Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid

[iserith]

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.

The only reason I allow multiclassing is because I have a player pool (way more players than seats in a given session) and, in general, it's better to have more options than fewer options in such a set up so that there is less overlap between concepts. In a standard group of 4 to 6 players, I don't think multiclassing is necessary at all. There are plenty of classes, subclasses, and races in my view for such a group.

 

[Yunru]

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

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

Now there's a point of debate (which already exists, but I digress).
Do you round after adding all the different ones? In which case it's a caster level of 3.8888... rounds to 4, so you'd be equivalent to a 7th level Paladin's spells.
Or do you round each degree of caster then add? In which case it's a caster level of 5, equivalent to a Paladin 9.

 

[Dausuul]

2. So, if (1) is correct, it naturally follows that this is an intended feature of the design. In other words, while you might not agree with, or appreciate, this design feature, it's there for a reason.

Whoa, there. That's a huge leap. Your logic here is "this mistake is too big to be a mistake"--and that logic is not airtight. Big mistakes happen sometimes. Furthermore, it isn't actually a blatant obvious mistake. You don't notice it until you actually try building a multiclassed PC using a partial-caster class.

It has been a long-standing general rule in D&D that fractions round down. It could well be that the designers intended this to be rounded up, but didn't specify in the original draft of the rules. Then someone was copy-editing, saw a "divide by" in the text, and added "rounded down" because that's how it normally works.

The fact that a mistake is out in the open does not prove it wasn't a mistake. Can you cite a statement from one of the designers that this was intentional? If not, I am inclined to agree with Yunru: Everything synchronizes perfectly when you round up, but breaks in odd ways when you round down, and therefore it was probably supposed to round up, and should be house-ruled that way.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm pretty sure the reason for rounding down is the design intention that single class >= multiclass. As opposed to the situation in 3rd edition where most optimised characters were a hodgepodge of 4 or 5 different classes.

 

[Dausuul]

Now there's a point of debate (which already exists, but I digress).
Do you round after adding all the different ones? In which case it's a caster level of 3.8888... rounds to 4, so you'd be equivalent to a 7th level Paladin's spells.
Or do you round each degree of caster then add? In which case it's a caster level of 5, equivalent to a Paladin 9.

I think "round after adding" is the proper approach. Paladin 3/ranger 3 should have the spell slots of a 3rd-level full caster. If you round before adding, then you get either a 2nd-level caster (if rounding down) or a 4th-level caster (rounding up), both of which are off.

 

[Yunru]

I'm pretty sure the reason for rounding down is the design intention that single class >= multiclass. As opposed to the situation in 3rd edition where most optimised characters were a hodgepodge of 4 or 5 different classes.

A reasonable reasoning, and the one I lean towards.
However, combine that with just how many other things gimp MC Spells, and it makes me think that fifty people worked on nerfing him and no-one talked to each other or even bothered to check if the combined mess was too much.

A less jaded me would lean towards the "they forgot to include rounded up and then rounded down was added as default" view.

I think "round after adding" is the proper approach. Paladin 3/ranger 3 should have the spell slots of a 3rd-level full caster. If you round before adding, then you get either a 2nd-level caster (if rounding down) or a 4th-level caster (rounding up), both of which are off.

Rounding after adding is what I personally use too.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A reasonable reasoning, and the one I lean towards.
However, combine that with just how many other things gimp MC Spells, and it makes me think that fifty people worked on nerfing him and no-one talked to each other or even bothered to check if the combined mess was too much.

A less jaded me would lean towards the "they forgot to include rounded up and then rounded down was added as default" view.

I believe, with multiclassing being firmly labelled "optional", caveat emptor is considered to apply.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

I separately add full half caster levels then round them and separately add 1/3 caster levels and then round them. I’m no long sure if that’s the right or intended way anymore but it’s how I’ve always done it since 5e came out.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Whoa, there. That's a huge leap. Your logic here is "this mistake is too big to be a mistake"--and that logic is not airtight. Big mistakes happen sometimes. Furthermore, it isn't actually a blatant obvious mistake. You don't notice it until you actually try building a multiclassed PC using a partial-caster class.

It has been a long-standing general rule in D&D that fractions round down. It could well be that the designers intended this to be rounded up, but didn't specify in the original draft of the rules. Then someone was copy-editing, saw a "divide by" in the text, and added "rounded down" because that's how it normally works.

The fact that a mistake is out in the open does not prove it wasn't a mistake. Can you cite a statement from one of the designers that this was intentional? If not, I am inclined to agree with Yunru: Everything synchronizes perfectly when you round up, but breaks in odd ways when you round down, and therefore it was probably supposed to round up, and should be house-ruled that way.

And you are making just the same leap of logic. I think the onus would be on you to prove that it was a design error and not an intentional choice by the designers.

All the OP has shown is the numbers behind the design, not that it is an error. There are many reasons to design it in this way.