Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid

5ekyu · Feb 6, 2019

Yunru said:
Minor oversight my ass, you're telling me that none of the many playtesters you mentioned noticed "Oh, I can have effectively unlimited slots, just add time?"

I guess if that's your definition of minor then this must seem like a non-issue to you.

No that the third benefit referenced a mechanic that had been entirely removed and no-one caught it before print. Says a lot.

Any way you slice it, either the quality of the playtesters is questionable, or we can assume that some things got very little, or no, playtesting.

"that the third benefit referenced a mechanic that had been entirely removed and no-one caught it before print. Says a lot."

Most anybody familiar with actually producing written products for publications thru multiple source providers understands the kinds of issues with version conttol and merging that lead to these kinds of cross-reference oversights and knows this does not mean anything catastrophically lacking in the process.

Mistwell · Feb 7, 2019

I am still not sure why punishing multiclassing a bit with this is a bad idea?

Blue · Feb 7, 2019

Mistwell said:
I am still not sure why punishing multiclassing a bit with this is a bad idea?

Because if you have a class, like Paladin 3, your existing benefits should not get worse because you took a level of some other class.

I'm quite happen that ASI are class levels, spells known as class levels, etc. I'm not pushing for more powerful multiclass. But what Yunru pointed out is that you are taking something away that you had previously given, and that I am not for.

Bacon Bits · Feb 7, 2019

Blue said:
Because if you have a class, like Paladin 3, your existing benefits should not get worse because you took a level of some other class.

Why not?

AkaKageWarrior · Feb 7, 2019

To the OP:
no problem with that. MCing comes with a price.
And concerning spellcasting, it is a much lower price than in previous editions.

Blue · Feb 7, 2019

Bacon Bits said:
Why not?

Because no where else in 5e do you get worse at something you've already been able to do because you took a later option at a later time. Levelling is seen as both a reward and as getting more powerful. Losing part of what you "spent" a level on previously when you take a new level is against both of those.

Swarmkeeper · Feb 7, 2019

Blue said:
Because if you have a class, like Paladin 3, your existing benefits should not get worse because you took a level of some other class.

I'm quite happen that ASI are class levels, spells known as class levels, etc. I'm not pushing for more powerful multiclass. But what Yunru pointed out is that you are taking something away that you had previously given, and that I am not for.

Can you clarify the bolded part above? The existing benefits of a 5e Paladin 3 do not get worse in any way that I can see if the player chooses to multiclass into, say Paladin 3/Ranger 1. The Paladin 3 abilities stay the same, but the character gains the Ranger 1 abilities.

Are you (and/or [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION]) maybe saying in past editions, the MC spell progression was different and you are calling those "existing benefits" that are now being "taken away"?

Yunru · Feb 7, 2019

DM Dave1 said:
Can you clarify the bolded part above? The existing benefits of a 5e Paladin 3 do not get worse in any way that I can see if the player chooses to multiclass into, say Paladin 3/Ranger 1. The Paladin 3 abilities stay the same, but the character gains the Ranger 1 abilities.

Are you (and/or [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION]) maybe saying in past editions, the MC spell progression was different and you are calling those "existing benefits" that are now being "taken away"?

A Ranger 3 has the spell slots of a 2nd level caster (same with a Paladin 3).
A Ranger 3/Paladin 3 has the spell slots of... a 3rd level caster. Either way you slice it (from existing or the new) one of the benefits is worse for multiclassing.

FrogReaver · Feb 7, 2019

I’m not seeing any place along the progression of a multiclass spell casters where they actually have. Spell slot and it gets taken away after they level up.

So relative to your level progression nothing is taken away.

I am seeing that a single classed ranger 5 has level 2 spells but a multiclassed ranger 3 / paladin 2 only has level 1 spells and doesn’t get level 2 spells till he takes his 6th level in ranger or paladin.

Relative to a single classed half caster a multiclass of 2 half casters does progress in caster level 1 level later.

Is that an overlooked flaw or a carefully chosen feature to intentionally dial back multiclassing power? I can’t say for sure.

I can say that always rounding up on multiclassing might cause some strange interactions with 1/3 and 1/2 casters being combined. For example: Level 4 arcane trickster, level 5 paladin. Despite nearly half your levels being in a 1/3 caster you maintain spell progression with a 1/2 caster. I’m sure Some rule could be constructed to avoid that situation and allow the other but it might be more complicated and confusing than they wanted to include.

Anyways that’s my take

Swarmkeeper · Feb 7, 2019

Yunru said:
A Ranger 3 has the spell slots of a 2nd level caster (same with a Paladin 3).
A Ranger 3/Paladin 3 has the spell slots of... a 3rd level caster. Either way you slice it (from existing or the new) one of the benefits is worse for multiclassing.

Ok, we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree, but I don't really see the problem, and I don't see benefits as "getting worse".

For example, a Ranger 3 who then multiclassed into Ranger 3/Monk 3 would still have spellcasting abilities of the Ranger 3. They've lost nothing and gained the abilities of the Monk. I don't think anyone would argue that the spell slots should now be equivalent to a Ranger 6 in this example.

It's of course a little different for MCing with two spellcasting classes, but I think that the overall principle is the same. A Ranger 3 who then multiclassed into Ranger 3/Paladin 3, through the synergy of MCing, actually gains spell slots that either class on its own would not have access to at their respective levels... but those slots are not accrued at the same rate as a Ranger 6 (or Paladin 6). That's the slight tradeoff for MCing, if one wishes to view it as a tradeoff. In the end, nothing has "gotten worse" for the original Ranger 3 PC from this perspective.

Anyway, changing it in a way that makes for more fun at your table seems completely reasonable to me.

Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid

5ekyu

Hero

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Bacon Bits

Hero

AkaKageWarrior

Explorer

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Swarmkeeper

Hero

Yunru

Banned

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Swarmkeeper

Hero

Similar Threads