Wel then what I said originally on this was correct. I said I have never seen a dislike of imbalance in play, if examples don't exist than that is a true statement.
As I said, I believe it is something you've never seen, but it is out there and I have IRL. I mean, there are lot of things out there you know exist, even if you've never seen or experienced it.
I have never seen a DM get upset about it. Never. Not in play and not on a stream.
Again, because you've never seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. DMs certainly get upset/ miffed/ disturbed/ disappointed/ whatever when an encounter goes "badly" because a spell wipes out the encounter. Players get frustrated when their PC is overshadowed by anothers due to MCing. Or one player see his PC downed by a huge attack, and another is missed because of an overpowered 1st-level spell, then the first player is annoyed, yeah... it happens.
Further it would not be imbalance that is the problem here anyway it is clever (or OP) use nerfing an enemy. That is fundamentally different than
The DM that gets angry because I Forcecage his boss might get upset that he put all that work into an encounter to have it nerfed, but it is not because of imbalance among the PC classes. That DM is going to be just as upset if the Barbarian uses a rage to get large, then grapples the boss and throws it into the Lava pit on round 1 instead of attacking.
Sure, and sometimes things like that happen. But other times it's clear it is a feature, spell, or whatever that is causing the imbalance.
Yeah I've never seen that among players and I have never felt that myself and I have played a ton of "weak" classes.
If this exists in game it is very, very rare. Also as an aside Fear does not cause damage but it does end a combat often.
This actually happened in my game Friday. The fighter hit for poor damage despite having +5 to the roll, missed on his Action Surge, and then had the Warlock's
fireball wipe out most of the enemies, including the one the fighter was trying to take out. The player was annoyed, and really felt the "why bother" thing.
I have no idea why you are bringing up the
fear spell.
Again certainly not "likely". It is very rare this would manifest.
It is an example of things that could (and similar ones do). Again, the monk vs. bladesinger
shield thing was your example...
Groups that nerf spells or homebrew for balance reasons are a distinct minority. I play a lot of D&D with a lot of different groups, including one-shots with random people and most homebrew has nothing to do with balance. When there is homebrew it is things like potions as a bonus action or waiving the bonus action casting limits or ignoring cover for allies or ignoring weapon switching.
LOL everything you just mentioned is everything we
don't ignore:
1. Potions are actions, NOT bonus actions.
Aww... you feel bad because you can't do stuff and drink your potion?
2. Bonus action spell? Just a cantrip that turn. Cast a non-cantrip spell? No bonus action spell later that turn. Sorry, deal with it.
3. Shooting into a melee with your ally in the way?
Yep, that is +2 to the target's AC. Just consider yourself lucky that when you missed by 1 you didn't hit your ally instead. 
4. You want to stow your sword, draw your handaxe, and throw it?
Well, that is your free object interaction, action, and... not possible. However, you can
drop your sword (that doesn't cost you anything), free object interaction, and action. Sure, that works!
Nerfing spells are NOT a minority IME. Come on, how many threads have been just here about nerfing this spell or that spell because it is OP and unbalanced!?
This is not true IME. For example, the 4 ongoing weekly campaigns I am in right now:
1. Cleric, Sorcerer, Fighter/Wizard, Paladin/Warlock, Cleric/Wizard (10th level)
2. Wizard, Cleric, Monk, Rogue, Rogue/Bard (5th level)
3. Cleric, Monk, Barbarian, Wizard, Warlock/Bard (7th level)
4. Barbarian, Rogue, Sorcerer, Fighter, also has a single class Cleric drop in occasionally (5th level)
Of those 19 players only 1 of them has been playing for less than a year (the Sorcerer in the 4th game) and at least 11 of them have been playing 5E since 2015.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
If it works for you and your group fine. A lot of players would leave (or not join) that table though.
Please, honestly, really, you think that? Half the games out there don't allow MCing at all! People play and stay in those games
all the time. That would be a pretty poor reason to not play IMO.
This is not true. If it were true no experienced players would play Barbarians, Rogues or low level Monks as more powerful options are available through other classes.
cough cough Ok, look at the "improvements" in the 2024 Monk... I know of at least one poster on EnWorld who would
never go back to the 2014 Monk now.
Or how rare is it for someone to play the original pre-Tasha's Ranger once Tasha's came out?
Analog TV is fundamentally different and I can think of many people who would rather sit around a table and play D&D with a pencil and paper as opposed to to a VTT ..... or play D&D in BG3.
And playing a Tasha's Ranger is different from pre-Tasha's. No one really takes Prodigy if Skill Expert is available.
When a more powerful option is available to replace a less-powerful one, few "regress" to the "weaker" option.
You need medium armor proficiency to get heavy armor through a feat, which means you either need to take 3 feats (light, medium, heavy) or get it through a race or already have medium armor. A wizard goes from naked to plate with a 1-level Cleric dip and loses no spell slots doing it.
Sorry, I assumed your first pre-Cleric class already had medium armor.
LOL, you just proved my point: a wizard (no armor proficiency
AT ALL) takes a SINGLE level of cleric and gains:
1. (potentially) all armor and shield proficiencies
2. 3 cantrips and likely several prepared cleric spells
3. another subclass with whatever features it has
4. a better Hit Die
5. and loses NO spell slots in the process!
The worst part is without enforcement, IME groups just let a player grab that level dip with no in-story or in-game reason why or time to learn/gain everything they do.
It always is tied into the characters story IME. The player is responsible for the players story, that is part of player agency, and there is always a tie in with everything they choose. It may be cheesy or weak or a cover to get the option, but it is always there and it is the players perogitive.
Without enforcement, it rarely is IME. Most players will take the dip for the power and/or options it grants, not for story. If your experience is always in-story--that's awesome.
There is no downtime as no downtime is required. Sometimes there is a multilevel build up to it and it is an integral part from day 1. Sometimes it is "Umberlee visited me in a dream last night and asked me to follow her, so I am a Tempest Cleric now"
It is really up to the player to write that story though.
Yeah I have had players wake up and say their sword started talking to them and they are in a pact with it now. Pretty weak but it is their character and their story, not mine.
Definitely weak. And their story has to make sense and be plausible in
my world as the DM. I'll totally work with a player for something they want, but they don't get to just toss out silly, weak ideas and expect me to just accept it.
So multiclassing a level of Rogue or Ranger for expertise is "too strong" now? I have had players do that pretty extensively.
Ranger doesn't grant expertise, though, does it??? In Tasha's maybe?? I don't recall...
Anyway, expertise is strong, especially by the time you get to tiers 3 and 4. However, it goes back to my point: if you are dipping for a class feature, don't dip. Prior to Tasha's a lot of groups have houseruled expertise available in many ways, from background skills to opening Prodigy to all races. With Skill Expert, that is all you need now.
Expertise is a sad reason to need to dip into Rogue. Why does the player feel the need expertise, anyway? It is a "rogue and bard" thing, after all... (unless houseruled or Tasha'd as I mentioned...).
Any multiclass is a tradeoff and there are levels where you will be worse off for doing it, especially if you multiclass a character that is primarily a full caster.
But even a fighter who multiclasses is going to get feats a level later, get extra attacks a level later and at those levels the PC will normally be weaker.
Look at the level 1 cleric dip above. Depending on your class and dipping class, the tradeoff is most often worth it in terms of power and optoins, sadly.
Well her backstory was quite long, but here is a synopsis - she is all about the Feywild (note Eladrin, Glamour Bard). She was born there lived there, served in the court of the Queen of Air and Darkness as a subject (subjugated). She went on a diplomatic mission for the and convinced the hourglass coven to freeze Zibilna in the Palace of Hearts Desire. After her success she was given a well deserved vacation and QAD drafted a pact to ensure her return and sent her to Faerun. The vaction is to last 2 weeks, but do to the difference in time that will be over 100 years on Faerun. So the entire campaign is going to take place while she is on Holiday from the winter court. In Faerun she is traveling as a Bard.
Her Warlock ability is Fey Presence (extremely thematic). Her Warlock spells are Hex, Protection from Evil and Good, Mind Sliver and Eldritch Blast.
Right now she is a Bard 6/Warlock 1 and this may be the first time in game having that Warlock level is a good thing in terms of power and better than a single class, but it won't las.
At 3rd level she did not have expertise, Mantle of Inspiration, Entrhalling performance or 3rd level spells.
At 5th level she did not have 3rd level spells
At 6th level she did not have Mantle of Magesty
Great backstory! Thanks for sharing, I really like it.
When did you take the level of warlock? IMO if that was your first class, and then you transitioned to bard for the rest of the game, that would make a bit more sense in-story than if you began as a bard and just "dipped" into warlock.
Anyway, you now have a 1st-level spell slot rechargable on a short rest, which can be great--especially since you aren't limited to using it only on warlock spells. Hex is great, as is Eldritch Blast.
You haven't given anything up really, just delayed it by a level, for a subclass power, 2 cantrips, 2 spells (which you can also cast with your bard spell slots), and a short rest spell slot --- all for the low, low price of a single level. For another level dip, you'll also gain another 1st-level spell, another short rest spell slot, and two invocations, which can be supremely useful!
Overall, I would see this as a sideways move more than anything. It might be a bit less powerful than straight bard, but not much IMO and you get some very nice things for it.
Anyway, obviously our experiences concerning balance issues, OP spells/features, and MCing a very different. I appreciate the discussion, and expect all-in-all the reality of everything probably lies someplace between the two extremes.