Level Up (A5E) Warlock Archetype Curse scaling & Herald multiclassing

[Anonymous3]

Sorry, I made an error with the quotes. I had a bunch and clicked the wrong one, posted without checking, deleted, couldn't quote again,... had to copy and paste and use the quote function.

 

[Anonymous3]

unfortunately this creates the same problem as the exertion being on a long rest in that now you have to create a multiclassing exemption again so we're back at square one.

This how I feel at the moment. Square one. Good roller-coaster though

What if we just kept spellcasting and exertion separate for Herald? They receive exertion as a Fighter. They keep their spells. Now a Fighter dip doesn't get the benefit of another exertion pool. Fighters gain ways to reduce exertion spent. Heralds gain abilities to use spell slots to power their abilities.

Does this create another problem that I cannot see?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Sorry if I'm not getting this. The exertion point values (like Warlock spell points) seems the easiest to implement but I don't see how that solves the Fighter dip problem of stacking exertion pools.

if you get a regular exertion pool you can't get another. so if heralds get a regular exertion pool then a fighter dip doesn't give them a second, even if the herald can spend exertion to cast herald spells.

This how I feel at the moment. Square one. Good roller-coaster though

What if we just kept spellcasting and exertion separate for Herald? They receive exertion as a Fighter. They keep their spells. Now a Fighter dip doesn't get the benefit of another exertion pool. Fighters gain ways to reduce exertion spent. Heralds gain abilities to use spell slots to power their abilities.

Does this create another problem that I cannot see?

not a major one, just that it kind of removes some of the herald's identity with its exertion and spells sharing the same resource.

 

[Anonymous3]

Damn, I'm tired and forgot the basics of multiclassing.

 

[Distracted DM]

Sorry if I'm not getting this. The exertion point values (like Warlock spell points) seems the easiest to implement but I don't see how that solves the Fighter dip problem of stacking exertion pools.

I don't see how this avoids the Fighter dip issue either. Whether we start as Fighter or Herald we will have a two separate ways of getting exertion and thus have two separate pools.

This does not happen when the wording is the same, eg., Fighter/Berserker. What am I missing?

unfortunately this creates the same problem as the exertion being on a long rest in that now you have to create a multiclassing exemption again so we're back at square one.

that said, pb*3 is much less of a problem then converting the spell slots you'd have into exertion to be regained on a long rest + pb*2, and both are less of a problem then the current method since perfect assault would wipe both pools out, thus negating that specific exploit.

...why did the site say this quoted my post...?

I didn't explain enough.

One reason my herald players multiclass to fighter is to get a standard exertion pool. There are other reasons, a better maneuver progression and fighting style etc.

But if you give Herald a standard exertion pool, but make it only equal to PB, (they can still burn spells for temp exertion like normal) that's one less reason to MC

 

[W'rkncacnter]

But if you give Herald a standard exertion pool, but make it only equal to PB, (they can still burn spells for temp exertion like normal) that's one less reason to MC

okay, let me explain why this doesn't work.

let's say you start as a herald and multiclass into fighter. okay, your exertion pool is equal to your PB. now let's say you start as a fighter and multiclass into herald. okay, your exertion pool is equal to twice your PB.

this is the inconsistency i was referring to. you're not actually solving the problem - you're just making starting as a herald worse.

 

[lichmaster]

(though this would require standardizing maneuver degree progression, which...is intentionally not standardized for reasons i will never understand).

I was dabbling on this a while ago, but never posted it.
If I have time I'll create a post for this, as it has always bothered me (I love unified progression).
I think it can be done reasonably, with the caveat that classes will then have to have some bonus exertion or bonus maneuver at some specific levels to recover their original progression.

 

[Tessarael]

Giving Heralds a pool of exertion = PB (rather than others PB*2) can help avoid the optimal-fighter-dip, I think. It won't help their maneuver progression ofc but I try to make it clear to players that the herald isn't a maneuver-master. That doesn't really sell them though, they still want to maneuver it up :'D

That doesn't work, unfortunately. With the approach that you're suggesting, when they level dip into Fighter, they still get the additional proficiency bonus exertion points (i.e., 2x proficiency bonus in total), which has a similar problem to before, just not as bad.

You have to give the Herald the same exertion pool as the Fighter, 2x proficiency bonus not stacking, to avoid the level dip problem. A Herald X/Fighter 1 will still get access to higher level maneuvers, and it is still a good combination, but it solves them getting a hunk of exertion with a single level dip.

 

[Tessarael]

Another approach that I would be tempted to adopt is moving all spell casters to a short rest refresh mechanic, and for half-casters like Herald this can equate to an 2x proficiency bonus per short rest exertion mechanic if you fudge the numbers appropriately:

• For spell levels 1 through 5, you get one per short rest, once you are at a level where you have access to such spells.
• For spell levels 6 through 9, you get one per long rest, once you are at a level where you have access to such spells.
• Full casters like Clerics get per short rest:
  • Cleric levels 1-2: 1st level spell slot
  • Cleric levels 3-4: 1st & 2nd slots
  • Cleric levels 5-6: 1st, 2nd & 3rd slots
  • Cleric levels 7-8: 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th slots
  • Cleric levels 9+: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th slots
  • Cleric level 11-12: 6th level spell slot once/long rest
  • Cleric level 13:-14 6th & 7th slots once/long rest
  • Cleric level 15-16: 6th, 7th, & 8th slots once/long rest
  • Cleric level 17+: 6th, 7th, 8th & 9th slots once/long rest
• Half casters like Herald get per short rest:
  • Herald levels 1-4: 1st level spell slot - equivalent of 4 exertion per short rest, if 1st level slot costs 4 here
  • Herald levels 5-8: 1st & 2nd slots - equivalent of 6 exertion per short rest, if 1st costs 2 and 2nd costs 4 here
  • Herald levels 9-12: 1st, 2nd & 3rd slots - equivalent of 8 exertion per short rest, if 1st costs 1, 2nd costs 3, 3rd costs 4 here
  • Herald levels 13-16: 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th slots - equivalent of 10 exertion per short rest, if 1st costs 1, 2nd costs 2, 3rd costs 3, and 4th costs 4 here
  • Herald levels 17+: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th slots - equivalent of 12 exertion per short rest, if 1st costs 1, 2nd costs 1, 3rd costs 3, 4th costs 3, and 5th costs 4 here.

An issue with this approach is that the exertion point mechanic is too coarse grained. If we use Warlock spell points, it would be as follows per short rest:

• Herald levels 1-4: 1st level spell slot - equivalent of 2 spell points
• Herald levels 5-8: 1st & 2nd slots - equivalent of 5 spell points
• Herald levels 9-12: 1st, 2nd & 3rd slots - equivalent of 10 spell points
• Herald levels 13-16: 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th slots - equivalent of 16 spell points
• Herald levels 17+: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th slots - equivalent of 23 spell points

This doesn't scale consistently vs. proficiency bonus progression. If we just do a simple linear fit, the spell point progression has a 40% higher gradient than exertion points vs. level, but exertion points start 1 higher at 1st level.

A possible solution is to make everyone use a short rest spell point mechanic, but it is much more complicated than the exertion mechanic, which is I think why this sort of approach was avoided. There's no good solution here that preserves simplicity. Fighter maneuver degree progression.

Fighter maneuver degree is only 1 level faster than when Heralds get access to 5th level spells. So maybe the short rest mechanic works with getting one spell slot or maneuver degree of each level that you would have access to for Fighter X/Herald Y combinations. But then we're still faced with the same problem for full casters dipping into Fighter - at what rate should they get access to exertion points? And presumably full casters should not be able to convert spell slots to power their maneuvers.

I think that any unified system would be significantly more complicated than the current A5E approach, and to make it work we'd have to adjust at what character level they get access to higher maneuver levels (e.g., delaying Fighter maneuver progression by one level?), and how potentially reducing often they can use maneuvers at earlier levels, unless adopting the more complicated mechanic that I suggested where cost to access lower level maneuvers/spell slots gets cheaper as you level up.

 

[Distracted DM]

okay, let me explain why this doesn't work.

let's say you start as a herald and multiclass into fighter. okay, your exertion pool is equal to your PB. now let's say you start as a fighter and multiclass into herald. okay, your exertion pool is equal to twice your PB.

this is the inconsistency i was referring to. you're not actually solving the problem - you're just making starting as a herald worse.

Oh, no, the herald gets the PB pool. If they do multiclass into fighter, they get the standard pb*2 pool.

It's strictly a buff to herald, to give them a few points of exertion to play with. If you multiclass into fighter it does nothing.