What happens when you combine Spell-Less Ranger and Battle Master?

[jaappleton]

Topic.

For the unfamiliar, the Spell-Less Ranger was from the first 5E UA article titled Modifying Classes.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes

Do I combine the total number of superiority dice?

[ImproperJustice]

If it were me, I would handle it like a multi-class spell caster and treat the total level of the two classes as the same for determining the quality and quantity of the superiority dice.

I think it’s a trade off from having two sets of lower level superiority dice.

[alchahest]

I'd go additive. these dice are nowhere near the power level of stacking spell slots.

-edit-

to clarify, I'd let the number be determined by total number of dice gained through classes and feats, and the size of the dice determined by whichever class they've got levels in that grants the highest value dice. This is already how it works with the martial adept feat, I would just work that into multiclassing, too.

[GlenSmash!]

I forget, are the dice front loaded enough that a Multiclass of the two would have more than a single classed BM?

[EvilAnagram]

I'd go additive. these dice are nowhere near the power level of stacking spell slots.

That makes multi classing objectively better than going with a single class.

[alchahest]

I forget, are the dice front loaded enough that a Multiclass of the two would have more than a single classed BM?

more, yes, but, they will take longer to scale.

[alchahest]

That makes multi classing objectively better than going with a single class.

sure, if the dice are the only thing that matters. You're putting off getting your third attack and denying yourself a forth attack, at a minimum (depending on how many levels of ranger you add into the mix).

[EvilAnagram]

sure, if the dice are the only thing that matters. You're putting off getting your third attack and denying yourself a forth attack, at a minimum (depending on how many levels of ranger you add into the mix).
You're not, though. It's unlikely any given campaign will get to those levels, so you're essentially doubling your offensive resources at very little cost.

[alchahest]

You're not, though. It's unlikely any given campaign will get to those levels, so you're essentially doubling your offensive resources at very little cost.

sure - so at level 5, you've got eight dice!

your single classed fighter friend has instead had an ASI and second attack (but only four dice)

your single classed ranger friend also has four dice and two attacks. and an ASI.


at what level breakdown do you see the power catapulting above a single class?

[EvilAnagram]

sure - so at level 5, you've got eight dice!

your single classed fighter friend has instead had an ASI and second attack (but only four dice)

your single classed ranger friend also has four dice and two attacks. and an ASI.


at what level breakdown do you see the power catapulting above a single class?

And at level 8 they both have two attacks, but one has double the central resource of the other.

[Citan]

Topic.

For the unfamiliar, the Spell-Less Ranger was from the first 5E UA article titled Modifying Classes.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes

Do I combine the total number of superiority dice?


I'd go additive. these dice are nowhere near the power level of stacking spell slots.

-edit-

to clarify, I'd let the number be determined by total number of dice gained through classes and feats, and the size of the dice determined by whichever class they've got levels in that grants the highest value dice. This is already how it works with the martial adept feat, I would just work that into multiclassing, too.
This, exactly. I wouldn't be certain about what "RAW" is (is that even a thing with UA material in the first place? Debatable to say the least) but it's to me the best way to handle it, by far.


That makes multi classing objectively better than going with a single class.
A statement that you could very well defend in many many other cases really.



And at level 8 they both have two attacks, but one has double the central resource of the other.
Yeah? Except that, while the dual-class had one ASI...
- Pure normal Ranger would have 1st and 2nd level spells, many of them being encounter-changing (Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Silence, Warding Wind) and another ASI he could spend on maxing attack (more reliable) or grabbing Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert (better damage)...
- Pure normal Fighter had no less than 3 ASI, so he could have maxed attack stat + damage feat enabled.

Your argument is void because you are making it with unnamed strong assumptions, such as...
- Each encounter doesn't last long.
- Party gets at least recommended short rests.
It's as pointless as all those discussions about Warlock vs other casters, or Paladin vs other martials. Depending on session objective and pacing, whichever is MVPing will vary wildly.

On next level, considering you only dipped one of the two class for three levels (Battlemaster or Hunter), normal Ranger would get 3rd level spells, Fighter Indomitable.
At char level 11 it gets worse, with both pure classes getting a very strong upgrade in sustained damage... While the dual-class is painfully catching up ASI-wise.

[GlenSmash!]

This, exactly. I wouldn't be certain about what "RAW" is (is that even a thing with UA material in the first place? Debatable to say the least) but it's to me the best way to handle it, by far.

RAU: Rules As Untested? or maybe PAW: Playtest As Written.

[EvilAnagram]

Pure normal Ranger would have 1st and 2nd level spells, many of them being encounter-changing (Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Silence, Warding Wind)
And a pure wizard would have fourth level spells, but you know what? We aren't talking about wizards, and we aren't talking about normal rangers, so I don't really see what point it is that you think you're making. The spell levels of an entirely different class chassis has no bearing on what would be fair or sensible in this multiclass combo.


and another ASI he could spend on maxing attack (more reliable) or grabbing Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert (better damage)...

- Pure normal Fighter had no less than 3 ASI, so he could have maxed attack stat + damage feat enabled.
Every multiclass involves ASI tradeoffs, especially with a fighter. When that tradeoff means doubling a resource to the point that you have more than you would at max level with a feat, then it's hardly a tradeoff.


Your argument is void because you are making it with unnamed strong assumptions, such as...
- Each encounter doesn't last long.
- Party gets at least recommended short rests.
This is a complete non sequitur. In what way did I suggest any of this? I'm saying that, given the balance of both classes, an additive multiclass is unbalanced. If a single superiority die is worth a feat, then trading two feats for four superiority dice is enormously unbalanced, regardless of how a given table plays.


It's as pointless as all those discussions about Warlock vs other casters, or Paladin vs other martials. Depending on session objective and pacing, whichever is MVPing will vary wildly.
I'm not comparing disparate classes. I'm comparing a multiclass build to one of the classes it uses.


On next level, considering you only dipped one of the two class for three levels (Battlemaster or Hunter), normal Ranger would get 3rd level spells, Fighter Indomitable.
At char level 11 it gets worse, with both pure classes getting a very strong upgrade in sustained damage... While the dual-class is painfully catching up ASI-wise.
It's not really painfully catching up. It has surpassed the superiority dice of an epic level fighter by fifth level. At most, the build lags slightly behind a straight fighter at a handful of levels and otherwise completely dominates. If the player goes straight fighter five levels, dips the ranger variant for two, and continues with fighter thereafter, he essentially lags offensively at levels 6, 11, and 12. In return, he ends up with ten superiority dice to a straight fighter's six.

[Zalabim]

I'd treat it like every other feature that states a fact rather than giving a bonus. You have four dice. You are proficient in martial weapons and medium armor (and probably heavy armor too). You can attack twice when you take the Attack action on your turn. With the way the features are each worded, the benefits would overlap.

[Citan]

This is a complete non sequitur. In what way did I suggest any of this? I'm saying that, given the balance of both classes, an additive multiclass is unbalanced. If a single superiority die is worth a feat, then trading two feats for four superiority dice is enormously unbalanced, regardless of how a given table plays.

But yes, you are.
Simply because dat specific multiclass is getting short-rest based resource in trade of sustained better accuracy and damage.

So whether or not the multiclass ends as "better" than pureclass and as a consequence ends unbalanced, relies HEAVILY on what actually happen in the campaign.
And that cannot be theorycrafted or predicted.

That's why the point is moot.
It's like saying that a Paladin / Warlock multiclass is so much better than pure Paladin that it would get unbalanced: it depends on the total character level of considered character as well as short-rest practices and campaign goals. If you have a Bard and Wizard in party, a Warlock 7 / Pal 6 would probably end as much better than a pure Pal 13 because you have several ways of getting short-rest benefits, so you can unleash max smites regularly.
In a long-rest heavy party without "resting spells", such a character would cry.

Also that "feat comparison" is illogical: it's not only the feats, it's also everything that come in between and the total amount of XP that you have to wait before getting better features, which is not (at all) linear with next levels.

As for why I was talking about Ranger spells, it's simply because I didn't have the Spellless version on hands. But this didn't change the point at all, which was "as usual you are trading higher level features for earlier betterness".

Besides, just think about that same multiclass with a Battlemaster and normal Ranger: you'd get two Hunter's Mark per long rest, which you can easily concentrate on thanks to proficiency: it add 1d8 to every attack you make against one enemy for up to a minute, and can be stacked with Manoeuvers.
I'm pretty sure that it's overall at least as good as 4 more die per short rest, but I don't have time to do the matsh for now.

[Spacehamster]

That makes multi classing objectively better than going with a single class.

Is that not how multiclassing should be, a way for the more advanced/read up player to be more optimized? :) that’s how 3.5 were at least. ^^

On another note it should defo be two pools since the ranger can’t pick all maneuvers, so one pool for ranger maneuvers and one for BM.

[alchahest]

so ranger3/battlemaster 5? or ranger 5/battlemaster 3?



Battlemaster at 8 has an two additional ASIs, and 5 superiority dice, not 4.

Ranger 8 has improvements to favored enemy and natural explorer, and has land's stride. and an additional ASI over the multiclass. in addition to your 7th level subclass feature (which would depend on your subclass choice, but using Hunter, you have a choice of effective defensive tactics)

And both are closer to their higher level features than they would be in a multiclass. the level 8 fighter is two levesl away from D10 superiority dice and three away from a third attack. The ranger's one away from resistance to poison/poison curing poultices, two away from hide in plain site, and three away from your 13th level multiclass feature - for hunter it's the very potent multi attack options.

but having 4 or 3 additional dice is kinda overpowered I guess?

[EvilAnagram]

But yes, you are.
Simply because dat specific multiclass is getting short-rest based resource in trade of sustained better accuracy and damage.

So whether or not the multiclass ends as "better" than pureclass and as a consequence ends unbalanced, relies HEAVILY on what actually happen in the campaign.
And that cannot be theorycrafted or predicted.

That's why the point is moot.
It's like saying that a Paladin / Warlock multiclass is so much better than pure Paladin that it would get unbalanced: it depends on the total character level of considered character as well as short-rest practices and campaign goals. If you have a Bard and Wizard in party, a Warlock 7 / Pal 6 would probably end as much better than a pure Pal 13 because you have several ways of getting short-rest benefits, so you can unleash max smites regularly.
In a long-rest heavy party without "resting spells", such a character would cry.

The examples you bring up are tradeoffs between disparate resources to achieve desired results. That's not what this is. The Superiority dove are fundamentally the same resource, so doubling them beyond what epic level players can achieve is unbalanced. Are short rests frequent? They can pile them on with every hit while the straight class cannot. Infrequent? They have resources to last all day while the straight class languishes. Balanced rests according to the books? Straight class has to husband their resources while this one does not. Because the classes are so similar, there are next to no mitigating factors; it's just unbalanced no matter how you look at it



Also that "feat comparison" is illogical: it'snot only the feats, it's also everything that come in between and the total amount of XP that you have to wait before getting better features, which is not (at all) linear with next levels.
You still haven't explained why my point is illogical. When I gave my level breakdown, I included consideration of everything that makes a Battle Master more effective in combat.

Level 6, BM gets a feat | MC gets Ranger 1 situational stuff.
Lvel 7, BM gets situational stuff +1 die, +2 maneuvers | MC gets four dice and two maneuvers.
Level 8, both get feats
Level 9, BM gets Indomitable | MC gets fluff +1 die, +2 maneuvers
Level 10, BM gets better dice +1 die, + 2 maneuvers | MC gets feat.
Note that until level 11, where BM gets that third attack, every single boost to his offensive capability only brings him closer to matching the MC. For the most common levels of the game, he spends one level with fewer maneuvers and has fewer dice no matter what. Sure, he has Indomitable longer, but that's not much compared to his offensive capability lagging 80% of the time. For these levels, it's even worse than 80% because six passes by much quicker than the rest.

"But that third attack!" Pushes things more in line, but once that hill is crossed there's nothing to balance the scales again.


so ranger3/battlemaster 5? or ranger 5/battlemaster 3?

I'd go BM5/Ranger3, and yes, it's unbalanced to combine the dice.

[alchahest]

I think that in play you're going to see that having a few extra moments to shine is going to not only be not overpowered, but it's going to leave you lacking in the higher level things (especially ASIs.)

However, as the number of dice seems to be the main thing that you feel is devastating to game balance, then I don't think we're going to see eye to eye. As martial adept provides you another die, should this feat be nerfed? with how overwhelming having 3-4 additional dice will be, one seems to way too much for just a feat.