D&D (2024) What Should D&D 2024 Have Been +

[ECMO3]

With the bolded, I fully agree: once precedent is set within a campaign, you're stuck with it for that campaign. But if precedent has not yet been set, then IMO it's fair game to be changed or ruled on.

But precedent is set in session 0. If you say we allow multiclassing, then you allow multiclassing including 1 level dips to get shield or Eldritch Blast or because you always wanted to be part Bard or whatever.

If there are conditions on that they should be stated. further a "judgement call" on what is and is not power gaming -"you can multiclass but I have the right to eliminate some combinations" has no place here IMO.

For example, even though my current campaign's 16 years in if I see a potential issue with, say, a spell that's not yet been cast or seen in the game, I-as-DM can freely fix it without violating precedent.

If it is a PC you can't IMO once the PC has chosen or casted it, or I should say shouldn't. Your job as the DM is to read and understand the rules and if this was going to be an issue you should have seen it up front. The only way this is ok IMO is if ALL players at the table agree to it.

The only exception here is if it was published after the campaign started.

 

[ECMO3]

Come by and join us sometime, then.

There are numerous posters here on EnWorld who expound the same experiences I do, so whether you've seen it or not, it's out there.

None of the posters I have seen on ENworld have provided examples of this. It is a prevalent theory on ENWorld, but when I asked for examples there are tyically very few or none.

Also no one on ENWorld has ever provided an example of a streaming game that showed a problem because of imbalance and every time I have seen imbalance on a streaming game or a game I played it is celebrated. When fighting a pack of orcs, no one boos when the fighter does 8 damage to an Orc and then the Sorcerer ends the encounter with the Fear spell. No one complains when the Monk takes 50 damage from the Purple Worm and the Bladesinger puts up shield and just gets missed. Those imbalacnes are celebrated at every table I have seen

I am not saying the problem does not exist, because asyou noted people on this board say they have experienced it, but I think it is very, very rare.

Yeah, the bolded part is very true. Establish your rules for running the game from the beginning. Multiclassing is optional, and about half the groups use it IME and from the polls, etc. I've seen online. The ones who avoid it do so because it is easily abused. Feats are much more commonly used in the game, with over 90% of groups using them, even if some nerf or restrict some feats.

But advancing in both classes is a great compromise IMO and one I encourage if players want to multiclass. You are giving up depth for breadth, giving yourself more options but not quite as much power. My preference is for no more than a 2:1 split. For example at 3rd level (becoming 2/1), and by the time you reach 6th you have to be 2nd level in the other class (4/2 or 3/3), etc. so by the end you are have at least 7 levels in your "lesser" class (13/7).

Playing without multiclassing is fine and since it is an optional rule it should be specifically addressed in some fashion even if that is "no optional rules" or "all optional rules". Homebrew is also ok.

I think you will find fewer Players to play games without multiclassing though. IME about 70% of players do not multiclass in games that allow multiclassing, but most of them don't want that to be a rule. When I play or post in a game without multiclassing it takes far longer to fill the seats, even though most players don't or won't multiclass anyway.

But dipping for just 1 or 2 levels and then leaving a second (or more) class behind is abusive.

I don't get what is abusive about it. If a player wants to do it let them do it.

The most common I see are 1-level Cleric to get heavy armor (the only way to actually get heavy armor on a multiclass), 1 or 2 level dip for Eldritch Blast, 1-level dip for the Shield Spell.

Does that make those characters more powerful? Objectively yes it does, but it has never been a problem at a table I play at and I play a minimum of 4 games a week.

Those levels are feature rich, with baseline features which tend to be strong. Also, with subclasses and feats, multiclassing really doesn't need to be a thing in D&D anymore.

Dipping does not, IME, have anything to do with character development so much as power-gaming and optimization, getting some "cool-combo" or syngery with your base class. There's nothing wrong with that, in and off itself, if that is the type of game you want to run or play in, but it isn't to my preference and I've played with, heard of or ead about way too many DMs who feel more or less the same.

It doesn't need to be a thing, but if players like it and players want it why not?

Also power gaming aside, there is a lot more you can do thematically by multiclassing that is more difficult to do through feats.

Right now, I am playing a Winter Eladrin Glamour Bard with a 1-level Fey Warlock dip. The Warlock dip is significant to her story. She is hardly OP, less powerful than a single class Glamour Bard would be and less powerful than most single class Wizards, Sorcs, Clerics or Druids. In our party of 5 she is probably the 3rd or 4th most powerful PC (the Monk is not that powerful in most respects but can fly). All others are single class, in order of power they would be: Mountain Dwarf Scribes Wizard, Custom Lineage Forge Cleric, Owlin Kensai Monk, me, Lionen Giant Barbarian).

If I had done it differently and went with a Hexblade Warlock or one of many Sorcerer options for a Multiclass she would be substantially more powerful but that did not really make sense to me. If it did though I hardly see how it would be a bad thing.

In the Venca campaign we are starting at level 10 I plan to uplevel a character I played a few years ago. She ended a previous campaign as a Kobold Whispers Bard 5. In Vecna she is going to start as a Kobold Whispers Bard 5/Swashbuckler Rogue 3/Divine Soul 1/Ranger 1. At 20th level she will be Bard 5/Swasbuckler 9/Divine Soul 2/Fey Wanderer 4. She will have a large collection of abilities but overall she will be a weak character, particularly in combat where even at 20th level, she will have 1 attack, only 5d6 sneak attack and a 5th level slot, but no spells over 3rd level. She will have some neat things, like very high Charisma checks (20 Charisma, good bonus from Wisdom and expertise in most of the skills) and she will have a killer Dispel Magic, but still weak overall. The Divine Soul dip and Ranger dip (if you call 4 levels a dip) barely bring this character to viable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because players like the OP spells. No one wants a weaker Spirit Guardians, Spike Growth, Fear or Counterspell. The biggest complaints about Counterspell I've heard from players is the back-door nerf WOTC did by replacing spells in monster stat blocks with things that are not spells. Players complained about this multiple times at tables I play on.

I don't think players even want a weaker Shield or Simulacrum which are the worst offenders. Sheild is so good you have characters, often martial characters, taking a 1-level dip to get it.

Also when it comes to balance and player preferences, I think there are far, far more players playing martials that want to be able to get an OP Shield spell on a 1-level multiclass than there are players playing martials but dislike how powerful Shield is. So it is not just people playing full casters that you are going to upset or nerf by making powerful spells less powerful.

However, DMs often do want these powerful spells softened, and you can't expect players to push for anything that directly nerfs their PC. The issue as I see it is, WotC do often listens to the players and not the DMs on these issues, and power creep keeps on keeping on...

 

[ezo]

None of the posters I have seen on ENworld have provided examples of this. It is a prevalent theory on ENWorld, but when I asked for examples there are tyically very few or none.

Probably because there aren't specific examples as you seem to think--it is more about a preference of playstyle when balance comes into the scene.

Also no one on ENWorld has ever provided an example of a streaming game that showed a problem because of imbalance and every time I have seen imbalance on a streaming game or a game I played it is celebrated. When fighting a pack of orcs, no one boos when the fighter does 8 damage to an Orc and then the Sorcerer ends the encounter with the Fear spell. No one complains when the Monk takes 50 damage from the Purple Worm and the Bladesinger puts up shield and just gets missed. Those imbalacnes are celebrated at every table I have seen

By the players? Probably. From the DM? Probably not.

To use your examples, the player of the fighter feels inferior when he does 8 damage, maybe uses Action Surge, and then misses--compared to the sorcerer who can't fail at casting a spell that does sufficient damage on average that even making the save the orcs will likely fall or be in single-digit hp. The fighter player starts to feel like "why do I bother?" It ceases to be a team-game when one or two PCs, especially due to MC dips, blow others away on a fairly consistent basis.

And the monk player will likely feel just as miffed because they took the damage but the wizard didn't because of a 1st-level spell--which the monk could have with a 1st-level dip...

I am not saying the problem does not exist, because asyou noted people on this board say they have experienced it, but I think it is very, very rare.

It only becomes rare because once groups like mine experience, we change things so they are no longer as likely a problem in balance, or that paying for that imbalance comes at a higher cost.

Playing without multiclassing is fine and since it is an optional rule it should be specifically addressed in some fashion even if that is "no optional rules" or "all optional rules". Homebrew is also ok.

I think you will find fewer Players to play games without multiclassing though. IME about 70% of players do not multiclass in games that allow multiclassing, but most of them don't want that to be a rule. When I post a game without multiclassing it takes far longer to fill the seats, even though most players don't multiclass.

This is very much table-dependent IME. Once newer players see the power-gamer aspect of MCing, most of them jump on board and their PCs typically have 2-4 classes! I just started a new game about a month ago, and as soon as the PCs hit 2nd level, half the party grapped the level dip! I had to remind them of how I run MCing. Take the dip, but you're committed. One thought better of it and decided to delay--maybe going the dual-class style route later on.

Most people when given a more enticing, powerful option will take it. I can't think of many people who would go back to watching analog TV with HD out there...

I don't get what is abusive about it. If a player wants to do it let them do it.

The most common I see are 1-level Cleric to get heavy armor (the only way to actually get heavy armor on a multiclass), 1 or 2 level dip for Eldritch Blast, 1-level dip for the Shield Spell.

Because it is purely for gamist reasons. It has nothing typically to do with the character's development, story, etc.

You grab a level of cleric for heavy armor? The player knows there is a feat that grants you heavy armor proficiency, right? Of course, the bonus IMO would really be grabbing some cantrips and a couple 1st-level spells if you're going to game it.

Do these players ever justify how they suddenly gained a level of Cleric? Was there any downtime for it? Role-playing with another PC about learning about the gods? Some experience which compelled them to join a "priesthood" or whatever?

The same goes for dipping for a cantrip or 1st-level spell, either of which could also be gained via a feat.

Now, I'll give you a perfect example. One of my players has a Rogue and want to MC to Warlock for the build. But he has no idea what patron he wants, etc. and told me whatever might work for the story/game would be fine with him. I had an idea based on a NPC travelling with the group and the Rogue died in our last session. The NPC was able to revive him, but that experience is the first step towards his transition into gaining Warlock abilities and discovering his patron, etc.

IMO that is awesome stuff. But if players are MCing to dip to grab X or Y, that should be a clear sign X or Y is likely too strong, etc.

Does that make those characters more powerful? Objectively yes it does, but it has never been a problem at a table I play at and I play a minimum of 4 games a week.

Cool, I'm glad none of it disrupts your games. And man, I would LOVE to get to play in 4 games a week! I'm lucky if we get in one session between both groups... sigh.

Anyway, as DM I know I have as much power as I want in things I can throw at the players, but when some PCs excel due to dips, and others don't have as powerfully built PCs, challenging them because more difficult for me. If I want to challenge the powerful PCs, the weaker ones can suffer (not as effective, more likely to die, etc.). If I challenge the weaker ones, the powerful ones run over things.

It's possible, as I manage, but it is harder to do and frankly running my games, prep, etc. is enough work--especially since I end up DMing 75+% of the time. It is easier (and thus more fun for me) to limiting MCing and avoid the potential issues.

It doesn't need to be a thing, but if players like it and players want it why not?

Because it isn't just about them, but about me (as DM) as well.

Also power gaming aside, there is a lot more you can do thematically by multiclassing that is more difficult to do through feats.

Sure, but subclasses are meant in most cases to handle the thematic issues. Instead of a Fighter/Wizard, you have either the Eldritch Knight or the Bladesinger. It is one niche I feel is unfilled IMO is the gish. You have the full-class Paladin and Ranger as half-divine and half-primal, but you don't really have a full-class half-arcane option.

Right now, I am playing an Eladrin Glamour Bard with a 1-level Fey Warlock dip. The Warlock dip is significant to her story. She is hardly OP, less powerful than a single class Glamour Bard would be and less powerful than most single class Wizards, Sorcs, Clerics or Druids. In our party of 5 she is probably the 3rd or 4th most powerful PC (the Monk is not that powerful in most respects but can fly). All others are single class, in order of power they would be: Mountain Dwarf Scribes Wizard, Custom Lineage Forge Cleric, Owlin Kensai Monk, me, Lionen Giant Barbarian).

Ok, why is it significant to her story, and what (feature/mechanically) did you gain from the warlock dip?

If I had done it differently and went with a Hexblade Warlock or one of many Sorcerer options for a Multiclass she would be substantially more powerful but that did not really make sense to me. If it did though I hardly see how it would be a bad thing.

Without knowing your reasons for the dip, I really couldn't say.

At least WotC had the foresight to make most strong features come online at 2nd-level, so you are going to pay more for them. However, I think MCing into a casting class should drastically restrict cantrips and spells gained at 1st-level.

However, DMs often do want these powerful spells softened, and you can't expect players to push for anything that directly nerfs their PC. The issue as I see it is, WotC do often listens to the players and not the DMs on these issues, and power creep keeps on keeping on...

It's understandable. Players contribute more to the bottom line than DMs. Although DMs will spend more, there are many more players than DMs, so the player contribution is probably around twice or more the DM contribution in terms of profits to the company.

Of course, then like @ECMO3 says, "Why deny players power for their PCs?" And that is a philosophy WotC seems to agree with wholeheartedly.

 

[mamba]

Players contribute more to the bottom line than DMs.

I do not think that is true at all…

 

[ezo]

I do not think that is true at all…

Then I think you'd be wrong.

 

[ECMO3]

Probably because there aren't specific examples as you seem to think--it is more about a preference of playstyle when balance comes into the scene.

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.

By the players? Probably. From the DM? Probably not.

I have never seen a DM get upset about it. Never. Not in play and not on a stream.

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.

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.

To use your examples, the player of the fighter feels inferior when he does 8 damage, maybe uses Action Surge, and then misses--compared to the sorcerer who can't fail at casting a spell that does sufficient damage on average that even making the save the orcs will likely fall or be in single-digit hp. The fighter player starts to feel like "why do I bother?" It ceases to be a team-game when one or two PCs, especially due to MC dips, blow others away on a fairly consistent basis.

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.

And the monk player will likely feel just as miffed because they took the damage but the wizard didn't because of a 1st-level spell--which the monk could have with a 1st-level dip...

Again certainly not "likely". It is very rare this would manifest.

It only becomes rare because once groups like mine experience, we change things so they are no longer as likely a problem in balance, or that paying for that imbalance comes at a higher cost.

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 usually things like potions as a bonus action or waiving the bonus action casting limits or ignoring cover for allies or ignoring weapon switching or ignoring material components.

This is very much table-dependent IME. Once newer players see the power-gamer aspect of MCing, most of them jump on board and their PCs typically have 2-4 classes!

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.

I just started a new game about a month ago, and as soon as the PCs hit 2nd level, half the party grapped the level dip! I had to remind them of how I run MCing. Take the dip, but you're committed. One thought better of it and decided to delay--maybe going the dual-class style route later on.

If it works for you and your group fine. A lot of players would leave (or not join) that table though.

Most people when given a more enticing, powerful option will take it. I can't think of many people who would go back to watching analog TV with HD out there...

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.

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.

Because it is purely for gamist reasons. It has nothing typically to do with the character's development, story, etc.

You grab a level of cleric for heavy armor? The player knows there is a feat that grants you heavy armor proficiency, right? Of course, the bonus IMO would really be grabbing some cantrips and a couple 1st-level spells if you're going to game it.

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.

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.

Do these players ever justify how they suddenly gained a level of Cleric? Was there any downtime for it? Role-playing with another PC about learning about the gods? Some experience which compelled them to join a "priesthood" or whatever?

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.

Now, I'll give you a perfect example. One of my players has a Rogue and want to MC to Warlock for the build. But he has no idea what patron he wants, etc. and told me whatever might work for the story/game would be fine with him. I had an idea based on a NPC travelling with the group and the Rogue died in our last session. The NPC was able to revive him, but that experience is the first step towards his transition into gaining Warlock abilities and discovering his patron, etc.

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.

IMO that is awesome stuff. But if players are MCing to dip to grab X or Y, that should be a clear sign X or Y is likely too strong, etc.

So multiclassing a level of Rogue or Ranger for expertise is "too strong" now? I have had players do that pretty extensively.

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.

Ok, why is it significant to her story, and what (feature/mechanically) did you gain from the warlock dip?

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 (not willingly). She went on a diplomatic mission for the QAD 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 vacation is to last 2 weeks, but due 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 really just interested in seeing things like anyone on Holiday.

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 last.

At 3rd level she did not have expertise, Mantle of Inspiration, Enthralling performance or 3rd level spells like she would have if she was a Bard..

At 5th level she did not have 3rd level spells or Inspiration recharge on a short rest (and this is huge when you can use Inspiration for Mantle of Inspiration).

At 6th level she did not have Mantle of Majesty which again is an awesome ability.

Right now at 7th level she does not have 4th level spells or slots like a single class Bard, but she does have all the other Bard stuff so far and she has her first level Warlock stuff and I would say she is "ahead" right now, but not by much and she won't be ahead any more next level.

 

[Lanefan]

But precedent is set in session 0. If you say we allow multiclassing, then you allow multiclassing including 1 level dips to get shield or Eldritch Blast or because you always wanted to be part Bard or whatever.

Precedent is also set every tme I make a ruling during play on somethng that hasn't come up before.

That, and while it'd be nice to catch all these things in or before session 0 (or session 1) there's just no way in hell that'll happen. Somewhere along the line it's almost guaranteed a player will come up with a combo or exploit or whatever that you-as-DM just didn't see coming and that - even though the RAW says it's legal - still needs ruling on in the moment with a view to whether it'll potentially wreck the game going forward.

If there are conditions on that they should be stated. further a "judgement call" on what is and is not power gaming -"you can multiclass but I have the right to eliminate some combinations" has no place here IMO.

For that specific example, I make it pretty clear up front what's allowed and what isn't; and how even the allowed combinations face restrictions that single-class characters don't.

If it is a PC you can't IMO once the PC has chosen or casted it, or I should say shouldn't.

Correct. Once a PC has the spell, or has cast it (even from a scroll), or a foe has used it against them, it's pretty much locked in.

Your job as the DM is to read and understand the rules and if this was going to be an issue you should have seen it up front.

See above: yes, ideally it should have been caught ahead of time but in reality not everything will be.

The only way this is ok IMO is if ALL players at the table agree to it.

I don't go so far as "all"; if it comes to that, majority vote will do. That said, I try to not incorporate major rule changes mid-campaign, and often find myself stuck with precedents where - given a do-over - I'd have ruled differently. But, so be it.

The only exception here is if it was published after the campaign started.

Or if it's player-generated during the campaign, e.g. a PC researching and inventing a new spell.

 

[ezo]

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.

 

[ECMO3]

Precedent is also set every tme I make a ruling during play on somethng that hasn't come up before.

Precedent for rulings is typically for things that are not covered or are unclear in the rules. If you say your game is RAW on spells or multiclassing and change that just to spite something a player put in their PC build because you don't like it, that is not setting a precedent.

That, and while it'd be nice to catch all these things in or before session 0 (or session 1) there's just no way in hell that'll happen.

Then do the right thing and live with it, and remember it for the next session 0.

Somewhere along the line it's almost guaranteed a player will come up with a combo or exploit or whatever that you-as-DM just didn't see coming and that - even though the RAW says it's legal - still needs ruling on in the moment with a view to whether it'll potentially wreck the game going forward.

No it doesn't. If a player comes up with a combination that automatically one-shots every enemy in the game you play the campaign to the end and implement a rule in the next one.

It is just flat wrong to lead players to believe they can do something and then take it away because you did not understand how it works ahead of time.

Or if it's player-generated during the campaign, e.g. a PC researching and inventing a new spell.

Now this is completely different. TBH when a player researches a new spell I ask them what they want it to do and level they think it should be and more often than not they make it underpowered for the level.

Most cases player created spells are pretty weak and I would not let them be even above average for their spell level.

For example I had a PC that wanted to use a lightsaber and she made a spell called Sunbird's Lightsaber. It was similar to shadowblade but used a spell casting ability, was not finesse, could not be thrown, dealt Radiant damage and did not give advantage in darkness. So overall weaker than Shadowblade. She said she thought it should be 3rd level and I thought it was underpowered at that level but I let her go with it.