Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid

Yunru · Feb 4, 2019

We already know that due to WotC's failings to stick to their own spell damage chart that multiclass spellcasters get gimped on damage spells because scaling rarely works right. But did you know that M.C. Spells also gets gimped in levels because... reasons (I guess)?

Here's the difference between a true blue half-caster (such as a Paladin or Ranger) and a multiclass half-caster (such as a Paladin/Ranger):

Level\Spell Level	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
4	0
5	-1	-2
6	0	0
7	0	-1
8	0	0
9	0	0	-2
10	0	0	0
11	0	0	-1
12	0	0	0
13	0	0	0	-1
14	0	0	0	0
15	0	0	0	-1
16	0	0	0	0
17	0	0	0	-1	-1
18	0	0	0	0	0
19	0	0	0	0	-1
20	0	0	0	0	0

Now here's the difference if we ignore WotC's rules and round up instead:

Level\Spell Level	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
4	0
5	0	0
6	0	0
7	0	0
8	0	0
9	0	0	0
10	0	0	0
11	0	0	0
12	0	0	0
13	0	0	0	0
14	0	0	0	0
15	0	0	0	0
16	0	0	0	0
17	0	0	0	0	0
18	0	0	0	0	0
19	0	0	0	0	0
20	0	0	0	0	0

The same also applies to 1/3 casters:

Level\Spell Level	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
6	0
7	-1	-2
8	-1	-2
9	0	0
10	0	-1
11	0	-1
12	0	0
13	0	0	-2
14	0	0	-2
15	0	0	0
16	0	0	-1
17	0	0	-1
18	0	0	0
19	0	0	0	-1
20	0	0	0	-1

Guess what the difference is if we round up?

TL;DR: Rounding down is stupid, and only serves to penalise multiclassing. Rounding up, on the other hand, offers no boons to multiclassing, merely removes this pointless penalty.

lowkey13 · Feb 4, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Yunru · Feb 4, 2019

lowkey13 said:
We agree on that, right?

Honestly? Not really. It seems like half the stuff they came up with they just flipped a coin on. (Okay, so *half* is an exaggeration.)

There seems to be distressingly little "we've run the numbers" and a whole lottle "playtesting will catch it!... right?" when it comes to 5e's design.

Maybe I've just become jaded.

iserith · Feb 4, 2019

This also isn't an issue if you don't use the optional multiclassing rules.

Feats and multiclassing get treated by many as if they are a core part of the game. They are not. They're variant rules like any other in this edition and I always adjust my expectations when it comes to variant rules to avoid such dissatisfaction.

FrogReaver · Feb 4, 2019

Interesting. What happens if you do ek 4 paladin 5?

You’d be like you were a paladin 9 in terms of spell slots?

FrogReaver · Feb 4, 2019

iserith said:
This also isn't an issue if you don't use the optional multiclassing rules.

Feats and multiclassing get treated by many as if they are a core part of the game. They are not. They're variant rules like any other in this edition and I always adjust my expectations when it comes to variant rules to avoid such dissatisfaction.

Agreed but if multiclassin is really optional then there’s a variety of play styles and concepts the non-optional game doesn’t allow any close approximation for. That could be remedied with more classes but as it stands that isn’t happening and so milticlassing feels more important than it otherwise really needed to be.

UngeheuerLich · Feb 4, 2019

In the beginning I thought it was a bug. Now I think of it rather as a feature.

lowkey13 · Feb 4, 2019

*Deleted by user*

TwoSix · Feb 4, 2019

My personal rule is simply to treat gains in spellcasting features for non-full casters just like the "+1 level in a spellcasting class" rule from 3e prestige classes.

For half casters, you bump up a level in spellcasting at 2,3,5,7,and every odd level afterwards. For third casters, you bump a level at 3,4,7,10,13,16, and 19.

5ekyu · Feb 4, 2019

Seems like an intended ekement not an accident or botch.

So its less a case of error as opposed to they chose a route you dont like.

Have not seen it as a problem in play. Have you?

Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid

Yunru

Banned

lowkey13

Guest

Yunru

Banned

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

UngeheuerLich

Legend

lowkey13

Guest

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

5ekyu

Hero

Similar Threads