Attack Class scaling, and why it's bad

[Todasmile]

I noticed something in the Agonizing Blast vs Lifedrinker topic that has been eating at me for a while.

First off, I'd like to mention that "Attack Class" does not mean Martial as I define it (someone without magic), but rather a class meant to deal damage through "Attack". This includes Blade Pact Warlocks and Paladins.

I think that Wizards screwed up the design of the Attack Class somewhere. This is not because they deal too little damage - indeed, they deal more, and more consistent damage than non- Attack Classes - but rather because they do not scale naturally, as a consequence of leveling up, but rather as a consequence of their class features.

Examine cantrips. Cantrips scale based on level. You do not give anything up to be stronger - Firebolt goes from 1d10 to 2d10, and you didn't need a class feature to tell you that. It's in the spell. Let's imagine, though, that instead of getting your class feature at any given level - instead of getting a new spell level, or getting your metamagic, or what have you, you instead got the ability, "Your cantrips which deal x damage now deal y damage."

Some subclasses actually do get that. Agonizing Blast, Evocation Wizard, and various Clerics. Dragon Sorcerer, as well. We'll go into why that's significant later.

All Attack Classes get the "x damage becomes y damage" ability, most several times. The Fighter is entirely based around that. The entire Attack Class progression is an arms race, to keep up with the scaling of the game. It should be obvious, the difference between "Your cantrips naturally level up at X levels" and "You have to give up 3 or 4 class features in order to get more Attack damage in order for your class to be relevant".

I'm having some difficulty getting my point across, but I hope it's readable. Without Extra Attack, an Attack Class would be surpassed by Ray of Frost's natural scaling. This should not be happening - by choosing an Attack Class, you're already giving up the versatility that you could have gotten from being more spellcasting-focused. But instead of being rewarded for this naturally, with more average damage and more class features, feats, better scaling, etc., you're getting double-dipped; you're having to give up even MORE class features because you have to keep up with, and overcome, the natural scaling of cantrips.

This is clearly ridiculous. Extra Attack is not a feature worthy of an entire level, because all it is is a way to meet a damage "quota". I don't even want to go into detail on how screwed Blade Pact Warlocks are by the ridiculous 2-Invocation tax they have.

My proposed fix is natural attack scaling, or something like it. You can see how the arms race has affected the game, forcing them to not allow Extra Attack stacking and putting abilities at level 11 so that nobody can get two of them. This homogenizes the Attack Class. With my proposed fix, we can now diversify Attack Classes. Spellcasting classes are based around working with the spellcasting system in different ways, but that's lost in Attack Classes, because their class features force them into increasing damage.

Imagine that instead of Extra Attack at level 5, Paladins got "When you make the Attack action, you can give up one attack - regain one spell slot of X level". Or if Lifedrinker actually granted the Warlock temporary HP equal to their Cha mod, instead of functioning as a "oh, you want to deal damage on par with a Paladin, do you?" tax. Or a million other ideas, secure in the fact that your attacks will scale and you won't be struggling to keep up with the damage of a 0th-level spell.

TL;DR: Cantrips scale naturally, attacks don't, and this is horrible because it forces Attack Classes into the 5-11 chassis and minimizes multiclass feasibility due to Extra Attack not stacking. It also means that Attack Classes get less class features than spellcasting ones do, despite already having to give up being more powerful at spellcasting, which is a massive sacrifice.

[Easy_Lee]

Will try to reply in more detail later. But in short, the cantrip scaling thing yields inconsistent math depending on character level.

Only warlocks add their casting stat multiple times to a cantrip (EB with invocation). This yields perfect attack scaling and also makes the warlock deal more damage than a Fighter with opportunity attacks assuming that warlock takes the war caster feat. Nearly all casters take war caster.

For other casters, cantrips scale weirdly compared to attacks. A Ranger can expect to make two or three attacks per round at level 5. A wizard can expect to deal 2d10 with scorching ray, but this is notably only one attack roll. At 11, the ranger is still making two or three attacks, possibly adding certain modifiers and bonuses to those attacks, while the fighter is making three to four, and the Wizard is now dealing 3d10+INT. Meanwhile, the warlock deals 3(1d10+CHA), as does the warlock 2 / anything 9.

Like I said, it changes by level so the math is all over the place. But in general, a melee attacker will beat the at-will DPR of any non-warlock caster by a fair margin.

[Mandragola]

The damage a non-warlock caster does with cantrips doesn't scale anywhere near as well as that of an "attack" class. At any level, they do less damage. Casters never overtake them.

In fact cantrips and at-will damage for casters seriously falls away. It usually doesn't add a stat to damage so at 5th you're clmparing 2d8 to something like 3d8+2d6+8, in the case of a hunter ranger - and thanks to his fighting style the ranger is more accurate. To be fair the ranger's scaling slows at that point, though it doesn't stop.

Casters mainly scale by getting more spells, more slots to cast them in and more of stuff like sorcery points. More slots means they spend more of their actions casting spells, so it doesn't really matter that their cantrips don't keep up. Cantrips are just for when you don't have any spells left, or don't need to cast one.

[Todasmile]

Will try to reply in more detail later. But in short, the cantrip scaling thing yields inconsistent math depending on character level.

Only warlocks add their casting stat multiple times to a cantrip (EB with invocation). This yields perfect attack scaling and also makes the warlock deal more damage than a Fighter with opportunity attacks assuming that warlock takes the war caster feat. Nearly all casters take war caster.

For other casters, cantrips scale weirdly compared to attacks. A Ranger can expect to make two or three attacks per round at level 5. A wizard can expect to deal 2d10 with scorching ray, but this is notably only one attack roll. At 11, the ranger is still making two or three attacks, possibly adding certain modifiers and bonuses to those attacks, while the fighter is making three to four, and the Wizard is now dealing 3d10+INT. Meanwhile, the warlock deals 3(1d10+CHA), as does the warlock 2 / anything 9.

Like I said, it changes by level so the math is all over the place. But in general, a melee attacker will beat the at-will DPR of any non-warlock caster by a fair margin.


The damage a non-warlock caster does with cantrips doesn't scale anywhere near as well as that of an "attack" class. At any level, they do less damage. Casters never overtake them.

In fact cantrips and at-will damage for casters seriously falls away. It usually doesn't add a stat to damage so at 5th you're clmparing 2d8 to something like 3d8+2d6+8, in the case of a hunter ranger - and thanks to his fighting style the ranger is more accurate. To be fair the ranger's scaling slows at that point, though it doesn't stop.

Casters mainly scale by getting more spells, more slots to cast them in and more of stuff like sorcery points. More slots means they spend more of their actions casting spells, so it doesn't really matter that their cantrips don't keep up. Cantrips are just for when you don't have any spells left, or don't need to cast one.

From what I can tell, you think that I'm complaining that Attack Class damage isn't high enough?

I'm not. I'm complaining about having your improved damage be tied to formulaic class features.

Imagine that casting cantrips didn't scale naturally. Imagine that they scaled - for EVERY caster - like this:

Level 5: Your cantrips deal one die extra damage. But you don't get any new spells this level, no extra slots, no new spell levels. Your spellcasting progression is delayed an entire level.
Level 11: Same thing.
Level 14ish (maybe): Same thing.

That's what Attack Classes get. They get a boost at level 5 which gives them extra damage, a boost at level 11 that gives them extra damage, and a boost at 14ish that gives them extra damage. Fighters get one more at level 20. And all of these boosts are considered so amazingly powerful that they're the only thing you get for the entire level.

I think that's crazy. You give up the opportunity of burst damage or utility for the opportunity of sustained damage when you become an Attack Class. For some reason, though, you have to spend your class features on it. See again my theoretical equivalent cantrip progression - you'd be angry if you didn't get any features at Warlock 5 and instead got "Eldritch Blast hits once more", right? You'd be angry if you got nothing at Wizard 11, no spells, no nothing, except for "Fire Bolt does 3d10 damage".

Given that you're giving up the opportunity to focus more into spellcasting and burst, why is an Attack Class forced to give up class features in addition to that? Is the additional +4 damage compared to a cantrip really worth an entire class feature?

I mean, really, look at the pros and cons. They have like 20 extra damage compared to cantrip users per round at maximum, but they all give up something - full casting, casting at all, or are actually worse at damage in the situation of the warlock - in order to do it. And in addition to having to give that up, they have to give up 3 class features so that they scale well. Extra Attack is great, but you have a problem when EVERY class which uses Attack has to get it in order to keep up with cantrip damage.

[JNAProductions]

So the big question here is how to fix it, because I agree that's problematic.

Get more attacks at X, Y, and Z levels and have martial classes scale certain ways? Fighters get full scaling, Paladins and Barbarians get 2/3rds, Rogues and Rangers get 1/2 or some such?

[Vogonjeltz]

From what I can tell, you think that I'm complaining that Attack Class damage isn't high enough?

I'm not. I'm complaining about having your improved damage be tied to formulaic class features.

Imagine that casting cantrips didn't scale naturally. Imagine that they scaled - for EVERY caster - like this:

Level 5: Your cantrips deal one die extra damage. But you don't get any new spells this level, no extra slots, no new spell levels. Your spellcasting progression is delayed an entire level.
Level 11: Same thing.
Level 14ish (maybe): Same thing.

That's what Attack Classes get. They get a boost at level 5 which gives them extra damage, a boost at level 11 that gives them extra damage, and a boost at 14ish that gives them extra damage. Fighters get one more at level 20. And all of these boosts are considered so amazingly powerful that they're the only thing you get for the entire level.

I think that's crazy. You give up the opportunity of burst damage or utility for the opportunity of sustained damage when you become an Attack Class. For some reason, though, you have to spend your class features on it. See again my theoretical equivalent cantrip progression - you'd be angry if you didn't get any features at Warlock 5 and instead got "Eldritch Blast hits once more", right? You'd be angry if you got nothing at Wizard 11, no spells, no nothing, except for "Fire Bolt does 3d10 damage".

Given that you're giving up the opportunity to focus more into spellcasting and burst, why is an Attack Class forced to give up class features in addition to that? Is the additional +4 damage compared to a cantrip really worth an entire class feature?

I mean, really, look at the pros and cons. They have like 20 extra damage compared to cantrip users per round at maximum, but they all give up something - full casting, casting at all, or are actually worse at damage in the situation of the warlock - in order to do it. And in addition to having to give that up, they have to give up 3 class features so that they scale well. Extra Attack is great, but you have a problem when EVERY class which uses Attack has to get it in order to keep up with cantrip damage.

The problem inherent to comparing attack cantrips and extra attack is that the attack cantrip does literally one thing and one thing only, damage.

Extra attack can be used for contests, and numerous mini-actions. Just looking at the guidelines from the PHB there are virtually limitless possible choices that can substitute for an attack from extra attack.

[SharkForce]

I agree that most non-casters could use some more interesting class features at higher levels. I'm not sold on extra attacks being the source of the problem. you could leave extra attacks exactly as-is and just give a few extra abilities at higher levels (tbh at lower levels I don't think it's much of a problem as casters haven't started really pulling away yet).

anyways, the main reason you don't need cantrips to scale by class level is that caster classes already have a strong incentive to stay in their class. you'll almost never hear of any optimized full caster considering more than a 2-3 level dip, because getting access to 9th level spells (and not just spell slots) is an amazing ability and not much else is worth giving it up. even just delaying your caster progression by a couple of levels hurts a lot if you're not thinking in terms of level 20 builds, and is generally not something most will consider lightly.

in contrast, a fighter (probably the worst offender) that stops at level 11 is probably stronger as a result of taking non-fighter levels, with the possible exception of level 18 for champions.

but I don't see this being strictly a problem caused by extra attack counting as a class feature. it's mostly caused by either over-valuing the class features most non-casters get a levels 11-20, or undervaluing spells, whether those class features are extra attack or something else.

[Easy_Lee]

That's what Attack Classes get. They get a boost at level 5 which gives them extra damage, a boost at level 11 that gives them extra damage, and a boost at 14ish that gives them extra damage. Fighters get one more at level 20. And all of these boosts are considered so amazingly powerful that they're the only thing you get for the entire level.

That bolded statement is extremely incorrect. One thing at a time:

For non-warlocks, cantrip damage does NOT scale even close to a melee damage. The melees will be far ahead at levels 1-10, and still ahead but less so after 11 (except fighters, who are always far ahead).

Even the ranger, whose single-target damage peaks at 5 and doesn't get better until swift quiver, can expect to be making 2-3 attacks per round that add his attack stat and are potentially boosted by hunter's mark or a bonus like colossus slayer. With colossus slayer and the two weapon fighting style, a hunter ranger would expect 3(1d6+mod)+1d8 in a given round at level 5, 27DPR if he's keeping his attack stat maxed. Compare that to 2(1d10+5), or 21DPR for the absolute best cantrip option. The warlock won't pull ahead until 11, and even then will only pull ahead when attacking single targets, and will fall behind again when the ranger picks up swiftquiver.

Every damage type except for force and magic weapon damage is resisted by many types of monsters. Force damage is seldom resisted, and magic weapon damage is almost never resisted. Magic weapons will almost certainly be available in every campaign that gets past level 10 or so.
Melee characters can do more with melee than a cantrip allows. Disarm, knockdown, spring attack (move between attacks), and pushing attack are all available to everyone now, but only usable via melee. A 20 fighter might knock down one target, push another, disarm a third, and attack up to two others all in the same round.
There are many feats, class features, and racial features which improve weapon damage further. There are not very many of these for cantrips, with warlocks getting the best ones. Warlocks only get good buffs for their attack cantrip because of their very limited casting.
Melee characters can choose to make their attacks in silence, unlike most cantrips which require verbal and somatic components. This is one more aspect of the game open to melee characters which is difficult to pull off as a caster. Sorcerers have subtle spell, which costs resources, but that's about it.
Unless you're a warlock, your cantrip can generally only target one thing. There are some cantrips that can hit multiple targets, like acid splash, but their damage tends to suck.
Due to warlocks having the only multi-hit cantrip, any other class feature which adds casting mod to damage will only apply once, yielding at least 15 less DPR at 17. In addition, cantrips for other casters are less reliable (4 attack rolls are more reliable than 1).
You only get opportunity attacks in melee, you need a feat to make a spell attack as an OA, and casters don't do well if they frequently enter melee due to their lower AC and HP. Melees will pull further ahead via OAs, especially if they have feats and features that give them additional opportunities for OAs.

As we can see, the warlock breaks the rules a bit, but even warlocks lose the DPR race to a dedicated melee. Taking a standard greatsword fighter as an example, and assuming everyone maxes their relevant stat as soon as possible:
Level 2: Warlock = 1d10+CHA ~ 8.5, Fighter = 2d6+STR (reroll 1s and 2s) ~ 10+
Level 5: Warlock = 2(1d10+CHA) ~ 19, Fighter = 2(2d6+STR) (reroll 1s and 2s) ~ 22+
Level 11: Warlock = 3(1d10+CHA) ~ 31.5, Fighter = 3(2d6+STR) (reroll 1s and 2s) ~ 36+
Level 20: Warlock = 4(1d10+CHA) ~ 42, Fighter = 4(2d6+STR) (reroll 1s and 2s) ~ 48+

And that's for the best caster at-will there is. The best that any other caster can do with their cantrip is 4d10+5, or 32.5DPR. Even an evoker targeting two adjacent targets with acid splash is only dealing 8d6+10 = 38DPR. That's pretty crappy.

And that's before we take any feats or class features into consideration. You think mundanes are weak? I can beat the best at-will DPR, by a large margin, with the most mundane archetype there is.

As I've shown in my champion thread, the expected DPR of a champion far exceeds 50, in addition to all of the melee options he can choose rather than just a basic attack.

Standard half-orc champion with a great axe, great weapon master, and his 15% crit chance makes four attacks. If he crits with one, he gets a bonus from great weapon master. Any attack which crits deals 2d12 bonus damage due to the half-orc racial. The chance of criting at least once in four attacks with a 15% chance is 47.8%.
4.478*(1d12+5+0.15(2d12))=60.2DPR

Even if the warlock has Hex up, he still can't beat the champion's DPR because hex is only adding 14DPR average. Furthermore, one notable thing a champion might do is shove a target to the ground, giving himself advantage and a 27% crit chance (due to expanded crit range and two rolls) on each of his three subsequent attacks, which just throws the math all over the damn place.

And all of that is just the at-will damage. If we look down any class's class feature list, we see plenty of goodies. Instead of casting, melees get more HP, better AC, better attacks, more melee options, features like indomitable and stunning strike and so on, and often (in the case of fighters and rogues) more ASIs.

In closing, if the disparity is so bad, do you really think that only a few people have noticed it and that everyone else is in denial? There are so many limitations to casting this gen, from fewer spell slots to concentration limitation to multiple saves on the most damning spells, that playing a mundane is a competitive option.

As has been discussed elsewhere, one of the most efficient uses of a wizard's spell slot for DPR purposes is casting elemental weapon on a fighter or monk. In other words, you want a balanced party.

And isn't that the goal?

[Naanomi]

Attackers also get 2-3 more HP than casters. Not equal to a class feature but it does add up and muddies the direct comparative math a bit

[Todasmile]

Snip

I'm honestly wondering if you understand the point of this topic at all. Did you not read the post where I said "I understand that they do a lot of damage"? Because I'm well aware of the damage that Attack Characters do. Their damage is not the issue. Please re-read the entire topic and explain to me where on earth you think I'm saying "Attack Characters don't do enough damage".

One key thing I took issue with, though, which IS about damage:


And that's for the best caster at-will there is. The best that any other caster can do with their cantrip is 4d10+5, or 32.5DPR. Even an evoker targeting two adjacent targets with acid splash is only dealing 8d6+10 = 38DPR. That's pretty crappy.

You compared the best caster at-will to the ABSOLUTE best at-will in the game. What's a Duelist Fighter doing, 4d8+28? That's 46 DPR. The gap is only around 20 points of damage per round. What about a TWF Hunter? Is that 3d8+4d6+15 with Hunter's Mark? That's what, 42 damage, and you need a Concentration spell to do it? How about a GWF Paladin, doing 4d6+ 4d8 + 10 damage, or about 46? Most Attack builds, and there are of course exceptions, thanks to Sharpshooter and GWF and Polearm Mastery, but most Attack builds do about 40-50 damage per turn, or about 10-20 more damage than most casters.

But I don't think that that's weak. I absolutely think that 20 DPR is enough damage to be worth playing an Attack Character over a cantrip-user. I just don't think that you should have to give up three class features in order to obtain that damage.

This isn't about power levels, or about how casting is by far the better option, or how martial characters suck, and I know that you've been arguing about that for weeks so I'm going to bear with you, but this is about the fact that Attack-centric characters, one of which is even a (quirky) full-caster, must give up class features in order to achieve their higher DPRs. Fighters have to get Extra Attack 3 times, Paladins get Extra Attack and Divine Smite, Warlocks have to take two Invocations in order to be good at Blade Pact. Rangers get Extra Attack, Barbarians get it, Monks get it.

And I'm not saying that Attack Classes are bad at what they do, they're good at what they do, they're viable, they're usable, they deal 16 more DPR, but that 16 DPR comes at a cost! It isn't just "you aren't going to be as good at spellcasting", it's "You're also going to lose three levels of class features for no reason". Attack characters get all the options that come with Attack, like shoving and disarming and moving between targets, and also they get more HP and better armor (which is only a balancing concern to the fact that 80% of them are going to be in melee). But that's all covered by "you aren't as good at spellcasting". Sure, that's a trade-off, we'll say that's a trade-off, we'll say that being good at using Attack is worth all of the spells in the game, sure, let's agree on that for the sake of the argument.

And we'll say that cantrips are actually worse than Attack, because you don't have that many options and not all of them have riders and they're weaker because they get to be made at range and they're not supposed to be used as your sole damage anyways. That's fine, I agree, let's agree for the sake of the argument! But if that's true, if all of this is true, if spellcasting and Attacking are balanced, if cantrips aren't as good as swinging a sword because they're weaker and they're last resorts:

In that case, what, please tell me what is the reason for taking away three class features as well?

[Giant2005]

This is an interesting thread. It brings up an issue that I hadn't considered before and it is a very valid complaint.
Solutions however are harder to come by.
To balance things out, Cantrips would have to scale by the class level they were given to, not character level and martial characters would have to gain something in addition to extra attacks and such on the levels that they would normally gain nothing but their damage features. Maybe something as simple as an extra ASI/Feat on those levels would suffice? Although with the likes of the Fighter, they would end up with more ASIs/Feats than they would know what to do with. You could give them a feature of another subclass to that archetype that is of a lower level than the character's level but that imo, would be extremely OP. The only other solution is coming up with a bunch of new abilities to give to each class on those levels but that is a lot of hard work...
Good luck.

[OldTrees1]

Question: If WotC messed up by having Attack Class scaling cost class features at those levels, then isn't the solution adding more class features to those levels?

[Giant2005]

Question: If WotC messed up by having Attack Class scaling cost class features at those levels, then isn't the solution adding more class features to those levels?

That is half of the solution.
the other issue is that attack classes have to stay pure in order to get those abilities in the first place. Classes relying on cantrips could take two classes from everything if they wanted and their cantrips wouldn't suffer for it.
To solve that issue, either the damage abilities would have to be no longer tied to their respective class levels at all, or Cantrips would have to start being tied to their class levels.

[pwykersotz]

I know it's probably not the desired solution, but one way to stop the discrepancy between cantrips and attacks is to remove cantrip scaling and replace it with class features at levels 5, 11, and 17 for classes that get cantrips naturally. If cantrips are gained via feat or race, a class can be selected at the time the feat or race is selected that the cantrip ties too, adding this class feature at the appropriate levels.

Edit: Today I learned Giant2005 is a Shadow Monk. :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

That is half of the solution.
the other issue is that attack classes have to stay pure in order to get those abilities in the first place. Classes relying on cantrips could take two classes from everything if they wanted and their cantrips wouldn't suffer for it.
To solve that issue, either the damage abilities would have to be no longer tied to their respective class levels at all, or Cantrips would have to start being tied to their class levels.

Don't most of the class features synergize? Did WotC also mess up the math of Pure vs Muticlass? That can't be know before analysis. Has someone crunched the numbers on that yet?

[BurgerBeast]

It would seem to me that the extra attacks could be tied to the weapons themselves, which is an idea I had played around with before in the design of other games. For example, a sword does 1d8/2d8/3d8/4d8 damage at levels 1, 5, 10, and 15 in the hands of a proficient wielder. This way they scale with the weapon, not the class, which is similar to how cantrips scale. Then the class levels are freed up for other abilities.

Forgive my lack of relevant examples, I don't play 5e yet.

*edit: Or just do what OldTrees1 said. Seems simplest.

[Giant2005]

Don't most of the class features synergize? Did WotC also mess up the math of Pure vs Muticlass? That can't be know before analysis. Has someone crunched the numbers on that yet?

It isn't a matter of numbers.
If your damage occurs via Cantrip, then it doesn't matter what class you are progressing in, your damage will scale and you will gain class abilities while doing so.
If your damage occurs via weapon, you must stay pure in your class to have that damage scale and on the levels which it scales, you gain no class abilities other than said scaling.

[OldTrees1]

It isn't a matter of numbers.
If your damage occurs via Cantrip, then it doesn't matter what class you are progressing in, your damage will scale and you will gain class abilities while doing so.
If your damage occurs via weapon, you must stay pure in your class to have that damage scale and on the levels which it scales, you gain no class abilities other than said scaling.

If your damage occurs via weapon, then all class features that scale damage via weapon will contribute towards your scaling.

Consider a Rogue / Barbabarian. The Barbarian's Reckless Attack ability synergies with the Rogue's Sneak Attack. (Actually Reckless Attack is quite good at synergizing)

Muticlassing does not stop weapon based damage from scaling provided the scaling abilities synergize. However the presence of multiclass scaling is not sufficient. Multiclass scaling needs to scale in a manner comparable to pure scaling. That is what would require analysis prior to forming a conclusion about pure vs multiclass scaling.

PS: I already solved the "you gain no class abilities other than said scaling" problem with my first post in this thread. No need to repeat that problem to someone already convinced.

[SharkForce]

you don't need to limit cantrip scaling. cantrip scaling is already pretty awful unless you have class features to boost it (and sometimes it still sucks even then).

all caster classes inherently have scaling class features (specifically, their spell progression). multiclassing sacrifices those features (spells known/prepared, maximum spell level, number of spell slots) without needing to do a thing to cantrips. if you multiclass a non-caster, the stuff you gain can equal or even exceed what you lose. a fighter 11/rogue 9 (or 12/8), for example, is a pretty scary thing, and reasonably comparable to a level 20 fighter or a level 20 rogue... a wizard 11/cleric 9, on the other hand, is not terrible... but most likely is worse than either a 20 wizard or 20 cleric is, whether it has freely scaling cantrips or cantrips that scale with class level. there is no need to take away cantrip scaling from a multiclassed spellcaster... by delaying or even losing out entirely on high level spells and spell slots, they have reduced their character scaling already.

i suppose you could reduce it further, but frankly, there's already a substantial cost to multiclassing a caster.

[Giant2005]

you don't need to limit cantrip scaling. cantrip scaling is already pretty awful unless you have class features to boost it (and sometimes it still sucks even then).

all caster classes inherently have scaling class features (specifically, their spell progression). multiclassing sacrifices those features (spells known/prepared, maximum spell level, number of spell slots) without needing to do a thing to cantrips. if you multiclass a non-caster, the stuff you gain can equal or even exceed what you lose. a fighter 11/rogue 9 (or 12/8), for example, is a pretty scary thing, and reasonably comparable to a level 20 fighter or a level 20 rogue... a wizard 11/cleric 9, on the other hand, is not terrible... but most likely is worse than either a 20 wizard or 20 cleric is, whether it has freely scaling cantrips or cantrips that scale with class level. there is no need to take away cantrip scaling from a multiclassed spellcaster... by delaying or even losing out entirely on high level spells and spell slots, they have reduced their character scaling already.

i suppose you could reduce it further, but frankly, there's already a substantial cost to multiclassing a caster.

To be fair though, you did cherry pick the worst casting combination you could think of.
Something like Warlock/Sorc is not only as powerful as either a full Sorc or full Warlock but more powerful than both.
Warlock/Bard has the same benefits and a solid case can be made for a Druid dipping into Cleric.
Basically, as long as you aren't trying to multi classes with two different casting stats, you will be fine (Or as a Warlock you could probably get away with multy-ing to a class with another casting stat purely for the extra spell slots).
The Wizard/Cleric combination you used as an example is a lot closer to a Monk/Barbarian and that doesn't work either (Due to differing primary attributes).

[noce]

It's untrue that combat classes gain only extra attack at 5th level.

Fighters gain nothing else, but their action surge doubles in efficacy. This is huge.
Barbarians gain fast movement.
Monks gain stunning strike and damage goes from 1d4 to 1d6.
Paladins gain 2nd level spells: this means find steed (at this level it's better than the ranger one), and spell slots to fuel smite or cast spells.
Rangers gain 2nd level spells, pick two, and one more 1st level spell.

Just because fighter gains nothing else at 5th level, it doesn't mean everyone else gains nothing.

[Giant2005]

It's untrue that combat classes gain only extra attack at 5th level.

Fighters gain nothing else, but their action surge doubles in efficacy. This is huge.
Barbarians gain fast movement.
Monks gain stunning strike and damage goes from 1d4 to 1d6.
Paladins gain 2nd level spells: this means find steed (at this level it's better than the ranger one), and spell slots to fuel smite or cast spells.
Rangers gain 2nd level spells, pick two, and one more 1st level spell.

Just because fighter gains nothing else at 5th level, it doesn't mean everyone else gains nothing.

This is a good point. Not all of the Martial classes suffer from this and not even all of the spellcasting classes benefit from it.
These are the classes that get nothing at level 5 (Other than an extra attack or increased Spell Progression):
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Druid
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

That is over half of the classes and it seems to effect spellcasters more than weapon users. Those same classes get nothing beyond the norm at level 11 too (Other than the Ranger and Paladin getting something different to Extra Attack).

[Psikerlord]

I noticed something in the Agonizing Blast vs Lifedrinker topic that has been eating at me for a while.

First off, I'd like to mention that "Attack Class" does not mean Martial as I define it (someone without magic), but rather a class meant to deal damage through "Attack". This includes Blade Pact Warlocks and Paladins.

I think that Wizards screwed up the design of the Attack Class somewhere. This is not because they deal too little damage - indeed, they deal more, and more consistent damage than non- Attack Classes - but rather because they do not scale naturally, as a consequence of leveling up, but rather as a consequence of their class features.

Examine cantrips. Cantrips scale based on level. You do not give anything up to be stronger - Firebolt goes from 1d10 to 2d10, and you didn't need a class feature to tell you that. It's in the spell. Let's imagine, though, that instead of getting your class feature at any given level - instead of getting a new spell level, or getting your metamagic, or what have you, you instead got the ability, "Your cantrips which deal x damage now deal y damage."

Some subclasses actually do get that. Agonizing Blast, Evocation Wizard, and various Clerics. Dragon Sorcerer, as well. We'll go into why that's significant later.

All Attack Classes get the "x damage becomes y damage" ability, most several times. The Fighter is entirely based around that. The entire Attack Class progression is an arms race, to keep up with the scaling of the game. It should be obvious, the difference between "Your cantrips naturally level up at X levels" and "You have to give up 3 or 4 class features in order to get more Attack damage in order for your class to be relevant".

I'm having some difficulty getting my point across, but I hope it's readable. Without Extra Attack, an Attack Class would be surpassed by Ray of Frost's natural scaling. This should not be happening - by choosing an Attack Class, you're already giving up the versatility that you could have gotten from being more spellcasting-focused. But instead of being rewarded for this naturally, with more average damage and more class features, feats, better scaling, etc., you're getting double-dipped; you're having to give up even MORE class features because you have to keep up with, and overcome, the natural scaling of cantrips.

This is clearly ridiculous. Extra Attack is not a feature worthy of an entire level, because all it is is a way to meet a damage "quota". I don't even want to go into detail on how screwed Blade Pact Warlocks are by the ridiculous 2-Invocation tax they have.

My proposed fix is natural attack scaling, or something like it. You can see how the arms race has affected the game, forcing them to not allow Extra Attack stacking and putting abilities at level 11 so that nobody can get two of them. This homogenizes the Attack Class. With my proposed fix, we can now diversify Attack Classes. Spellcasting classes are based around working with the spellcasting system in different ways, but that's lost in Attack Classes, because their class features force them into increasing damage.

Imagine that instead of Extra Attack at level 5, Paladins got "When you make the Attack action, you can give up one attack - regain one spell slot of X level". Or if Lifedrinker actually granted the Warlock temporary HP equal to their Cha mod, instead of functioning as a "oh, you want to deal damage on par with a Paladin, do you?" tax. Or a million other ideas, secure in the fact that your attacks will scale and you won't be struggling to keep up with the damage of a 0th-level spell.

TL;DR: Cantrips scale naturally, attacks don't, and this is horrible because it forces Attack Classes into the 5-11 chassis and minimizes multiclass feasibility due to Extra Attack not stacking. It also means that Attack Classes get less class features than spellcasting ones do, despite already having to give up being more powerful at spellcasting, which is a massive sacrifice.

I suggest my easy fix. Dont allow multiclassing. Tada!

[Mandragola]

I think that the problem is that cantrips are not the core feature of casters - their proper spells are what they are there for. So comparing cantrips to the weapon attacks of attack classes is a flawed approach. It actually doesn't matter how they work relative to each other because they are not equivalent. You bring a fighter for his at will melee attack (or bow or whatever) but that's not why you bring a wizard.

Imagine a character with 1 level of cleric and 19 levels in monk, for example. Now he can do a cantrip for quite a lot of damage because it scaled regardless of his class. But actually it doesn't matter that this is the case, because the monk will never, or hardly ever, actually use the cantrip. It's not actually very good compared to hitting things a bunch of times.

Consider on the other hand a character with 1 level in fighter and 19 levels in wizard. It's clearly not appropriate for this guy to get the fighter's number of extra attacks. He'd be a full caster with the option of pulling out a greatsword and smacking monsters around when he felt like it.

My point is that multiple attacks are indeed a core feature of most attack classes. Yes, that's the point! Yes, their damage scaling is linked to their level as they go up, deliberately (if not always successfully, c.f. the ranger).

This then interacts with spells in a slightly non-linear way. So the paladin's melee attacks scale fairly straightforwardly, but at the same time he's getting more spell slots. He can use those to smite stuff and/or to cast damage buffs like divine favour or haste. So a half-caster like a paladin's power scales through a combination of direct melee damage - buffed by formulaic class features like extra attack and imp DS, through damaging magic and through non-damaging spell abilities like beneficial auras or healing spells.

So OP, you're getting what looks like a bad result because you're comparing only small aspects of each class, which aren't intended to be equivalent anyway, and ignoring a ton of other stuff.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

/agree with Mandragola.

Attack Class scaling is more properly compared to spells. If fighter attacks scaled with level rather than as class features, it would be like spells progressing up to level 9 with even 1 level of wizard.

The holistic approach of comparing the entirety of a characters power vs another character is the only proper way to approach class design. Failure to do so is what lead to the balance trainwreck of 3rd ed.

[Giant2005]

Imagine a character with 1 level of cleric and 19 levels in monk, for example. Now he can do a cantrip for quite a lot of damage because it scaled regardless of his class. But actually it doesn't matter that this is the case, because the monk will never, or hardly ever, actually use the cantrip. It's not actually very good compared to hitting things a bunch of times.

Consider on the other hand a character with 1 level in fighter and 19 levels in wizard. It's clearly not appropriate for this guy to get the fighter's number of extra attacks. He'd be a full caster with the option of pulling out a greatsword and smacking monsters around when he felt like it.
I don't think your examples accentuate the point that you want them to...
Instead they highlight the fact that the Monk probably shouldn't be using his Sacred Flame as well as a full Cleric does.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Why not?

A less powerful Sacred Flame would be worthless (as opposed to not worth the opportunity cost). And if the Cleric's sacred flame was better than it would begin to outshine spells.

The whole point of the current cantrip system is that any character can strap them on - from backgrounds, feats, or classes- and use them reasonably effectively without being as powerful as actual class features.

[Mandragola]

Why not?

A less powerful Sacred Flame would be worthless (as opposed to not worth the opportunity cost). And if the Cleric's sacred flame was better than it would begin to outshine spells.

The whole point of the current cantrip system is that any character can strap them on - from backgrounds, feats, or classes- and use them reasonably effectively without being as powerful as actual class features.

Opportunity cost is the point, yes. It doesn't matter how good a feature is if you're not going to use it.

Attack classes are for attacking, so that's what their class features are for. Casters are for casting spells, so when they level up they mostly get spells. A high level fighter walks into a room with a dragon and attacks it. A high level caster in the same room casts the biggest spell he has - he doesn't use a cantrip.

To compare the scaling and relative power of classes, compare their overall effect and what they actually do when under pressure. Don't take some of their abilities in isolation and compare them or you'll get bad results.

[SharkForce]

To be fair though, you did cherry pick the worst casting combination you could think of.
Something like Warlock/Sorc is not only as powerful as either a full Sorc or full Warlock but more powerful than both.
Warlock/Bard has the same benefits and a solid case can be made for a Druid dipping into Cleric.
Basically, as long as you aren't trying to multi classes with two different casting stats, you will be fine (Or as a Warlock you could probably get away with multy-ing to a class with another casting stat purely for the extra spell slots).
The Wizard/Cleric combination you used as an example is a lot closer to a Monk/Barbarian and that doesn't work either (Due to differing primary attributes).

except that those multiclasses are typically considered purely with a small splash. you don't see a lot of people saying that sorcerer 11/warlock 9 looks great... you see a lot of people who want a 2-3 level dip into warlock on their sorcerer for eldritch blast spam. likewise you frequently see bards trying to take only a 2-level dip so that they can keep their highest level secrets (and be able to cast wish, usually). plus, it leaves the question of what class scales your cantrips if you pick one up with magic initiate or the spell sharpshooter feat which i can't recall the name of atm.

it's the same going the other way... you might see a warlock considering a 3-level sorcerer splash to pick up quicken, but you'll rarely see a half and half split.

and i've never seen anyone suggest a druid/cleric combination... you don't gain much (heavy armour that you probably can't wear unless you find a special enchanted suit?) for a druid, and you lose out on druid class features, especially for the ever-popular moon druid where a 2-3 level dip means you're usually using a creature a full CR value less powerful than you could be with your wild shape in addition to losing spellcasting effectiveness. i suppose you might consider splashing a level of druid into a cleric to pick up goodberry, faerie fire, shillelagh, etc, but again, that's just a splash... you're still getting full-power cleric cantrips, and you're probably not planning on using the druid ones (apart from maybe shillelagh, which doesn't scale with level anyways). also, you'd probably be better off with just taking the magic initiate feat or just going nature cleric in the first place.

when it comes to full casters, the cost is not in their "i don't care enough to do anything meaningful" options... it's to their "this is important enough that it's worth spending resources" actions. the level 11 cleric gets to cast heal. the 6/5 cleric/druid split gets a level 6 spell slot to cast a cure wounds spell from. there's not much point in reducing their cantrip effectiveness... they shouldn't even be using it in a fight unless they've basically already won it. reducing cantrip damage at that point just drags out the end of the fight.

[Mandragola]

I think eldritch blast arguably is broken as a two level warlock dip. You do get an ability to do direct damage that then scales very well. It is a but like a sorceror taking two levels in fighter and ending up with 4 attacks at level 20, which doesn't even make him MAD, and that doesn't look right. So most cantrips might be ok to get as a dip but eldritch blast and agonising blast might not be ok.

The only thing I could say on the other side is that there is a cost when you're levelling up. Your main class spell progression is delayed two levels, so your highest level spells are a level below what they would be. When you do get those spells you'll be fighting tougher monsters and they won't work as well. A level 5 warlock or a level 5 sorceror both cast 3rd level spells but a warlock 2 sorceror 3 doesn't, yet. So there's a cost, but I don't know if it's a high enough cost for what you get with EB.

[SharkForce]

I think eldritch blast arguably is broken as a two level warlock dip. You do get an ability to do direct damage that then scales very well. It is a but like a sorceror taking two levels in fighter and ending up with 4 attacks at level 20, which doesn't even make him MAD, and that doesn't look right. So most cantrips might be ok to get as a dip but eldritch blast and agonising blast might not be ok.

The only thing I could say on the other side is that there is a cost when you're levelling up. Your main class spell progression is delayed two levels, so your highest level spells are a level below what they would be. When you do get those spells you'll be fighting tougher monsters and they won't work as well. A level 5 warlock or a level 5 sorceror both cast 3rd level spells but a warlock 2 sorceror 3 doesn't, yet. So there's a cost, but I don't know if it's a high enough cost for what you get with EB.

the 2 warlock dip is a bit of an outlier, and is caused not by the cantrip scaling, but by the invocation (ie a class feature). even then, as you noted: it has a cost. when single class sorcerers can throw web, you've got level 1 spells. once you get web, single class sorcerers can cast fireball. and so on.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

IMO the 2 level dip is only problematic when looking at complete level 20 builds. At any level below...19? there's a clear opportunity cost to grabbing eldritch blast.

[Symphony]

IMO the 2 level dip is only problematic when looking at complete level 20 builds. At any level below...19? there's a clear opportunity cost to grabbing eldritch blast.

This is true. I've seen people trying to argue that the 2/short rest level 1 spell slots are also a huge benefit, but they really aren't. Assuming 2 short rests per long rest, a full Sorcerer will always have more potential sorcery points or spell slots than the same level warlock 2/sorcerer X build and also have higher level spells/slots. A Sorcerer can also pick up Hex and Eldritch Blast from Magic Initiate (and gets one more ASI to do so), so the two Invocations, two 1st level Warlock spells, and the 1st level Patron feature from Warlock 2 are literally the only reason to take the dip.

A slightly flexible DM who allows either more kinds of draconic ancestry or custom element-reflavored spells (which is reasonable given the skewed elemental spell distribution) makes the dip almost worthless.

[Easy_Lee]

Being able to cast a cantrip that does up to 60 damage and moves the target up to 40' back, with no save, is nothing to scoff at. I think it's a semi major oversight on WoTCs part that this one thing is available for a 2-level dip.

That said, the damage and usefulness of EB pales in comparison to that of leveled spells and other features.

A sorcerer wanting to kill a target quickly will likely resort to his more powerful options. If the target does not need to die quickly, then sacrificing around 15 damage or so on the cantrip shouldn't matter.
A bard is more capable of support if he sticks with his main class and gets his support spells sooner. It's a great source of at-will DPR, but most of the classes who benefit from having that option have better options to spend their action on.
Paladins are better off smiting and attacking with their (likely magic) weapons
Everyone else would have to invest in CHA specifically to do this.

And other cantrips are such a comparatively crappy source of damage, relative to melee attacking, that I don't see how they're relevant.

[Vogonjeltz]

Being able to cast a cantrip that does up to 60 damage and moves the target up to 40' back, with no save, is nothing to scoff at. I think it's a semi major oversight on WoTCs part that this one thing is available for a 2-level dip.

That said, the damage and usefulness of EB pales in comparison to that of leveled spells and other features.

A sorcerer wanting to kill a target quickly will likely resort to his more powerful options. If the target does not need to die quickly, then sacrificing around 15 damage or so on the cantrip shouldn't matter.
A bard is more capable of support if he sticks with his main class and gets his support spells sooner. It's a great source of at-will DPR, but most of the classes who benefit from having that option have better options to spend their action on.
Paladins are better off smiting and attacking with their (likely magic) weapons
Everyone else would have to invest in CHA specifically to do this.

And other cantrips are such a comparatively crappy source of damage, relative to melee attacking, that I don't see how they're relevant.

60 assuming they have a 20 in charisma, yes. Of course they are giving up an ASI (so only 4 total), which makes their other attributes that much worse. Losing the sorcerer capstone hurts too.

Also it's only 10 feet per Eldritch blast. 4 rays, 1 blast.

[pwykersotz]

Also it's only 10 feet per Eldritch blast. 4 rays, 1 blast.

Huh...didn't notice that before. Good catch.

[xyianth]

60 assuming they have a 20 in charisma, yes. Of course they are giving up an ASI (so only 4 total), which makes their other attributes that much worse. Losing the sorcerer capstone hurts too.

Also it's only 10 feet per Eldritch blast. 4 rays, 1 blast.

If you dip warlock for 3 levels, you don't lose the sorcerer capstone. In fact you get a better version of it as soon as you have 2 levels of sorcerer and 3 levels of warlock. You can convert pact magic slots into sorcery points, and you get 2 2nd level slots/short rest. This becomes 4 points recovered every short rest. (capstone is 1/long rest) You also can gain tome pact and pick up the best ritual casting in the game. The real cost is the slower spell progression and missing out on the second 6th and 7th level slots per day. The latter only matters if you were planning to actually reach 19-20th level. The former matters from levels 5+.

The ASI can sort of be offset by starting as a variant human for the extra feat. (all casters love the warcaster feat anyway, so even with 5 ASIs, chances are high one would be used to pick it up)

[SharkForce]

tome lock isn't the best ritual casting in the game unless you keep progressing warlock. all level 1-2 rituals is certainly nice, don't get me wrong, but it very explicitly scales with warlock casting only, so 3 levels of warlock won't get you all ritual spells... just all level 1-2 ritual spells. (again, very nice, especially for a sorcerer with the very limited spell selection they have, but i wouldn't call it the best in the game).

[xyianth]

tome lock isn't the best ritual casting in the game unless you keep progressing warlock. all level 1-2 rituals is certainly nice, don't get me wrong, but it very explicitly scales with warlock casting only, so 3 levels of warlock won't get you all ritual spells... just all level 1-2 ritual spells. (again, very nice, especially for a sorcerer with the very limited spell selection they have, but i wouldn't call it the best in the game).

That's fair. I usually end up with 5 levels in warlock when building characters, so I admit I forgot about the loss of the 3rd level rituals. I generally find the 4th, 5th, & 6th level rituals unnecessary for utility casting purposes, but 3rd level contains some great ones. Rary's telepathic bond is about the only higher level ritual I would actually use on any kind of regular basis. (if I had access to them of course)

[JNAProductions]

On attack class scaling, what if Extra Attacks worked like casting? So a Fighter is a Full Attacker, Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians are Half-Attackers, Rogues, Valor Bards, and Bladelocks are all Third-Attackers. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but wouldn't that help solve some attack issues without letting anyone get four attacks with a one-level Fighter dip?

[Easy_Lee]

On attack class scaling, what if Extra Attacks worked like casting? So a Fighter is a Full Attacker, Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians are Half-Attackers, Rogues, Valor Bards, and Bladelocks are all Third-Attackers. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but wouldn't that help solve some attack issues without letting anyone get four attacks with a one-level Fighter dip?

That's basically how it already works. Everyone but the fighter who gets extra attack only gets it once. Other classes can keep up with a fighter's DPR, sometimes, by using their features. But just being able to attack the largest number of times is the most versatile feature since attacks often apply extra dice modifiers (like elemental/magic weapon), have a chance to produce other effects (crits produce extra attack from great weapon mastery), can target multiple foes, and can be turned into other actions such as disarms, shoves, and grapples.

[JNAProductions]

So if I take 12 levels in Fighter and 8 in Barbarian (Total Attack Level: 16) I get three attacks? I never knew that! (Side note, AFB at the moment so I don't know exactly what level Fighter gets attack #3.)

I get that the system already almost works that way, I'm just proposing that the numbers get worked out and take it all the way. So that way, get enough levels in various weapon classes and you'll get extra attacks based on total level, not just individual class level.

[Todasmile]

That's basically how it already works. Everyone but the fighter who gets extra attack only gets it once. Other classes can keep up with a fighter's DPR, sometimes, by using their features. But just being able to attack the largest number of times is the most versatile feature since attacks often apply extra dice modifiers (like elemental/magic weapon), have a chance to produce other effects (crits produce extra attack from great weapon mastery), can target multiple foes, and can be turned into other actions such as disarms, shoves, and grapples.

Of course, if you take 3 levels in Barbarian and 2 in Paladin, you don't actually get Extra Attack. If it were like casting, you would. I think that might be what was meant.

[CrusaderJoe]

Of course, if you take 3 levels in Barbarian and 2 in Paladin, you don't actually get Extra Attack. If it were like casting, you would. I think that might be what was meant.

But if you have non-magic and magic play by the same rules you get one or more of the following things!

1: Class same-ness
2: Magic not getting to be the special little snowflake that people so desperately need.
3: People rioting in the streets.

/blue

I think extra attack (the first one) should work off total levels. I think the fighter getting more extra attacks is a lazy class design (along with action surge, which for the fighter pretty much is another way to do extra attack agagin).

[Knaight]

I think extra attack (the first one) should work off total levels. I think the fighter getting more extra attacks is a lazy class design (along with action surge, which for the fighter pretty much is another way to do extra attack agagin).
It seems like a pretty solid way to distinguish it from other fighting classes and give it something it's actually best at to me. With that said, the interactions between Extra Attack and multiclassing are kind of weird, particularly given the way spell slots work.

[CrusaderJoe]

It seems like a pretty solid way to distinguish it from other fighting classes and give it something it's actually best at to me. With that said, the interactions between Extra Attack and multiclassing are kind of weird, particularly given the way spell slots work.

I'm not saying it isn't useful (damage always is), just lazy and meh. You could have made the fighter so many other ways to distinguish it from another class.

Or get rid of the fighter all together, it really isn't needed anymore. If the Fighter was the base for specific types of fighters (ranger, rogue, paladin, barbarian) then it works. However we have grown past the need for a fighter class all together.

[JNAProductions]

How would you make an interesting Fighter, CrusaderJoe? If we get rid of the current Fighter and replace it with something cool and new, that on its own might solve this discrepancy, since Fighter is the largest offender of Extra Attacks.

[Easy_Lee]

The system is designed the way it is to discourage frequent multiclassing. Casters already face major penalties for multiclassing due to delayed casting and not getting to pick the higher level spells. Mundanes historically haven't faced much penalty for multiclassing, leading to some truly confusing combinations of classes and PRCs in 3.5e. WoTC clearly wants pure classes to be good, so they tied nearly everything to class level rather than character level. Feats and attack progression are just two examples of things tied to the class rather than the character.

Further, there is no confusion about extra attack. You get extra attack at class level 5/6 because it represents a considerable amount of training in that class's style of fighting. You don't get any more extra attack unless you're a fighter, period. Fighters get the most extra attack because it's the most versatile combat feature.

The reason cantrips scale by character level rather than class level is an effort to keep cantrips from becoming totally useless. A good option at level 1 should still be a good option at 20. Attacks already scale just fine, since the real damage usually comes from the extra stuff applied to the attack (like sneak attack) or the sheer number of attacks made combined with improved stats and weapons (monks and fighters). Even rangers can scale just fine as long as they take archery and swiftquiver (which for some reason doesn't have a melee equivalent).

[CrusaderJoe]

How would you make an interesting Fighter, CrusaderJoe? If we get rid of the current Fighter and replace it with something cool and new, that on its own might solve this discrepancy, since Fighter is the largest offender of Extra Attacks.

The largest offenders are

Action Surge (lazy)
Indomitable (mostly useless)
Extra Attack (lazy)

Which is essentially the base class.

The simplest way to do things would to kill the fighter. But the easiest way to do things would to copy the Rogue in such a way you get a more direct fighter instead of a lurker. Though I'm a fan of mixing the two classes (The Adventurer).

Indomitable: Make the reroll a Con save, fixed.
Extra Attack (2-3): Increase base weapon damage when holding a weapon. This is based on base weapon initial damage. Or you could bring back the bonus martial damage (+5, +10,+20).

Action Surge:
Option 1: Resolve Points: (short or long rest) that you spend to modify your attacks.

Option 2: Stances: Ready per short or long rest but may go into a fighting stance as a BA. Gives a passive or active ability. This way you can have tour simple fighter and when you get bored you can opt to get a more interesting ability.

Option 3: Both Resolve Points and Stances. Perhaps stances are a base class feature and the resolve is a battle master fix.

Spitball ideas mostly.


Edit: Lazy class feature is OK, but when the class has so many of them... It's just bad.

[JNAProductions]

Perhaps base stances off the existing Fighting Styles? Defensive, Duelist, Ranged, Protector, GWF, all that?

[CrusaderJoe]

Perhaps base stances off the existing Fighting Styles? Defensive, Duelist, Ranged, Protector, GWF, all that?

Expanding them would be fine, somewhat like feat chains except, you know, not feats.

Would really give the fighter a specific feel to it.

[Todasmile]

The system is designed the way it is to discourage frequent multiclassing. Casters already face major penalties for multiclassing due to delayed casting and not getting to pick the higher level spells. Mundanes historically haven't faced much penalty for multiclassing, leading to some truly confusing combinations of classes and PRCs in 3.5e. WoTC clearly wants pure classes to be good, so they tied nearly everything to class level rather than character level. Feats and attack progression are just two examples of things tied to the class rather than the character.

You think that Attack classes don't face penalties? If I take levels in another class, that's levels I'm not putting towards my next damage boost. The only difference is that while a 5/5/5/5 caster still gets all of the spell slots of a 20 caster (though no spells above 3rd level), a 5/5/5/5 Attack character does the same damage as a level 5 character. Sure, no level 4+ spells sucks - but having your main class feature, damage, not even be any good, is ten times worse.


Further, there is no confusion about extra attack. You get extra attack at class level 5/6 because it represents a considerable amount of training in that class's style of fighting. You don't get any more extra attack unless you're a fighter, period. Fighters get the most extra attack because it's the most versatile combat feature.

That's entirely arbitrary. My level 5 Paladin spends 5 levels using the exact same weapons as a level 5 Fighter, but for some reason their levels aren't compatible? A level 11 Fighter is more skilled at fighting than a Fighter 10 / Paladin 10?

If the Extra Attack abilities were different for each, I could get it, barely, but they're literally the same ability. Even just something tiny and horrible, like "Every time you attack, your divine radiance heals all allies within 5ft by 1hp". But there's nothing to differentiate them - they're both the same, incredibly crucial ability.


The reason cantrips scale by character level rather than class level is an effort to keep cantrips from becoming totally useless. A good option at level 1 should still be a good option at 20. Attacks already scale just fine, since the real damage usually comes from the extra stuff applied to the attack (like sneak attack) or the sheer number of attacks made combined with improved stats and weapons (monks and fighters). Even rangers can scale just fine as long as they take archery and swiftquiver (which for some reason doesn't have a melee equivalent).

Yeah, of course. Cantrips scale by character level, and not class level, because they'd be useless otherwise. That makes perfect sense, especially considering that they're supposed to be crappy options that you use because you have no spells left / because you're trying to conserve. Let's be real here, cantrips are never really supposed to be that great an option, except at early levels, which is fine because we're discussing scaling, not base power.

Meanwhile, Attacks, the entire purpose of the Attack Class, get worse treatment.

[JNAProductions]

Right, let's see.

Defensive would be easiest-give increasing AC bonuses. Perhaps +3 by level 20.
Next, give the ability to "Dodge" while attacking. Enemies hit with your attacks have disadvantage against you unless they make a saving throw of some sort. (Alternatively, just give a bonus action dodge.)
Give bonuses to things like Shove that are capable of putting your enemies at a penalty-perhaps allowing them to be done as a bonus action, so you can reliably shove enemies to the ground.
Lastly, allow the Polearm Master OA as a class feature, so even approaching you is dangerous and enemies are encouraged to stay away.
The AC should work as a passive even when not in Defensive stance, so long as you can use this stance.

Protection is a bit trickier. The basic would be taking the Protection ability and making it better-incresing range (lunging protect) and additional penalties (disadvantage and -2 to attack).
Give the benefits of the Sentinel feat, probably.
Allow you to take damage for others, splitting it 50/50 in protected attacks, and allow protection against Dexterity saves (advantage on save and Evasion).
Finally, and as a permenant passive, bonus HP, the better to meatshield for your allies.

Great Weapon Fighter should be about big damage with big weapons. +5 to damage by level 20 seems reasonable.
Expanded critical range (not sure how this would stack with Champion, if at all).
"Smash" attacks, capable of knocking enemies aside, and can shove them into objects for extra damage. (For battlefield control and damage.)
And some form of passive resistance bypass/regeneration nullifier.

Still working on others.

[hawklost]

So all I am seeing is people talking about a 2 level dip into the Warlock to get the EB effect maximized. (And not even that unless you are maximizing your Cha so either Bard or Sorc are the only 2 classes this combo really works with)

Is there any other Cantrip that you see as actually broken or is it the fact that EB with 2 levels of Warlock is so much better than any other cantrip? Because the former would require working on Attack Class fix and the latter seems only a single class feature needs to be fixed.

If it is the latter, a simple fix is to require the user to be level 5 to get that Invocation, suddenly 5 levels into the Warlock does not seem nearly as awesome since the player loses his best spells.

EDIT:
Also an extra Notes,
- Any class can have a Cantrip, no Spellcaster class gets extra attacks without first taking levels in an Attack Class.
- Cantrips scale by level but can never become better (except EB, and using Warlock with it) while Weapons can be enhanced by Magic and become far better. (+1 Sword adds 5% chance to hit and 1 extra damage)
- Cantrips are blocked by Anti-Magic effects
- Feats, class effects and magical effects can enhance both the damage and the hit ability of a Cantrip, only magical effects (used spell) can enhance the hit chance of a Cantrip
- Extra Attacks allow more versatility in a round, Cantrips are not versatile at all

[Symphony]

If you dip warlock for 3 levels, you don't lose the sorcerer capstone. In fact you get a better version of it as soon as you have 2 levels of sorcerer and 3 levels of warlock. You can convert pact magic slots into sorcery points, and you get 2 2nd level slots/short rest. This becomes 4 points recovered every short rest. (capstone is 1/long rest)

This is only true if you take 3 or more short rests per long rest. Otherwise, pure sorcerer still generally gets more sorcery points and higher level spell slots.

At level W3/S2:
1st level spell slots: 3
2nd level spell slots: 2 (pact)
Sorcery points: 2
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all pact slots converted to SP): 14
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 6 (pact)

versus S5:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 2
Sorcery points: 5
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all 'extra' slots converted to SP): 18
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3

At this level pure Sorcerer not only has far more excess SP (assuming same number of spell slots used for spell as Warlock), but the same number, yet higher quality, effective spell slots.

And to top it all off, gets higher level spells. Let's move on another 3 levels!

At level W3/S5:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 2 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 2
Sorcery points: 5
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all pact slots converted to SP): 17
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 6 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 3

versus S8:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 2
Sorcery points: 8
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all 'extra' slots converted to SP): 19
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 5
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3

A lot closer at this level, but it's interesting to note that the Sorcerer can actually make a 5th level spell slot if desired (the W/S can't because of the 5 SP cap).

3 more levels:

At level W3/S8:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 2 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 2
Sorcery points: 8
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all pact slots converted to SP): 20
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 5
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 6 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3

versus S11:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 2
6th level spell slots: 1
Sorcery points: 11
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all 'extra' slots converted to SP): 30
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 4
4th level spell slots: 4
5th level spell slots: 2
6th level spell slots: 1

The Sorcerer is now significantly ahead on SP, and has both 5th and 6th level spells over the W/S.

3 more levels:

At level W3/S11:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 2 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 2
6th level spell slots: 1
Sorcery points: 11
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all pact slots converted to SP): 23
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 5
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 6 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 4
4th level spell slots: 4
5th level spell slots: 2
6th level spell slots: 1

versus S14:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 2
6th level spell slots: 1
7th level spell slots: 1
Sorcery points: 14
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all 'extra' slots converted to SP): 21
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 4
6th level spell slots: 1
7th level spell slots: 1

Huh, while the Sorcerer still has the advantage in higher level spell slots, spell slot progression for casters slows significantly, so W/S manages to pull ahead in SP.

3 more levels:

At level W3/S14:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 2 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 2
6th level spell slots: 1
7th level spell slots: 1
Sorcery points: 14
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all pact slots converted to SP): 26
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 6 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 4
6th level spell slots: 1
7th level spell slots: 1

versus S17:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 2
6th level spell slots: 1
7th level spell slots: 1
8th level spell slots: 1
9th level spell slots: 1
Sorcery points: 17
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all 'extra' slots converted to SP): 34
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 4
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 4
6th level spell slots: 1
7th level spell slots: 1
8th level spell slots: 1
9th level spell slots: 1

Even ignoring the 8th and 9th level spells that the Sorcerer has, the Sorcerer has yet again pulled significantly ahead in SP.

Finally:

At level W3/S17:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 2 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 2
6th level spell slots: 1
7th level spell slots: 1
8th level spell slots: 1
9th level spell slots: 1
Sorcery points: 17
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all pact slots converted to SP): 29
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 5
2nd level spell slots: 3 + 6 (pact)
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 4
6th level spell slots: 1
7th level spell slots: 1
8th level spell slots: 1
9th level spell slots: 1

versus S20:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 3
5th level spell slots: 3
6th level spell slots: 2
7th level spell slots: 2
8th level spell slots: 1
9th level spell slots: 1
Sorcery points: 20
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all 'extra' slots converted to SP): 38 + 8 (capstone) = 46
Total spell slots assuming all SP converted to spell slots:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 3
4th level spell slots: 4
5th level spell slots: 5
6th level spell slots: 2
7th level spell slots: 2
8th level spell slots: 1
9th level spell slots: 1

Yeah, there's no contest at level 20. Going Warlock 3/Sorcerer X gives slightly more SP around level 14ish, and generally more 2nd level spell slots, but otherwise it does not make up for the Sorcerer's spell progression.

Warlock 2/Sorcerer X is worse in that it is behind in SP AND Spell slots at any level, but Warlock 3/Sorcerer X still has plenty of disadvantages over pure Sorcerer.




Yeah, of course. Cantrips scale by character level, and not class level, because they'd be useless otherwise.

Actually, the obvious reason (to me) why cantrips scale by character level is because it's easy for any class to get them. High Elf and Magic Initiate can go with any class, and if cantrips didn't scale by character level the offensive cantrips would be an absolute waste, instead of just mostly a waste.

Even if you don't allow multiclassing or feats in your game, there will always be High Elf as a core option.

[xyianth]

...
versus S5:
1st level spell slots: 4
2nd level spell slots: 3
3rd level spell slots: 2
Sorcery points: 5
Total sorcery points assuming 2 short rests (all 'extra' slots converted to SP): 18
...

I'm confused here, could you explain how you are getting 13 extra sorcery points over the course of a day? What extra slots? A sorcerer 5 has 4/3/2 daily slots, no recharge mechanic, and 5 sorcery points. I'm not questioning your math, I am just not following how you got there. (and wondering if I am misreading something)

I did not mean to imply that every sorcerer should dip 3 levels as a warlock, I was actually intending to point out that 3 levels is better than 2 if you are going to dip anyway. There are definitely trade-offs for dipping warlock on a sorcerer. I would also point out that it is highly unrealistic to assume a sorcerer will spend 0 SP on metamagic. That is, after all, their schtick.

[SharkForce]

attack classes multiclass fairly well in most cases as far as damage is concerned; rogue levels give sneak attack plus possible archetype features, barbarians grant rage , monks grant flurry and martial arts (again, there's some bonus damage), ranger gives fighting style, hunter's mark and possibly a bit more depending on how deep you go, paladins give fighting style, smite spells and smite ability (plus maybe something from oath), fighter gives action surge, fighting style, and possibly archetype features as well as potential bonus ASIs.

not all are quite equal, but then, not all are equally focused on doing damage either (and in some cases it varies by archetype, as not all are equally damage-focused; eldritch knight doesn't add bonus damage, but both champion and battlemaster do).

i do feel that high level "attack classes" have problems. ability to deal damage (whether multiclassed or not) is generally not the problem... certainly, not every multiclass is amazing, but you can generally make it work in your favour if you multiclass an "attack class" far more readily than you can for casters. much like a caster, you will delay or miss out on some of your higher level features by multiclassing, but you also gain new ones. you do need to decide whether the cost is worth the benefits to you, but that will always be true.

[Knaight]

I'm not saying it isn't useful (damage always is), just lazy and meh. You could have made the fighter so many other ways to distinguish it from another class.

It's not just damage though, there's also a superior crowd control aspect to it. It's a very functional feature which isn't flashy at all, and there's room in the game for a class designed for that. The fighter as a whole seems to be that - they aren't flashy, they don't have much in the way of spectacle, they're just effective. A bit more meat to the combat system as a whole would be nice, and help with the fighter, but the class being distinguished through well honed skills seems fine.

[rollingForInit]

I don't think your examples accentuate the point that you want them to...
Instead they highlight the fact that the Monk probably shouldn't be using his Sacred Flame as well as a full Cleric does.

Why not? The Monk probably will not use it frequently, since the monk would give up the much better melee damage. Perhaps in niched situations, where there's no way to get closed. And at that point, if he's given up a whole monk level to get it, the cantrip should be useful at level 20. If it only did 1d8 damage, it'd be useless and the multiclassed Monk would resort to ranged weapons instead.

Meanwhile, a high level Cleric can blast away with awesome high level spells, some that do great damage. Some that are incredibly powerful buffs.



I think extra attack (the first one) should work off total levels. I think the fighter getting more extra attacks is a lazy class design (along with action surge, which for the fighter pretty much is another way to do extra attack agagin).

I think the simplicity of the Fighter is intended. Not everyone wants to have complex features. The straightforwardness makes it a great class for someone who just wants to hit things an do a lot of damage, without having tons of class features to consider. The Fighter is good in its simplicity. I don't personally like it, but that's just my opinion, not one that's shared by everyone.

[CrusaderJoe]

There is a difference between simplicity and laziness.

The fighter isn't just simple, it is lazy. And let's face it, the whole "omg we need a simple fighter" is being overblown. I've seen children and 2e players who just can't stand how boring the champion fighter is.

The biggest problem, and I'm just getting this, is that with every other class their subclasses are made to support the main class. The fighter however gets a bulk of their abilities from their subclass and their main class supports the subclass.

This is why it feels lazy, because the core of the class is just that, lazy especially compared to the subclasses of the fighter. Champion is pretty lazy, simple but lazy. Then the Battle Master and EK is the "complex" (note: haha complex) fighter.

[Giant2005]

Why not? The Monk probably will not use it frequently, since the monk would give up the much better melee damage. Perhaps in niched situations, where there's no way to get closed. And at that point, if he's given up a whole monk level to get it, the cantrip should be useful at level 20. If it only did 1d8 damage, it'd be useless and the multiclassed Monk would resort to ranged weapons instead.

Meanwhile, a high level Cleric can blast away with awesome high level spells, some that do great damage. Some that are incredibly powerful buffs.
Because a Monk dabbling in spellcasting shouldn't be as good at it as a fully devoted caster.
Whether or not he is better off using his fists to attack is irrelevant.

[Kryx]

So all I am seeing is people talking about a 2 level dip into the Warlock to get the EB effect maximized.
I agree that EB is seemingly the only offender and it should be adjusted, not the whole chassis.

[rollingForInit]

Because a Monk dabbling in spellcasting shouldn't be as good at it as a fully devoted caster.
Whether or not he is better off using his fists to attack is irrelevant.

And a Monk 19/Cleric 1 wouldn't be as good. First, the spellcasting DC for Sacred Flame would probably be a few points lower for the Monk, because the monk would likely not max Wisdom. And even if the monk did, the monk would still be a an awful spellcaster compared to a level 20 Cleric. The level 20 Cleric would be able to cast level 2 through 9 spells, for one. And several Cleric subclasses actually get their Wisdom modifier on cantrip damage, which the Monk wouldn't have. The Clerics that don't instead get additional damage for melee attacks. And then they have all those spells, again, to buff and increase their damage. Or heal themselves or their allies. Or just wreck havoc on their enemies.

The Monk would as good as a fully developed spellcaster only in the sense that Sacred Flame might deal as much damage if the Cleric hasn't focused on spell damage. But you might as well say that the monk is as good as the cleric at spellcasting because their level 1 Cure Wounds works the same and heals as much.

[Cazero]

There is a difference between simplicity and laziness.

The fighter isn't just simple, it is lazy. And let's face it, the whole "omg we need a simple fighter" is being overblown. I've seen children and 2e players who just can't stand how boring the champion fighter is.

The biggest problem, and I'm just getting this, is that with every other class their subclasses are made to support the main class. The fighter however gets a bulk of their abilities from their subclass and their main class supports the subclass.

This is why it feels lazy, because the core of the class is just that, lazy especially compared to the subclasses of the fighter. Champion is pretty lazy, simple but lazy. Then the Battle Master and EK is the "complex" (note: haha complex) fighter.

I'm kind of have an opposite view on that. There is nothing wrong with having the subclass holding the most important defining factors, and the main class being a simple bunch of general stuff. The fighter is not lazily designed : everything else is for the sake of tradition.

In my opinion, Warlock and bard should be sorcerer subclasses, Druid should be a cleric subclass, and Paladin, ranger, barbarian and monk should be fighter subclasses. And all of these are absolute no-no for the sake of tradition. They designed a perfectly fine subclass system, and they decided not to use it.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

You may not like the fighter, but 'lazy' is unsupportable. The fighter went through many iterations over the course of the playtest, some of which were dramatically different than the current version.

[Giant2005]

And a Monk 19/Cleric 1 wouldn't be as good. First, the spellcasting DC for Sacred Flame would probably be a few points lower for the Monk, because the monk would likely not max Wisdom. And even if the monk did, the monk would still be a an awful spellcaster compared to a level 20 Cleric. The level 20 Cleric would be able to cast level 2 through 9 spells, for one. And several Cleric subclasses actually get their Wisdom modifier on cantrip damage, which the Monk wouldn't have. The Clerics that don't instead get additional damage for melee attacks. And then they have all those spells, again, to buff and increase their damage. Or heal themselves or their allies. Or just wreck havoc on their enemies.

The Monk would as good as a fully developed spellcaster only in the sense that Sacred Flame might deal as much damage if the Cleric hasn't focused on spell damage. But you might as well say that the monk is as good as the cleric at spellcasting because their level 1 Cure Wounds works the same and heals as much.

And if the roles were reversed?
If it was a 19 Cleric/1 Monk that didn't get stunning fist or any of the Monk toys but had the full 1D10 Monk damage, would that be okay?

[SharkForce]

Because a Monk dabbling in spellcasting shouldn't be as good at it as a fully devoted caster.
Whether or not he is better off using his fists to attack is irrelevant.

he isn't as good as a full spellcaster. he can use a cantrip, and not much more. meanwhile, his buddy with 20 cleric levels is throwing up to level 9 spells. sounds like the monk is only equal at the very very bottom of the heap, and depending on domain quite possibly not even then.

[pwykersotz]

Because a Monk dabbling in spellcasting shouldn't be as good at it as a fully devoted caster.
Whether or not he is better off using his fists to attack is irrelevant.

I'm gonna side with cantrips scaling. I love simulation dearly, but at some point it needs to be looked at as a game. Getting features that are of such limited practical use that they may as well not exist serves as pointless bookkeeping.

[rollingForInit]

And if the roles were reversed?
If it was a 19 Cleric/1 Monk that didn't get stunning fist or any of the Monk toys but had the full 1D10 Monk damage, would that be okay?

Not really, because getting strong unarmed strikes is one of the defining traits of the Monk class, just as much as stunning fist or increased movement speed. Cantrips is not a defining trait of the Cleric class, or any spellcasting class for that matter. There's an intentional design that cantrips are supposed to be something you get for dabbling in magic, not something you get from 20 levels of experience. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the Monk's scaling unarmed damage with the Cleric's use of Channel Divinity. Should the Monk be able to use it 3 times per short rest at level 19? No, because that's a trait that's strongly tied into the Cleric class.

Spellcasting is an entirely separate system, that is shared between all classes to varying degrees. To the point where you can even get some spells from feats. What is class-specific is how you can or cannot learn spells and how your resources (spell slots) are handled. Automatically getting cantrips is a feature of some classes. How cantrips work is not.

[Easy_Lee]

while a 5/5/5/5 caster still gets all of the spell slots of a 20 caster (though no spells above 3rd level), a 5/5/5/5 Attack character does the same damage as a level 5 character.

The only way a 5/5/5/5 wouldn't end up with a stronger attack is if only one of those classes was a fighting class. If that were the case, the character shouldn't be any better.

No, in reality nobody is going to take such a goofy spread as that, but if they did it would be to take specific features that enhanced their concept.

In other words, no player is going to take a build like you suggested.

[Symphony]

I'm confused here, could you explain how you are getting 13 extra sorcery points over the course of a day? What extra slots? A sorcerer 5 has 4/3/2 daily slots, no recharge mechanic, and 5 sorcery points. I'm not questioning your math, I am just not following how you got there. (and wondering if I am misreading something)

I did not mean to imply that every sorcerer should dip 3 levels as a warlock, I was actually intending to point out that 3 levels is better than 2 if you are going to dip anyway. There are definitely trade-offs for dipping warlock on a sorcerer. I would also point out that it is highly unrealistic to assume a sorcerer will spend 0 SP on metamagic. That is, after all, their schtick.

Sorry, by extra slots I meant spell slots that the pure Sorcerer has that the Warlock/Sorcerer does not. Basically, how much SP would they both have assuming they both used the same number of spell slots throughout the adventuring day, and converted the rest into SP. Because the W/S was assumed to convert all pact slots into SP, I just had the Sorcerer convert the difference between what the W/S was left with and what the Sorcerer started with to get that total SP value.

Similarly, for the maximum spell slots I merely converted the SP into the highest level spell slots possible while still being able to use all SP on slots.

3 levels of Warlock does have the disadvantage of missing the level 18 Sorcerer ability as well, but the comparative gains for that one level of warlock do overshadow the loss of that one ability and spell slot (if you were already going W/S, anyway).