but that is a race, and we now have species and background feats and whatever, so the format kinda doesn't fit..." Is that backwards compatible?
In what way is that backwards compatible, but the sentence "If playing a pre-OD&D class that has built-in ASIs, ignore those at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 & 19" is some great clash that demolishes backwards compatibility?
I don't even want to think about any "healing" content from before being "totally compatible" with the new game that has healing spells at double the strength....