D&D General Why is the multi-classing spell slot math so weird?

[Distracted DM]

In 3.5e, spells “upcast” automatically. Your caster level was a factor in the damage calculations, etc. Requiring you to spend a higher level spell slot to get the upscaled effect in 5e was a nerf, explicitly to tone address the “linear fighter, quadratic wizard” problem.

Yup! It probably took the nerf a little too far? Especially since cantrips were made so potent as to keep pace with martials' attacks... it seems a little counter to the mission statement.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I tend to say that if you want to multiclass, you need to be able to accept the problems.

Not a great response to criticism of a system. Like...recognizing that something about multiclassing doesn't make sense doesn't indicate anything resembling an unwillingness to "accept the problems" of multiclassing.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yup! It probably took the nerf a little too far? Especially since cantrips were made so potent as to keep pace with martials' attacks... it seems a little counter to the mission statement.

Although I'd say itsv100% true that they took it too far and created new problems, it's totally misleading to claim it was done for anything to do with "LFQW" . That theoretical "problem" was caused by a failure in proper magic item churn when a gm doesn't follow the dmg guidelines. Instead it was obviously done in service of this silliness:

Spoiler

Trouble is that pretending d&d isn't a game they had been swimming in magic items from the start creates a ton of problems when a lot of classes§ are built around the expectation of multiplicative gains from them. The é.5Fighters were so solid in damage that you can find 3.5 wizard guides like the god wizard one praising that martial party role and slandering the very idea of glass cannon/blaster casters.

§fighter rouge barbarian ranger paladin and their various flavors of PrC/subclass.