Multiclassing was sort of permanently walled off from needing a "fix," being a "buyer beware" optional rule: lots of stuff just gets funky with it.
"Well, it's optional," is a really, really poor excuse for a broken rule. It neither changes my opinion, nor renders the game immune to the criticism. Warlock remains the primary source of multiclassing problems for us.
To quote myself:
Oh, and for what it's worth, the whole, "Feats are optional rules. If you find them overpowered then just don't play with them," argument: I'd just like to point out that this is essentially a rephrasing of the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because you don't have to use a rule doesn't mean it's not broken. After all, the exact same argument can be used to defend a feat which says, "You gain +2 Strength or Dexterity, up to the maximum of 20. Your melee and ranged attacks deal +10 damage." If WotC published that feat in a book, you'd hear a very large number of people of complaining that it was overpowered, game breaking, or otherwise horrible game design. Being optional doesn't make a rule immune to critique or criticism. As far as rule balancing is concerned, not using an optional rule is functionally the same as banning a not-canonically-optional rule or otherwise employing Rule 0 to modify a rule.
Indeed, the epitome of optional rules -- the 3e prestige class -- is probably the foremost counter example to why optional rules need to be balanced. We all know that 3.x prestige classes varied wildly in power, and created a power creep that the game never recovered fromm. Even 2e suffered from this, with kits like Bladesinger.
Read more:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...is-quot-broken-quot-in-5e/page7#ixzz4YRqvDj4H
The same argument applies to the multiclassing rules, and since one of the two problems I have with Warlock is multiclassing, the fact that multiclassing is an optional rule is irrelevant. It's legal at every table I've sat at, and it's legal at Adventurer's League tables as well. The only other problem we've encountered is that Fighter (Fighting Style, Action Surge), Rogue (Expertise, Cunning Action), and Life Cleric (Heavy Armor, Shields, Bless) are a bit more attractive for 1-2 level dips than anything else (save Warlock). All four of these classes are more frontloaded than the rest, but only Warlock has really gotten to problem levels.
Unless your argument is that we
shouldn't complain about rules that we experience play problems with, in which case... well, I really don't have any interest in having such a conversation at all.
Finally, the topic here is, "What do you want from UA for the Warlock?" Why
shouldn't I include my desires for the class in the context of the way
I play the game? Indeed, how can I do anything
but that? If you don't play that way, that's fine, but why should that inform my desires at all?
And why is this stupid argument so common on these boards?
