Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid

[Yunru]

They don’t actually lose a caster level though. They just fail to gain any benefit to spell slots from their first level of sorcerer.

So you're saying the Sorcerer loses a caster level instead then. Okay.
Still doesn't change that X=A, Y=B, but X+Y=A+B-1.

 

[jgsugden]

Apples to Oranges with Pact Magic and Spellcasting.
But! For the sake of argument, and to reinforce the point of this thread:
A Paladin X/Warlock 2 is not behind in spellcasting compared to a Paladin X. (I'm swapping Sorcerer for Paladin because the issue only occurs with fractional casters.)
The same can't be said for a Paladin X/Sorcerer 2 though (provided X is odd). After redacting the Sorcerer 2's impact, the Paladin X has magically (heh) lost a full caster level.

Forest for the trees, again.

Paladin 5 has 4 first level spells and 2 second level spells. Warlock 2, paladin 3 has 5 first level spells (2 of which recharge on a SR), and zero second level spells. To say that the problem does not exist AT ALL, when the problem was being behind in spell progression every other level, is missing something. Here you're always behind in highest level spellcasting by 2 full levels of your class spellcasting. For full casters (Sorlock), that is a full spell level of spells at all times. For a half-caster (Hexadin), that is going to be half the impact.

In either instance: Electing to multiclass has a cost, the cost is easy to see, and it discourages min-maxing approaches to combine classes by making it slightly less efficienct to spell cast as compensation for getting a broader range of spells, etc...

As for the question of why did they require errata after all of those hours of playtesting? Most of the errata is clarification and fine tuning. Light hammer rather than throwing hammer is not exactly a major deal. Expecting perfection on the fine tuning is a bit ridiculous. The errata is almost entirely a bit more editing that took place after the hundreds of thousands of hours of playtesting had grown to billions of hours of actual use.

Or do you see a swatch of significant rebalancing that I am missing?

 

[Yunru]

Forest for the trees, again.

Paladin 5 has 4 first level spells and 2 second level spells. Warlock 2, paladin 3 has 5 first level spells (2 of which recharge on a SR), and zero second level spells. To say that the problem does not exist AT ALL, when the problem was being behind in spell progression every other level, is missing something. Here you're always behind in highest level spellcasting by 2 full levels of your class spellcasting. For full casters (Sorlock), that is a full spell level of spells at all times. For a half-caster (Hexadin), that is going to be half the impact.

In either instance: Electing to multiclass has a cost, the cost is easy to see, and it discourages min-maxing approaches to combine classes by making it slightly less efficienct to spell cast as compensation for getting a broader range of spells, etc...

As for the question of why did they require errata after all of those hours of playtesting? Most of the errata is clarification and fine tuning. Light hammer rather than throwing hammer is not exactly a major deal. Expecting perfection on the fine tuning is a bit ridiculous. The errata is almost entirely a bit more editing that took place after the hundreds of thousands of hours of playtesting had grown to billions of hours of actual use.

Or do you see a swatch of significant rebalancing that I am missing?

You mean fine tuning like swapping a "rounded down" for a "rounded up"?

 

[jgsugden]

You mean fine tuning like swapping a "rounded down" for a "rounded up"?

With perhas the exception of the beast ranger, nothing that significant. Do you see something that significant in the PHB errata?

Clarifying 'per day' -> 'per long rest' had larger impacts if you were being literal... but that looks like an edit to correct lazy language that they just didn't catch. Not a change to the intention of how the situation should be played.

Seriously: What significant errata that entirely changed a player experience by changing how something worked do you see?

Across the board: They designed. They playtested internally. They tweaked. They playtested externally. They tweaked. They playtested externally more. They tweaked again. They released - and everything since then has been primarily clarification and fine tuning - and I do mean FINE tuning, such as changing "nearby" to "within 30 feet".

Regardless, as I said before, if you're this devoted to the idea that they had no idea how the rounding they specified would actually work and the rounding down, rather than being an intentional decision, was just them not doing the math, and nobody noting or questioning it during playtesting ... and that they're either still unaware or .... what ... perhaps too ashamed (I guess?) of their supposed error to fix it now when they've had ample time to do so ... well, there is not much to be said.

5E is an amazing game. While there are things I'd change in the core rules if I could, I understand why they made the decisions they did and am very grateful to have the best D&D system we've seen to date, especially when it reflects a retrn to form rather than walking further down the path that 4E created.

 

[Yunru]

If you're looking for gaffs bigger than this: They managed to miss the fact that as written Spell Slots created with Font of Magic didn't go away.
If you're looking for an easy to spot on that clearly doesn't conform to the rigorous testing you proclaim everything went through: The Grappler feat.

 

[5ekyu]

Odd though, that given "after those hundreds of thousands of hours of playtesting" they still missed enough to need to release errata, despite "that they wrote very specific text".

Huh? Nah. In books that large and complex, bits of editing and correction are common. Not odd in the least.

Playtesting can get you to evaluate the ins snd outs and make informed choices but not necessarily get you to perfect presentation.

 

[jgsugden]

If you're looking for gaffs bigger than this: They managed to miss the fact that as written Spell Slots created with Font of Magic didn't go away.

This was a minor oversight on par with the per day/per LR.

If you're looking for an easy to spot on that clearly doesn't conform to the rigorous testing you proclaim everything went through: The Grappler feat.

What - that they removed the third benefit? Or are you worried it is underpowered? Or overpowered? There are people on both sides of that debate.

 

[Yunru]

This was a minor oversight on par with the per day/per LR.

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.

What - that they removed the third benefit? Or are you worried it is underpowered? Or overpowered? There are people on both sides of that debate.

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.

 

[jgsugden]

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?"

No intelligent ones, I'd wager. Anyone thinking they intentionally created unlimited slots over time is engaged in wishful thinking bias to an extreme degree. Extreme.

Except OMG, ASORLOCKCANSTILLTAKESHORTRESTSANDTURNWARLOCKSLOTSINTOSORCERPOINTSTOREPLESNISHANYSPENTANDEFFECTIVELYHAVEUNLIMITEDPOINTSBETWEENLONGRESTSANDDRINKCOLAANDEATPOPROCKSWITHOUTEXPLODINGANDOMGDIDYOUSEEWHATBRITNEYWORETOSCHOOLYESTERDAY!

I have played over 3500 hours of 5E since release, and more than 500 in prerelease playtests. I've run or played through 7 complete campaigns that ran to (or at least very near) 20th. I've been in a score more medium length campaigns. I've done a lot of one shots.

As I board game at game shops, I also have been playing board games near hundreds of additional games.

And in all that time, having seen a lot of sorlocks - NOT ONCE HAVE I SEEN THIS ATTEMPTED ABUSE.

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

I'm not sure how you could possible think I believe otherwise. Everything you brought up was a non-issue.

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

Yes. They didn't catch every little edit. That was already addressed. Again, that was catching an edit, not changing how a system works intentionally.

So, what the heck is the massive problem you see with Grappler that broke the game?

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.

Please remember that several hundred, if not thousand, Enworld members were amongst the playtesters. It was an open playtest.

 

[Yunru]

No intelligent ones, I'd wager. Anyone thinking they intentionally created unlimited slots over time is engaged in wishful thinking bias to an extreme degree. Extreme.

Well then they weren't very good at it. Part of testing is to try and break the system.

So, what the heck is the massive problem you see with Grappler that broke the game?

You mean you don't see it?
They removed an entire mechanic, either so late there was no playtesting, or with such inept playtesting that no-one caught the error with the feat directly related to that mechanic.

Again, that was catching an edit, not changing how a system works intentionally.

Codswallop! Pure and simple. Removing an entire mechanic and not having even the basic testing needed to catch an error with the associated feat is not "catching an edit". It's "changing how a system works intentionally" and then not giving it even the basic level of proofing.

It was an open playtest.

Except when it wasn't.