Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid

[Dausuul]

JC, when asked , "Should multiclass 3rd casters round up or down? Single-class rounds up, but multiclass rules says to round down." said the following, "A multiclass character follows the rules for multiclassing." If this wasn't clear, he continued- "this means that EK multiclassing wizard doesn't advance spell slot progression. Intended?" "An EK is at least a 3rd-level fighter and therefore contributes at least 1 level to multiclass spell-slot advancement."

The clarification doesn't clarify; JC clearly does not understand what's being asked (the problem is not the contributions of each individual class, it's the fact that EK 4/wizard 1 has the same total number of spell slots as EK4).

However, I'll concede the point that the designers have had sufficient opportunity to rectify the issue, and have not done so, and therefore at this point it must be considered RAI as well as RAW. I still think Yunru's house rule is the way to go, though.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jayoungr]

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.

I'll preface what I'm about to say with the disclaimer that I don't mean this to sound judgmental or like I'm saying any one way of playing is better than another.

I've noticed that some players attach more importance than others to the idea of playstyle reflecting character concept. The line falls in different places for different people as to whether they are happy just roleplaying that their character is a certain way, or whether they need to have a special move or combo on the sheet to show that the character really is what they say it is. Usually these moves are combat-related, although not always.

I think the non-optional game is not really aimed at people who (1) have highly specific character concepts and (2) demand that those concepts be modeled mechanically in the game rules, as opposed to doing them through roleplaying. For those whose view is "This is the thing my character does, and if he isn't seen to do that in the game, using specific tools to model that thing, then there's no point," those people will probably be happier with a more granular game--something more along the lines of D&D 3.5/Pathfinder, or even GURPS.

 

[Yunru]

"20 EK has the same spell slots as a 19 EK / 1 wizard. This is what I meant."

JC: "That's correct."

" That basically makes the dip worthless, though. Doesn't feel well thought out, to be honest."

JC: "If 3 cantrips, 6 1st-level spells, Ritual Casting, Arcane Recovery & a spellcasting focus are worthless to you, do avoid them."

That's why he wrote at the beginning, "A multiclass character follows the rules for multiclassing."


Or-

"Paladin 3/Ranger 5 caster level ⌊3/2+5/2⌋=4 or ⌊3/2⌋+⌊5/2⌋=3? Same for Eldritch Knight 5/Arcane Trickster 8? Ranger 3/EK 8?"

JC- "Multiclass spell slots: divide levels in paladin, ranger, fighter (Eldritch Knight), or rogue (Arcane Trickster) and then add them."

"I think what he's asking is when to round down: immediately after dividing and before adding, or at the end?"

JC- "Multiclass spell slots: when dividing the levels of multiple classes, you divide, round down, and then add the results together."

"Playing 3.5, where in the rules is this? I am really confused."

JC- "The answer is about fifth edition."


I appreciate the conversation; however, I will again point out that sometimes, people really want something to be the case, and when that happens, they might overlook the available evidence that is against them. It happens to me, too!

But 5e was designed to make multiclassing slightly less attractive. If you don't like the RAW, just change them!

Honestly, his by-the-book reading (before that becamw his go-to, at least) lets me hold out hope that he didn't write that part of the book because damn is that stupid as all .

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Blue]

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.

You only checked the cases of 1/2 + 1/2 and 1/3 + 1/3. The rules make plenty of sense when you're looking at 1 + 1/2, a more common occurrence. A half caster gets more other features and less casting in any particular level. Giving full casting (because it rounds up) as well as the "more" from that level penalizes those that don't multiclass.

Since full+half caster the more common multiclassing occurrence, it's less incorrect to balance against that it.

I would not be against a correction to add up all fractionals first and then round down, which should be correct for both partial+partial as well as the full+partial caster options.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

The clarification doesn't clarify; JC clearly does not understand what's being asked (the problem is not the contributions of each individual class, it's the fact that EK 4/wizard 1 has the same total number of spell slots as EK4).

I've seen people post this before, and I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be - EK4/wizard 1 has a lot of stuff that EK4 doesn't, the fact that one measure of progression doesn't advance is not something that jumps out as wrong. EK3 Wizard 3 has the same ASI progression as EK3, and is two ASIs behind EK6 in ASI progression, but I think that's fine. An EK4 Barb4 has the same attack progression as a EK4 or Barb 4 and is worse than either class at 5. If you're worried about optimizing multiclassing, you have to look at breakpoints and take them into account. Almost no one actually wants to do Fighter, Barb, Paladin, or Ranger to 4 levels then split because you get a second attack at 5, and I don't think that indicates that something is wrong with the game.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

As others said, it is an intended penalty for multiclassing, and is not pointless as they intend to add a minor deterant to multiclassing due to the unintended consquences of some multiclassing combinations turning out more powerful than the individual parts. They could have instead added back in a 10% experience penalty for multiclassing I guess

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

Reading the "Spell Slots" entry's first paragraph (p. 164), I was under the impression that's how you're supposed to do it, anyway. The classes are pretty clearly parsed in that paragraph into categories between the full casters, half casters and thirds casters, and you're supposed to add them up within the same category and then divide and round down the total number per category.

 

[Ganders]

First of all, if you think many of the 5e rules are poorly thought out, you aren't jaded, you just have learned the rules well enough to see the flaws.

Second, the chart showing all 0s is incomplete. You only look at Paladin/Ranger and EK/AT multiclasses. Rounding up is fine for those specific homogeneous combinations, but there are other combinations where you end up with a +1 by rounding up. At some point someone looked at the chart and realized that a Paladin 1/Cleric 7 has the same spell slots as a Cleric 8 and thought it was bad because paladins are supposed to have less spellcasting than clerics. And same thing with Ranger 1/Druid 7 matching a Druid 8, and probably some clever combination like EK 5/Wizard 5 matching a Wizard 7. So, because of these specific edge cases, we all get stuck rounding down.