D&D (2024) The new warlock (Packet 7)

[Stalker0]

Only if you allow using pact magic slots for sorcerer abilities.

Which by the book I can't see why you wouldn't. Even in 2024, pact magic slots can hold sorc spells, and nothing in the Sorc font of magic description specifies "sorceror slots" just "spell slots". Warlock slots are still called spell slots, there is no language differentiation made.

When you look over the multiclass rules, once spell slots are determined, there is no longer any special notes about slots, its all jsut one pool, you cast any spell out of any slot with no restrictions. The only note is that the spell itself (aka what class it came from) determines the spell casting stat you use, but that has nothing to do with the slot itself.

I can see the debate on vagaries in the middle, but I think reasonable interpretation points to you can more than you can't.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you want to embrace that multiclass characters are mechanically superior to single classed ones, sure you could go that route in a game system. WOTC has chosen to try and not do that, which requires restraints in your design. You can't have it both ways

There is a third path: build core classes sturdily enough that getting another class's starting stuff isn't more powerful than getting this one's second level.

It's their own fault that you can't get to a lot of character concepts until at least third level and even more require multiclassing to work.

 

[Stalker0]

There is a third path: build core classes sturdily enough that getting another class's starting stuff isn't more powerful than getting this one's second level.

To do that, you have to make every level roughly equal to every other. This means that levels 3-4 are just as good as levels 1-2.

That either means spreading out the goodies from levels 1-2 (which dilutes the class), or you would likely need to pile on a bunch of new goodies at the later levels. Could it be done....perhaps, but it would certainly be a big power creep from what we have now, which means monsters would need another redesign.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To do that, you have to make every level roughly equal to every other. This means that levels 3-4 are just as good as levels 1-2.

You say that as if having every level be good is a bad thing.

Could it be done....perhaps, but it would certainly be a big power creep from what we have now, which means monsters would need another redesign.

That's the secret, Stalker0: 5e Monsters always needed another redesign. Maybe a good one this time.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Wow I didn't notice that. Part of me can understand that to a small degree from an rp standpoint but I am a player and a dm who feels that if a pc is not enjoying part of their character then they should always be able to change that, be it a feat, a spell, a cantrip what ever.

I agree, but that being the case it doesn't need to be a "rule" (at least it doesn't need to be spelled out, other than maybe in a DMG under "be kind to your players". I'd allow it, but then, I allowed it in editions when it wasn't a rule, too.

 

[Amrûnril]

To do that, you have to make every level roughly equal to every other. This means that levels 3-4 are just as good as levels 1-2.

That either means spreading out the goodies from levels 1-2 (which dilutes the class), or you would likely need to pile on a bunch of new goodies at the later levels. Could it be done....perhaps, but it would certainly be a big power creep from what we have now, which means monsters would need another redesign.

Spellcasting classes already have such goodies. Indeed, despite the attention that the outliers at the high end of the power spectrum get, I think the biggest issue with multiclass balance is how rarely it justifies the cost of sacrificing or delaying spellcasting progression. That martial classes can multiclass comparatively painlessly after level 5 is, in my mind, the clearest evidence of a broader imbalance between high level spellcasting and martial characters.

 

[Charlaquin]

It comes down to this:

The first few levels of a class tend to be very "good", as that establishes the character and the class. Multiclassing allows a character to get these early levels (and the juicy abilities they bestow) multiple times. So multiclassing tends to favor optimizers.

Because of multiclassing's mere existence, it also puts a constraint on what can be offered to a 1st-2nd level class, as you add "too much" and its makes multi-classing even stronger.

So it puts a design constraint on the game, which some people do not like.

I do think multiclassing is a tad overrated in 5e, because while yes, the first level or three in a class do tend to be very strong, levels 4 and 5, being the first feat/ASI level and the first big DPR spike level respectively, are also very strong. Putting those levels off in order to get the early features of another class is a meaningful tradeoff, and if you go 4 or 5 levels deep into a class to avoid delaying those features, you’re hardly “dipping” anymore.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Artificers are kind of similar.

The macro is there but the micro isn't. Three of the four subclasses are various degrees of bard and the artificer never gets the really big moments.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Which by the book I can't see why you wouldn't. Even in 2024, pact magic slots can hold sorc spells, and nothing in the Sorc font of magic description specifies "sorceror slots" just "spell slots". Warlock slots are still called spell slots, there is no language differentiation made.

When you look over the multiclass rules, once spell slots are determined, there is no longer any special notes about slots, its all jsut one pool, you cast any spell out of any slot with no restrictions. The only note is that the spell itself (aka what class it came from) determines the spell casting stat you use, but that has nothing to do with the slot itself.

I can see the debate on vagaries in the middle, but I think reasonable interpretation points to you can more than you can't.

This has been debated to death already. All I say, if one interpretation of a single rule is cause for 95% of the problematic multiclass combinations, just use the other interpretation...

 

[Stalker0]

This has been debated to death already. All I say, if one interpretation of a single rule is cause for 95% of the problematic multiclass combinations, just use the other interpretation...

or....we get them to update the actual language to make that actual truth