In praise of having multiple resource pools.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll admit. I don't like fueling non-spell abilities with spell slots. Or spells with non-spell slots (cf 4e monks). In fact, I like having multiple class/subclass-unique resource pools (so not HP/HD). I think every class should have at least one[1] and at most a handful (3 or so, but the upper bound isn't fixed).

Why not use spell slots for everything (like OneD&D is doing more of)? Spell slots are adapted for their environment[2]. They are non-linear, tiered, and in particular numbers to suit the needs of the spellcasting system. They're also fungible between classes, which poses multiclassing issues (making a Paladin 2/Sorcerer X arguably a better smiter than a Paladin X+2 for many values of X). They're also a uniform pool, meaning that everything in that pool is in competition with each other. Which generally means that things get compared against the "best" uses. "I could cast that, but I want to save my slots for smiting" is something I've heard quite a bit. So any new use has to be as good as the best use or it's likely to get ignored a lot. Who would use Divine Sense if it burned spell slots? Not very many people.

Spell slots are also non-linear--2x 1st level slots aren't the same as 1 2nd level slot. This means that scaling things based on spell slots usually ends up undershooting at higher spell slots. It's why upcasting is generally not a good idea (or not as good an idea) as we'd like--a native Xth level spell is usually better than even a good Yth (Y < X) upcast to level X. Which makes sense...in its context. But in a context where you want more linear scaling...that causes you issues. You're burning a bigger resource for less of a (marginal) gain. And you can't give some classes more of them than others just to fuel their special, non-spell ability...because then you run into other issues (dipping there for free slots on a full caster, for instance). Spell slots are so tied to how spellcasting works that they are kinda a one-trick pony.

Beyond that, spell slots are, well, spell slots. So using them for all magical abilities means you're conflating "spell" and "magic". Which means that anyone who wants to be fantastic or have interesting abilities needs to be a spell caster. Which I'm not a fan of.

Everyone should have at least one so everyone participates in the resource management game. Even if it's not huge and the class can function mostly ok without it. Everyone shouldn't have more than a handful, because that gets obnoxious to track. But each class should consider how it wants its resource pool(s) to behave and optimize separately. Not get locked into a straight-jacket by reusing a shared, universal pool.

[1] Something. Anything. Rogues currently don't, and it's kinda a constraint. Doesn't have to be major, but should be something.
[2] I'm not going to litigate that in this thread. They work reasonably well for spells. And I'll leave it at that.

[Atranen]

Not too much to add besides saying I agree. The weakest part of the 5e Paladin's design by far is keying smites off of spell slots...unfortunately they seem to want to keep this going into OneD&D. Anytime you allow a less than full caster to use spell slots to charge their abilities, multiclassing will be a problem.

[BRC]

I actually like the idea of paladins keying smites off spell slots, it works thematically, both are expressions of divine magic, with the "Smite" being the paladin's martial twist on divine spellcasting.

Paladins also already have three resources: Spells, Channel Divinities, and Lay on Hand points.


In all other cases, I agree, the game needs more resources, even if there's just some generalize, easily countable resource that is used between classes (Although that would make Multiclassing worse).

[Atranen]

I actually like the idea of paladins keying smites off spell slots, it works thematically, both are expressions of divine magic, with the "Smite" being the paladin's martial twist on divine spellcasting.

Paladins also already have three resources: Spells, Channel Divinities, and Lay on Hand points.


In all other cases, I agree, the game needs more resources, even if there's just some generalize, easily countable resource that is used between classes (Although that would make Multiclassing worse).

It's ok thematically, but it plays poorly with multiclassing and (at least for me) makes Paladins not particularly fun to play. You get access to all these spells, but in practice you're mostly better off ignoring them and smiting instead. It takes you from many fun options to one boring option.

[Oramac]

From a game design perspective, I absolutely agree. If we were to create a new game system from the ground up, I think this would be a fantastic idea. It has it's issues (which I'll get to below), but as a basic framework, I like it.

Unfortunately, outside of actually creating a whole new system (which I'm currently playing with), 5e and OneD&D are the system within which we are forced to work. Working within the existing framework presents its own hurdles and challenges. Especially in the OneD&D push to use fewer resource pools, instead of many.

Within the 5e system, it is absolutely possible to add more pools. Hell, I've done it in my own homebrew. But it must be carefully considered, both from a mechanical standpoint and from a player-facing and difficulty standpoint. The more things a player has to juggle, the more room there is for error and slowing down the game. We've all seen the wizard player's turn come up, and they grab the PHB and begin looking through their spells. This is only exacerbated by having more resources to manage. Again, not a problem, but a hurdle.

The push towards using spell slots for non-spell abilities is not perfect. Far from it. But the one thing it does have going for it is recognition. People who have been playing 5e for any length of time, even if they've never cast a spell in their life, gather a bit of understanding of spell slots. The jump, then, from "spell slot = spell" to "spell slot = other cool thing" is pretty easy. Not necessarily balanced, cool, thematic, or fun, but easy.

Multi-Pool Hurdles:

As I see it, multiple pools have a couple hurdles. I won't say problems, because they're not problems. They're just natural challenges of having many pools. And most of these exist in 5e too (paladins effectively already have 3+ pools, for instance).

First, there's a tricky balance of having enough pools per class to be fun, interesting, and unique, but not so many as to be overwhelming. And what qualifies as "overwhelming" is different for each person, so this is a difficult balance. The simple answer is to have some classes with many pools (3+), some with moderate pools (2-3), and some with few pools (1).

Second, and building off the first, who (and how) do you decide which classes get Many, Moderate, or Few pools? What if Player A wants an easy "Few Pool" character, but their preferred class is a "Many Pools" class? Again, this isn't really a problem per se, but a design challenge that may just have to be accepted as a consequence of the system.

Third, naming the pools. Each new pool (and therefore its corresponding abilities/features) has to have a name. We've got a lot already: Ki, Slots, Points, Superiority Dice, etc. But in naming each pool, one also has to ensure that it is unique enough to HAVE a name and pool in the first place. If "Fighter Pool" and "Barbarian Pool" are not sufficiently dissimilar, why are they two different pools?

Fourth, building off number three, can you give one pool to two classes? Should you? Again, not a problem; a hurdle. Something for the designers to consider.

Fifth, tracking. The more pools a class (and therefore character) has to track, the more bookkeeping there is, potentially slowing down the game. This is, of course, highly player dependent. It also might be another place for the designers to just accept it as a consequence of the system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From a game design perspective, I absolutely agree. If we were to create a new game system from the ground up, I think this would be a fantastic idea. It has it's issues (which I'll get to below), but as a basic framework, I like it.

Unfortunately, outside of actually creating a whole new system (which I'm currently playing with), 5e and OneD&D are the system within which we are forced to work. Working within the existing framework presents its own hurdles and challenges. Especially in the OneD&D push to use fewer resource pools, instead of many.

Within the 5e system, it is absolutely possible to add more pools. Hell, I've done it in my own homebrew. But it must be carefully considered, both from a mechanical standpoint and from a player-facing and difficulty standpoint. The more things a player has to juggle, the more room there is for error and slowing down the game. We've all seen the wizard player's turn come up, and they grab the PHB and begin looking through their spells. This is only exacerbated by having more resources to manage. Again, not a problem, but a hurdle.

The push towards using spell slots for non-spell abilities is not perfect. Far from it. But the one thing it does have going for it is recognition. People who have been playing 5e for any length of time, even if they've never cast a spell in their life, gather a bit of understanding of spell slots. The jump, then, from "spell slot = spell" to "spell slot = other cool thing" is pretty easy. Not necessarily balanced, cool, thematic, or fun, but easy.

Multi-Pool Hurdles:

As I see it, multiple pools have a couple hurdles. I won't say problems, because they're not problems. They're just natural challenges of having many pools.

First, there's a tricky balance of having enough pools per class to be fun, interesting, and unique, but not so many as to be overwhelming. And what qualifies as "overwhelming" is different for each person, so this is a difficult balance. The simple answer is to have some classes with many pools (3+), some with moderate pools (2-3), and some with few pools (1).

Second, and building off the first, who (and how) do you decide which classes get Many, Moderate, or Few pools? What if Player A wants an easy "Few Pool" character, but their preferred class is a "Many Pools" class? Again, this isn't really a problem per se, but a design challenge that may just have to be accepted as a consequence of the system.

Third, naming the pools. Each new pool (and therefore its corresponding abilities/features) has to have a name. We've got a lot already: Ki, Slots, Points, Superiority Dice, etc. But in naming each pool, one also has to ensure that it is unique enough to HAVE a name and pool in the first place. If "Fighter Pool" and "Barbarian Pool" are not sufficiently dissimilar, why are they two different pools?

Fourth, building off number three, can you give one pool to two classes? Should you? Again, not a problem; a hurdle. Something for the designers to consider.

Fifth, tracking. The more pools a class (and therefore character) has to track, the more bookkeeping there is, potentially slowing down the game. This is, of course, highly player dependent. It also might be another place for the designers to just accept it as a consequence of the system.

Counter statements--

Using spell slots means everyone has to understand the wonky way spell casting works. Which is an enormous and very...ill-explained...burden. People confuse spells known/prepared and spell slots all the darn time. It's actually more confusing that a more strictly vancian system would be.

So using spell slots is lazy from a game design perspective--they already exist, so re-use them. But that's sacrificing the system's health for laziness.

And spell-casters already have tons of procedure. I've never seen resource pools be the sticking point--it's having a wealth of choices. People handle paladins with their multiple pools just fine, and that's about as many as I'd ever suggest.

I'm not suggesting something like having every ability have X/day limits on itself. I'm fine with having one or two (maybe one + spellcasting) pools--spells pull from the spellcasting pool, everything else pulls from the other pool. But then I'm also in favor of having "narrow" classes with highly thematically linked abilities. So everything drawing from the same pool (except spells because spells are special snowflakes that don't play nicely) generally works.

As far as having names: Heck, I'd say "Stamina" works just fine for most of the martials. And it's fine if it's a shared name, as long as it's not shared when multiclassing.

And really, 1-3 is the sweet spot and I'd not consider any of those particularly high or low.

[Brookshw]

You may like Adventures in Rokugan, it gives each class their own meta currencies with differing ways to generate them.

I do think their ninja could use a bit of work though, their currency is ninja tools which are a kinda a strange choice, didn't seem right the number of tools should be limited the way they handled it.

[Oramac]

Counter statements--

Using spell slots means everyone has to understand the wonky way spell casting works. Which is an enormous and very...ill-explained...burden. People confuse spells known/prepared and spell slots all the darn time. It's actually more confusing that a more strictly vancian system would be.

I've actually never seen people confuse those. Or, at least, not enough for me to remember it. But clearly it happens, since that's exactly what OneD&D is pushing towards (spells prepared = spell slots).


So using spell slots is lazy from a game design perspective--they already exist, so re-use them. But that's sacrificing the system's health for laziness.

Eh. It's not any different than reusing Ability-Per-Rest of Prof-Per-Rest. Or even reusing Channel Divinity (with a new cool name for Druids!). Perhaps spell slots are overdone. I'll agree with that. But I wouldn't call it lazy.


And spell-casters already have tons of procedure. I've never seen resource pools be the sticking point--it's having a wealth of choices. People handle paladins with their multiple pools just fine, and that's about as many as I'd ever suggest.

Fair.


I'm not suggesting something like having every ability have X/day limits on itself. I'm fine with having one or two (maybe one + spellcasting) pools--spells pull from the spellcasting pool, everything else pulls from the other pool. But then I'm also in favor of having "narrow" classes with highly thematically linked abilities. So everything drawing from the same pool (except spells because spells are special snowflakes that don't play nicely) generally works.

As far as having names: Heck, I'd say "Stamina" works just fine for most of the martials. And it's fine if it's a shared name, as long as it's not shared when multiclassing.

And really, 1-3 is the sweet spot and I'd not consider any of those particularly high or low.

Also fair. I'm not saying your way is wrong. In fact, I agree with it on nearly every point. I just don't hate the spell slot thing as much as you do.

EDIT: a game design question.

If you were designing a new system, what if you just gave every character a fixed number of "Unity Points"? Call it UP for sake of discussion. The name is irrelevant. UP is based on your total levels, so you have the same amount regardless of multiclassing, and to do nearly anything, you must expend UP. Each feature that costs UP can be balanced by the number of UP it costs, regardless of it being a spell, maneuver, feat, or whatever you want to call it.

Just spitballing here.

[strangebloke]

It's ok thematically, but it plays poorly with multiclassing and (at least for me) makes Paladins not particularly fun to play. You get access to all these spells, but in practice you're mostly better off ignoring them and smiting instead. It takes you from many fun options to one boring option.

I personally cast a lot of spells as Paladin.

But of all the resource options, can we all agree that the "first one's free" mechanics are the WORST? Who in the world wants to track whether they've used their one free usage of psi leap or whatever for that day?

Ugh.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also fair. I'm not saying your way is wrong. In fact, I agree with it on nearly every point. I just don't hate the spell slot thing as much as you do.

I'll note that I don't have, like, a burning passionate hate for it. It irks me. And while I'm waiting for interminable compilations to finish[1] I don't have much better to do :smallbiggrin:

[Gignere]

I've actually never seen people confuse those. Or, at least, not enough for me to remember it. But clearly it happens, since that's exactly what OneD&D is pushing towards (spells prepared = spell slots).

I don’t know if the point is to make it less confusing but certainly it will curtail spellcasters power and versatility. Now you will need to prepare 4 level 1 spells even at level 20. At that point you really only need shield/absorb elements/silvery barbs and that is if you didn’t pick one of them as your spell mastery spell. You can’t ever prepare more than 1 level 9 spells, or 1 level 8 spells.

Level 2 spells is like junk by the time you hit level 20 yet you still need to pick 3.

This is a pretty big hit to full casters that I don’t think people are appreciating. This change will help close the martial / caster disparity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don’t know if the point is to make it less confusing but certainly it will curtail spellcasters power and versatility. Now you will need to prepare 4 level 1 spells even at level 20. At that point you really only need shield/absorb elements/silvery barbs and that is if you didn’t pick one of them as your spell mastery spell. You can’t ever prepare more than 1 level 9 spells, or 1 level 8 spells.

Level 2 spells is like junk by the time you hit level 20 yet you still need to pick 3.

This is a pretty big hit to full casters that I don’t think people are appreciating. This change will help close the martial / caster disparity.

Balance by annoyance! Yay!

[stoutstien]

I personally cast a lot of spells as Paladin.

But of all the resource options, can we all agree that the "first one's free" mechanics are the WORST? Who in the world wants to track whether they've used their one free usage of psi leap or whatever for that day?

Ugh.

It can be done well ...they just didn't.
The trick is to have the thing with the free use(s) have some indication beyond just first free to give it some distinction. For example if something is free once a *insert clear time window that is active* then it different. Once per encounter is kinda gamey but maybe once per scene or the like.

The cut off for the upper limi seems to be SR as far as players being able to remember if they have it or not.

[Oramac]

I don’t know if the point is to make it less confusing but certainly it will curtail spellcasters power and versatility. Now you will need to prepare 4 level 1 spells even at level 20. At that point you really only need shield/absorb elements/silvery barbs and that is if you didn’t pick one of them as your spell mastery spell. You can’t ever prepare more than 1 level 9 spells, or 1 level 8 spells.

Level 2 spells is like junk by the time you hit level 20 yet you still need to pick 3.

This is a pretty big hit to full casters that I don’t think people are appreciating. This change will help close the martial / caster disparity.


Balance by annoyance! Yay!


Exactly. I can say with certainty that my table will NOT be following that rule. If a caster wants to prepare 10 different 9th level spells and ignore the low level spell slots, they should be able to.

This brings up another point: trying to design out poor decisions. As the saying goes, "if you make it idiot-proof, you'll only create better idiots". Let people play their damn characters, even if their decisions are silly.

[TotallyNotEvil]

I tend to find my views differ from yours most of the time, but here, I will echo the sentiment.

Having non-generic resource pools is a very good thing.

Honestly, I'd give Paladins in 5e/5.5 a free smite or two per short rest, just so they can actually use those spell slots to cast. Retain the ability to burn them to smite, which is neat, but with a freebie or two, it'd feel a lot better in practice, especially at low levels.

And honestly, Paladin is arguably the best designed class in 5e, and they have multiple pools of different sizes. And I think that's a good part of the reason they are so good.

[Aimeryan]

It is fine, until it is not. Honestly, if something is a full caster and has some other strong feature then the Spell Slots need to be used up by that feature or create inbalance. Alternatively, you pare down that other feature - which loses that unique identity to then just being another spell caster. Alternatively, you could have them be a half-caster and amp that feature, but that doesn't work for Subclasses (at least not currently).

Essentially, if you want using multiple features then they should use different resource pools, else fall to the strongest except in niche situations (this happens with Divine Smite and Spellcasting, at least once multiclassed). However, each pool would be smaller than they would if combined - which means you can't use one strongly. On the other hand, if you only want one or the other except in those niche cases, then they need to use the same resource pool - however, this pool can be big.

[KorvinStarmast]

Within the 5e system, it is absolutely possible to add more pools. Channel Divinity is a resource pool. Some of the fizban's feats and dragon boons create a "proficiency bonus per long rest" pool, but they are restricted to what can be done. Divine Sense (Paladin) is a resource pool.

I do like the idea of PB per long rest free smites (basic smites, not "at higher level") given the reduction in smiting that D&Done is proposing, and presuming that smites can only use paladin spell slots, or, in D&Done, Divine spell slots. (Which might still leave open a loophole for the Sorcadin Divine soul ... but their spells become Arcane spells when they pick them, regardless of whether or not they began as Arcane or Divine spells? Is that how to close the loophole?)

Fifth, tracking. The more pools a class (and therefore character) has to track, the more bookkeeping there is, potentially slowing down the game. This is, of course, highly player dependent. It also might be another place for the designers to just accept it as a consequence of the system. Yes. At level 16, I had a lot of stuff to track.

Exactly. I can say with certainty that my table will NOT be following that rule. If a caster wants to prepare 10 different 9th level spells and ignore the low level spell slots, they should be able to. Concur. I see what they are doing in terms of tamping down on caster OPness, but I think they've taken it a bit too far as of this iteration of the UA.


Let people play their damn characters, even if their decisions are silly. YEs.
Having non-generic resource pools is a very good thing.

Honestly, I'd give Paladins in 5e/5.5 a free smite or two per short rest, just so they can actually use those spell slots to cast. Retain the ability to burnt them to smite, which is neat, but with a freebie or two, it'd feel a lot better in practice, especially at low levels.

And honestly, Paladin is arguably the best designed class in 5e, and they have multiple pools of different sizes. And I think that's a good part of the reason they are so good. Based on my play of the class, I agree.

[Snails]

Not too much to add besides saying I agree. The weakest part of the 5e Paladin's design by far is keying smites off of spell slots...unfortunately they seem to want to keep this going into OneD&D. Anytime you allow a less than full caster to use spell slots to charge their abilities, multiclassing will be a problem.

There are always pros and cons to silo-ing mechanics.

The big plus with Smite is allows the Paladin the freedom to really nova at a price that makes sense. It feels right to me that the Paladin can dig down and deplete himself...somehow...to dish it out. A pool of "PB Smites per Short Rest" is mechanically sensible, yet does not scratch this itch for me.

The downside is, as you point out here, if Smite is The Paladin Schtick, then multiclassing should not make it easy to build a better Smiter than a pure Paladin.

Imperfect as it is, Paladin Smite is the biggest success story of 5e employing this kind of mechanical framework. I would argue that the Ranger Schtick is really Hunter's Mark (even more so than Favored Enemy), also implemented via spells; while Hunter's Mark is not a terrible mechanical implementation, it falls very far short of being satisfying to me.

[strangebloke]

I like smites coming from slots. Want to be a simple knight who blows things up? Just smite! Want to milk your features for maximum value because you're a tryhard? Cast bless, zone of truth, shield of faith etc.

Paladins are great. Basically a perfect class design imo, 10/10 no notes.

[Snails]

I like smites coming from slots. Want to be a simple knight who blows things up? Just smite! Want to milk your features for maximum value because you're a tryhard? Cast bless, zone of truth, shield of faith etc.

Besides fitting the concept well, one of the things that makes this work so smoothly is the decision tree is not fussy.

I do not have to wonder if my Smite will benefit me. I make the decision after I hit, when added damage is guaranteed.
I do not have to pay any price in terms of Action Economy. "Make is so." And it happens. Right now.
I do not interfere with any other abilities (e.g. I do not lose Concentration on that because I need to Concentrate on this now).

There is the (A) unambiguous immediate benefit versus (B) whatever I guess the future value of that slot may be. You can hem and haw if you really want to, but this does not seem to provoke analysis paralysis.

In contrast, the Ranger feels very nickel and dimed with his spells, at every turn. "Do I drop my Hunter's Mark to Zephyr Strike?" "Do I drop my Pass Without Trace to cast Hunter's Mark?" "Do I spend the Bonus Action or just attack with my second weapon?"

[strangebloke]

Besides fitting the concept well, one of the things that makes this work so smoothly is the decision tree is not fussy.

I do not have to wonder if my Smite will benefit me. I make the decision after I hit, when added damage is guaranteed.
I do not have to pay any price in terms of Action Economy. "Make is so." And it happens. Right now.
I do not interfere with any other abilities (e.g. I do not lose Concentration on that because I need to Concentrate on this now).

There is the (A) unambiguous immediate benefit versus (B) whatever I guess the future value of that slot may be. You can hem and haw if you really want to, but this does not seem to provoke analysis paralysis.

In contrast, the Ranger feels very nickel and dimed with his spells, at every turn. "Do I drop my Hunter's Mark to Zephyr Strike?" "Do I drop my Pass Without Trace to cast Hunter's Mark?" "Do I spend the Bonus Action or just attack with my second weapon?"

Yeah exactly. I've long maintained that the ranger isn't much worse than the paladin. They don't have the aura and their burst damage is lower, but they're natural ranged specialists and ranged builds are better. Their spell list is overall stronger even without winners like find steed. Their exploration abilities were and are good (whether you're using Tasha's ACFs or not).

The big problem with rangers is that they don't feel good and I think these unintuitive/dysfunctional interactions are a huge source of the problem.

[Oramac]

I like smites coming from slots. Want to be a simple knight who blows things up? Just smite! Want to milk your features for maximum value because you're a tryhard? Cast bless, zone of truth, shield of faith etc.


There is the (A) unambiguous immediate benefit versus (B) whatever I guess the future value of that slot may be. You can hem and haw if you really want to, but this does not seem to provoke analysis paralysis.

I agree. For many other things, I agree with Phoenix that using spell slots is awkward and clunky. But for Smite it really does work.


In contrast, the Ranger feels very nickel and dimed with his spells, at every turn. "Do I drop my Hunter's Mark to Zephyr Strike?" "Do I drop my Pass Without Trace to cast Hunter's Mark?" "Do I spend the Bonus Action or just attack with my second weapon?"


Yeah exactly. I've long maintained that the ranger isn't much worse than the paladin. They don't have the aura and their burst damage is lower, but they're natural ranged specialists and ranged builds are better. Their spell list is overall stronger even without winners like find steed. Their exploration abilities were and are good (whether you're using Tasha's ACFs or not).

I've played a few rangers, both melee and ranged, and agree here as well. On paper they're pretty awful. In actual play, they're fine.

Mine gripe with the new UA is making Smite work with ranged weapons. Ignoring the fact that it's thematically inconsistent with the Holy Knight trope, ranged smites basically guarantee you'll never see another ranger again. Why make a ranger when I can make a paladin with a bow, and take the Survival skill?

Yes, yes, I know rangers have better exploration and such. I don't see that mattering in the vast majority of cases.

[stoutstien]

Honestly I'm in the camp that there should be practically no cross over in resource pools class to class. Even if you have some built in half x/y class option you just have exactly that.

[Slingbow]

Not too much to add besides saying I agree. The weakest part of the 5e Paladin's design by far is keying smites off of spell slots...unfortunately they seem to want to keep this going into OneD&D. Anytime you allow a less than full caster to use spell slots to charge their abilities, multiclassing will be a problem.

I don't mean to open the same can of worms as almost every other thread but; what is the problem with multiclassing?

Do DMs or others not like multiclassing at all?

Is it because it's prone to gimmicks?

Is it because you get tired of seeing the same builds?

Do folks look down on optimization in general?

How has it been a problem at the table?

I mean specifically. Not just terms like OP or BROKEN. What are the specific AT TABLE problems with multiclassing?

[stoutstien]

I don't mean to open the same can of worms as almost every other thread but; what is the problem with multiclassing?

Do DMs or others not like multiclassing at all?

Is it because it's prone to gimmicks?

Is it because you get tired of seeing the same builds?

Do folks look down on optimization in general?

How has it been a problem at the table?

I mean specifically. Not just terms like OP or BROKEN. What are the specific AT TABLE problems with multiclassing?

Level by level MC has:

1) it makes no sense Thematically or mechanically besides what you rush to paint on it when it happens.

2) it causes system wobble. 5e just didn't plan for it to be "core" when they put majority of the ground work in.

3)its prone to over emphasize building PC top down which is counter to growth from the bottom which is the iconic progression.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Level by level MC has:

1) it makes no sense Thematically or mechanically besides what you rush to paint on it when it happens.

2) it causes system wobble. 5e just didn't plan for it to be "core" when they put majority of the ground work in.

3)its prone to over emphasize building PC top down which is counter to growth from the bottom which is the iconic progression.

It also
4) tends to act as an attractive nuisance (ie a trap) for less experienced people
5) inhibits the construction of narrow classes, since the natural tendency is to think "that's covered by a X/Y multiclass". Even though smaller classes are able to actually hit the fiction better and are easier to balance.
6) It's a stone pain to manage, with tons of special-casing needed.

[Snails]

5) inhibits the construction of narrow classes, since the natural tendency is to think "that's covered by a X/Y multiclass". Even though smaller classes are able to actually hit the fiction better and are easier to balance.

That is a very interesting point.

In the abstract, I would say we want pretty clean and narrow classes. You should choose to multi-class to blend ideas for breadth.

But, in practice, I think we see more multi-classing to achieve a powerful narrow concept, by finding similar things to stack up high. Soradin to be a better smiter than a Paladin. Ranger/Assassin to be better at assassinating than any Assassin. Life Cleric dip to make a those Goodberries hyper-efficient.

I would guess that most multi-classing is for the opposite of the main reason that multi-classing should be included in the game: breadth. Obviously some amount of stacking is inevitable and not worth discouraging. But, at the end of the day, I would rate this point as a powerful argument for more silo-ing of class resources.

For the record, I am a bit biased against silo-ing, because I like the freedom to explore combinations. Furthermore, flexibility supports level scaling in an organic manner. But this is something worth further chewing on....

[strangebloke]

MCing is fun, it lets you build character concepts that are otherwise impossible in the system. Zealot Barbarian worshipping Obad-Hai who's devotion eventually coalesces in druid levels, which she uses to turn into a raging bear and eat people? Kind of cool tbh. EK who eventually goes full wizard as he gets older and repairs his relationship with his wizard father? Cool. Warrior-poet Battlemaster whose mad ramblings about the coming calamity eventually materialize in him taking volcano (wildfire) druid levels?

It just looks jank in optimization forums like this because people immediately whip out the hex1/paladin2/bard6 build that has you going ????

[False God]

I also prefer multi-resource systems, provided those systems work in either:
A: totally different ways so we can tell them apart (IE: spell slots and spell points)
B: very similar ways so no matter which one we look at our understanding of the others helps us understand this one.

And in general, I feel that D&D has a bad habit of drifting back into "If you want to be cool, you need magic."

But there's no resource system, or at least no resource system the designers are willing to invest any real amount of time into making comparable, to do anything non-magical on a regular basis. KI doesn't count, it's just watered-down spell points.

[stoutstien]

That is a very interesting point.

In the abstract, I would say we want pretty clean and narrow classes. You should choose to multi-class to blend ideas for breadth.

But, in practice, I think we see more multi-classing to achieve a powerful narrow concept, by finding similar things to stack up high. Soradin to be a better smiter than a Paladin. Ranger/Assassin to be better at assassinating than any Assassin. Life Cleric dip to make a those Goodberries hyper-efficient.

I would guess that most multi-classing is for the opposite of the main reason that multi-classing should be included in the game: breadth. Obviously some amount of stacking is inevitable and not worth discouraging. But, at the end of the day, I would rate this point as a powerful argument for more silo-ing of class resources.

For the record, I am a bit biased against silo-ing, because I like the freedom to explore combinations. Furthermore, flexibility supports level scaling in an organic manner. But this is something worth further chewing on....

See below


MCing is fun, it lets you build character concepts that are otherwise impossible in the system. Zealot Barbarian worshipping Obad-Hai who's devotion eventually coalesces in druid levels, which she uses to turn into a raging bear and eat people? Kind of cool tbh. EK who eventually goes full wizard as he gets older and repairs his relationship with his wizard father? Cool. Warrior-poet Battlemaster whose mad ramblings about the coming calamity eventually materialize in him taking volcano (wildfire) druid levels?

It just looks jank in optimization forums like this because people immediately whip out the hex1/paladin2/bard6 build that has you going ????

The issue isn't actually multiclassing, it's level by level multiclassing. Not saying other methods are perfect and they tend to have their own list of problems.

Ironically if you don't use level by level you can have more freedom for that organic hero growth on the back in because then you don't need to "plan" your path to make sure you have the requirements and you don't have to justify choices.

[strangebloke]

The issue isn't actually multiclassing, it's level by level multiclassing. Not saying other methods are perfect and they tend to have their own list of problems.

Ironically if you don't use level by level you can have more freedom for that organic hero growth on the back in because then you don't need to "plan" your path to make sure you have the requirements and you don't have to justify choices.

So you're saying 2e style? LVL 1 costs the same, no matter the class or what levels in what classes you already have?

Start with a foot in two classes to begin with, or retire from a class at a certain level and then start taking levels in another?

I can dig it, though with how barren high levels are for so many classes I can't help but think it'd be broken good for a lot of martials.

[stoutstien]

So you're saying 2e style? LVL 1 costs the same, no matter the class or what levels in what classes you already have?

Start with a foot in two classes to begin with, or retire from a class at a certain level and then start taking levels in another?

I can dig it, though with how barren high levels are for so many classes I can't help but think it'd be broken good for a lot of martials.

Yea I'd prefer 2e style myself. As for some classes falling off that is its own issue and should be addressed directly rather than using MC as a hot patch.
*Gets a lot easier if you cut the lv progression down. Making 20 lv worth of progress that doesn't spudder out or fly off the rail is difficult for one class let alone 10-12 different ones.

[Kane0]

I like my classes to have a mixture of long and short rest resources. They dont both have to necessarily be resource pools, because i think one pool per class is enough in most cases, but if you do have multiple pools they shouldnt both be on the same rest type
*Stares angrily at sorcerer*

[Snails]

Ironically if you don't use level by level you can have more freedom for that organic hero growth on the back in because then you don't need to "plan" your path to make sure you have the requirements and you don't have to justify choices.

I must be missing something important here.

If my PC starts as a 2e style Fighter/Wizard, he is a Fighter/Wizard starting from level 1 and on until the day he retires. What organic mechanical growth is possible anymore? He stepped onto a set of rails.

5e MC rules may not be exactly great, but they are not terrible. There is a degree of sense in choosing between differing combinations of two classes.

[stoutstien]

I must be missing something important here.

If my PC starts as a 2e style Fighter/Wizard, he is a Fighter/Wizard starting from level 1 and on until the day he retires. What organic mechanical growth is possible anymore? He stepped onto a set of rails.

5e MC rules may not be exactly great, but they are not terrible. There is a degree of sense in choosing between differing combinations of two classes.

Flip it around. You are X until you jump off.

[Bosh]

Overall I don't like separate resources as it ups the complication of the system and leaves less room for other things to be complicated (such as races getting more **** at higher levels to keep them more relevant instead of a rounding error at higher levels) like to have each class have one unique shtick with the different subclasses tweaking how that shtick works (for example all barbarians get rage, different subclasses get different riders to the basic rage stuff).

For casters a lot of their non-spell resources are a bit silly from a flavor perspective: "I call upon my god to grant me power in the form of magical spells, but I can also call upon the power of my god to do magical effects that are completely distinct from spells because reasons!"

But I'd have a few caveats:

-If it's a secondary ability like paladins lay on hands that is pretty thematically different from their main ability then that's fine.

-If it keys off of hit dice. I didn't like 4e overall but healing surges were freaking genius for so many reasons (although the implementation of them was too generous in terms of how much total healing per day they allowed, which made attrition take too long) and 5e's hit dice are just a pale shadow of healing surges. Would like to go back to having basically all healing cost hit dice, much like in 4e. Would like to expand how hit dice work even beyond that to allow players to burn some/all remaining hit dice to get some kind of large power boost (depending on class). Something like "spend all remaining hit dice to do X" would also help with fight pacing. Instead of players always opening with their big guns and then mopping up you'd see more players using this big gun when they're in the ropes which would help DnD fights emulate the kind of pacing you see in a lot of fiction (protagonists get beat to **** then dig deep, get up and make a come-back).

[stoutstien]

Overall I don't like separate resources as it ups the complication of the system and leaves less room for other things to be complicated (such as races getting more **** at higher levels to keep them more relevant instead of a rounding error at higher levels) like to have each class have one unique shtick with the different subclasses tweaking how that shtick works (for example all barbarians get rage, different subclasses get different riders to the basic rage stuff).

For casters a lot of their non-spell resources are a bit silly from a flavor perspective: "I call upon my god to grant me power in the form of magical spells, but I can also call upon the power of my god to do magical effects that are completely distinct from spells because reasons!"

But I'd have a few caveats:

-If it's a secondary ability like paladins lay on hands that is pretty thematically different from their main ability then that's fine.

-If it keys off of hit dice. I didn't like 4e overall but healing surges were freaking genius for so many reasons (although the implementation of them was too generous in terms of how much total healing per day they allowed, which made attrition take too long) and 5e's hit dice are just a pale shadow of healing surges. Would like to go back to having basically all healing cost hit dice, much like in 4e. Would like to expand how hit dice work even beyond that to allow players to burn some/all remaining hit dice to get some kind of large power boost (depending on class). Something like "spend all remaining hit dice to do X" would also help with fight pacing. Instead of players always opening with their big guns and then mopping up you'd see more players using this big gun when they're in the ropes which would help DnD fights emulate the kind of pacing you see in a lot of fiction (protagonists get beat to **** then dig deep, get up and make a come-back).

Simple. Gut magic. It's has way too much space and it needlessly overly complicated.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Simple. Gut magic. It's has way too much space and it needlessly overly complicated.

Rather, gut spellcasting. Spells are a subset of all magic. I'm of the opinion that every class should have the ability to do something magical (meaning "not possible on Earth"). This could be flashy or not, depending on the class. But not all classes need to cast spells (which are only one way of doing magic).

I'm fine with spells (and spell slots) being one form of "magical resource". Mainly for the classes that do very regularized things. Wizards? Fine. Clerics? Fine. Sorcerers? Not so much. Basically with spells you trade having a limited number of fixed, narrow effects for having more predictable application of those effects. A wizard who doesn't have a spell that does what's needed should have to cobble together some other, non-spell solution and be at a disadvantage.

A sorcerer doesn't (in this hypothetical) get to say "I cast X" with its nice, well-defined, well-bounded effects. Instead, he might have a bunch of broader things he can do, but then require a roll to succeed (with a DC depending on the desired effect) and have some resource to boost his certainty. He's always got something...but it might not always work.

While a barbarian hulks out (mini, doesn't necessarily change size) and literally gets skin as hard as steel. Not just increased pain tolerance or whatever, but literally weapons bouncing off of him. And (depending on subclass) may get abilities like walking through magical effects as if they're nothing, shooting lightning in an aura around him, or just plain not dying.

More ritualized, non-prompt magic could be democratized--I've got a design for specialized Ritual Scrolls that allow anyone holding it to create the included effect as a ritual as long as they're strong enough (aka high enough level) and pay the other costs (time, money, exhaustion). This accounts for ~70 spells that don't need to be spells any more, just effects anyone who wants to seek out one of these scrolls can do.

All are "magic" (aka fantastic, aka not possible on earth), but only some of them are what we think of as spells.

[stoutstien]

Rather, gut spellcasting. Spells are a subset of all magic. I'm of the opinion that every class should have the ability to do something magical (meaning "not possible on Earth"). This could be flashy or not, depending on the class. But not all classes need to cast spells (which are only one way of doing magic).

I'm fine with spells (and spell slots) being one form of "magical resource". Mainly for the classes that do very regularized things. Wizards? Fine. Clerics? Fine. Sorcerers? Not so much. Basically with spells you trade having a limited number of fixed, narrow effects for having more predictable application of those effects. A wizard who doesn't have a spell that does what's needed should have to cobble together some other, non-spell solution and be at a disadvantage.

A sorcerer doesn't (in this hypothetical) get to say "I cast X" with its nice, well-defined, well-bounded effects. Instead, he might have a bunch of broader things he can do, but then require a roll to succeed (with a DC depending on the desired effect) and have some resource to boost his certainty. He's always got something...but it might not always work.

While a barbarian hulks out (mini, doesn't necessarily change size) and literally gets skin as hard as steel. Not just increased pain tolerance or whatever, but literally weapons bouncing off of him. And (depending on subclass) may get abilities like walking through magical effects as if they're nothing, shooting lightning in an aura around him, or just plain not dying.

More ritualized, non-prompt magic could be democratized--I've got a design for specialized Ritual Scrolls that allow anyone holding it to create the included effect as a ritual as long as they're strong enough (aka high enough level) and pay the other costs (time, money, exhaustion). This accounts for ~70 spells that don't need to be spells any more, just effects anyone who wants to seek out one of these scrolls can do.

All are "magic" (aka fantastic, aka not possible on earth), but only some of them are what we think of as spells.

Fair. Though Id still take it down a few notches or at least add some more unknown feels

[Amechra]

Deleting a mini-essay that wasn't exactly on topic (it was mostly just reminiscing about how many distinct resources 3.5 had)...

I think one of the issues that 5e has vis-a-vis resources is that it insists that all of them work basically the same way — you have a pool of stuff that you can spend to do a thing (or multiple things, if we're feeling spicey) that recovers when you take a rest. It also doesn't help that the multiclassing rules are held together by spite, so having two classes with the same resource either needs a bespoke rule for multiclassing (spellcasting) or doesn't work the way you'd think it would (the Psychic Warrior and Soulknife have entirely distinct pools of psionic dice).

I'd honestly love to see more classes that had different ways of recovering the resources they do have. Even something as simple as "Monks can spend a reaction when a creature attacks them and misses to recover 1 ki" or "Barbarians recover their 'short rest' abilities at the end of Hard/Deadly fights but don't get them back from actually taking a short rest" would lend a much stronger feel to the different resources.

[Slingbow]

Level by level MC has:

1) it makes no sense Thematically or mechanically besides what you rush to paint on it when it happens.

2) it causes system wobble. 5e just didn't plan for it to be "core" when they put majority of the ground work in.

3)its prone to over emphasize building PC top down which is counter to growth from the bottom which is the iconic progression.

This is such a perfect example of what I was talking about. System wobble. Rush to paint on.
These are not specific at table problems. What the eff is "system wobble" like your dice keep falling off the table? How important to game play is "iconic progression"?
How does a level by level single classed wizard or a Bard for that matter make sense? When was the last time an adventure had collage courses? How does anyone learn a new spell when they gain a level in the middle of a jungle? How does a character get smacked with a sword to 1hp, take a nap and then they're 100? Not one part of a table top fantasy rpg holds up to this level of scrutiny.

[stoutstien]

This is such a perfect example of what I was talking about. System wobble. Rush to paint on.
These are not specific at table problems. What the eff is "system wobble" like your dice keep falling off the table? How important to game play is "iconic progression"?
How does a level by level single classed wizard or a Bard for that matter make sense? When was the last time an adventure had collage courses? How does anyone learn a new spell when they gain a level in the middle of a jungle? How does a character get smacked with a sword to 1hp, take a nap and then they're 100? Not one part of a table top fantasy rpg holds up to this level of scrutiny.

System wobble is where the DM has to adjust things ad hoc or even post hoc to maintain logic. It becomes a bigger focus to adjust the world to the PCs rather than the other way around. This has nothing to do with progression which is a different problem.

Multiclassing in this style directly challenges the purpose of classes because now we are saying that they don't actually exist outside a packet of features. If a bard can choose to be a wizard just because they want to then bards nor wizards exist as a class.

[JackPhoenix]

Counter statements--

Using spell slots means everyone has to understand the wonky way spell casting works. Which is an enormous and very...ill-explained...burden. People confuse spells known/prepared and spell slots all the darn time. It's actually more confusing that a more strictly vancian system would be.

This argument makes no sense. If you're playing a spellcaster, you already have to understand that, regardless if you can use spell slots for other things. If you're not playing a spellcaster, it doesn't matter to you.


System wobble is where the DM has to adjust things ad hoc or even post hoc to maintain logic. It becomes a bigger focus to adjust the world to the PCs rather than the other way around. This has nothing to do with progression which is a different problem.

Nothing stops the player from going "I'd like to multiclass into a wizard in the future, so I'll roleplay the character studying magic until I'll get there." or "That offer the demon made sounds awfully tempting, maybe I'll pick a level of warlock at the next level-up, I have charisma for that...". And it certainly beats "I've chosen fightery and wizardry as my major in adventurer uni, so that's what I'll have to do for the rest of my life, no matter what happens later in my career."


Multiclassing in this style directly challenges the purpose of classes because now we are saying that they don't actually exist outside a packet of features. If a bard can choose to be a wizard just because they want to then bards nor wizards exist as a class.

No, it doesn't. If anything, focusing on one class at the expanse of growing in another class strengthens the notion the classes are their own separate things.

[stoutstien]

Nothing stops the player from going "I'd like to multiclass into a wizard in the future, so I'll roleplay the character studying magic until I'll get there." or "That offer the demon made sounds awfully tempting, maybe I'll pick a level of warlock at the next level-up, I have charisma for that...". And it certainly beats "I've chosen fightery and wizardry as my major in adventurer uni, so that's what I'll have to do for the rest of my life, no matter what happens later in my career."



No, it doesn't. If anything, focusing on one class at the expanse of growing in another class strengthens the notion the classes are their own separate things.

That's not level by level multiclassing. That's decided on a concept and working with the DM to best represent it. That could mean multiclassing or it could be a subclass, a new class, or anything else.

Unless they solely want to multi class because of X thing say it works like Y so this thing does Z and even if it's obviously not an attended result that's the rulez. Then that reinforces my point about the wobble.

*Which is mostly addressed by having independent pools for each class. Doesn't matter much when stuff just doesn't easily stack.*

[JackPhoenix]

That's not level by level multiclassing. That's decided on a concept and working with the DM to best represent it. That could mean multiclassing or it could be a subclass, a new class, or anything else.

It's an answer to your complaint about "wobble". Because you claim the "wobble" is the DM having to adjust things to maintain "logic". Maybe the "wobble" argument itself doesn't make much sense?


Unless they solely want to multi class because of X thing say it works like Y so this thing does Z and even if it's obviously not an attended result that's the rulez. Then that reinforces my point about the wobble.

Um... what? I have no idea what are you trying to say.

[stoutstien]

It's an answer to your complaint about "wobble". Because you claim the "wobble" is the DM having to adjust things to maintain "logic". Maybe the "wobble" argument itself doesn't make much sense?



Um... what? I have no idea what are you trying to say.

Do you seriously not see the difference between a player and a DM deciding the best way to represent something and a player deciding later on that they want to choose something solely based on mechanical interactions is the same as far as how the DM keeps the world explanation within a certain logical threshold?
System wobble is just taking advantage of inconsistencies within the system.
Some inconsistencies are needed because of everything was the same there no point in the open ended nature of the genre. however if those inconsistencies become formulated but not integrated the system starts to wobble.
I use the term wobble because it doesn't necessarily break anything. It's just not a positive aspect. I can eat lunch at a table with a wobble it's just annoying... Until that wobble gets bad enough to tip over my chocolate milk if I forget about it.

Within the 5th edition framework multi-classing is the epitome of wobble. For most tables it's not going to break anything but it doesn't necessarily add enough value for the amount of complexity it adds. Nor was it considered in the design of the system and was slapped on last minute and it shows. It was a lazy implication of a core aspect of a lot of tables play style


As for the second thing just look at access to third level spells and the extra attack feature. They're both designed to be relatively large jumps due to changing tiers of play yeah one of them stacks (in about a dozen different ways) and the other one doesn't. Why? Because magic<spells> has a universal subsystem and swinging weapons doesn't. That's really why one stacks and the other one doesn't. balance or fairness is so far removed from the problem it didn't even get a seat at the table.

Having obvious jump in/out points for classes inherently weakens class as a concept. We no longer look at them as a class, we look at them as a collection of features that we're going to invest in until the opportunity cost becomes less than changing directions.


This is not an aspect you could describe with numbers or precise definitions because the games that we're talking about naturally have a feel and artistic slant. Presentation and flow are more important than the underlying math or rules that govern them.


Now in all fairness 5th edition handles wobble very well. The core system basically has a rounded bottom so you can slap it about push it over but it always eventually settles down and is fine. You're only going to knock it over if you intentionally do so. That's why I enjoy running the system and regardless of the popularity of the new version I won't invest in it. Their intentionally flattening out the bottom of their system without addressing the wobble.

Call it wobble, the sniff test, the feel, the table presence, or whatever you like. Anybody who spends most of the time behind the screen is going to know what it is even if they don't know how to describe it.

[JackPhoenix]

Do you seriously not see the difference between a player and a DM deciding the best way to represent something and a player deciding later on that they want to choose something solely based on mechanical interactions is the same as far as how the DM keeps the world explanation within a certain logical threshold?

There are ability score requirements for multiclassing (not to mention other synergies and redundancies to take into account), so if a player wants to multiclass, he should know up front what he wants. And most players do have idea what character they want to play before the game even starts, player randomly deciding they want some mechanical thing mid-campaign is more of an exception. If there's a lack of communication between the DM and the player, that's social problem, not an issue of the system.


Within the 5th edition framework multi-classing is the epitome of wobble. For most tables it's not going to break anything but it doesn't necessarily add enough value for the amount of complexity it adds. Nor was it considered in the design of the system and was slapped on last minute and it shows. It was a lazy implication of a core aspect of a lot of tables play style

As for the second thing just look at access to third level spells and the extra attack feature. They're both designed to be relatively large jumps due to changing tiers of play yeah one of them stacks (in about a dozen different ways) and the other one doesn't. Why? Because magic<spells> has a universal subsystem and swinging weapons doesn't. That's really why one stacks and the other one doesn't. balance or fairness is so far removed from the problem it didn't even get a seat at the table.

Having obvious jump in/out points for classes inherently weakens class as a concept. We no longer look at them as a class, we look at them as a collection of features that we're going to invest in until the opportunity cost becomes less than changing directions.

That's an issue of frontloaded classes and lack of decent high-level features, not the level-by-level multiclassing. You don't see that with spellcasters, because multiclassing delays their access to the new level of spells, and they do have good high-level features in the form of high-level spells. The same opportunity cost isn't there with, say, barbarian who doesn't get much in the way of features at high level, and their best features are available in the first 3 levels of the class. The correct way to fix that is to give non-full casters good high level features and make stuff less front-loaded, though the later has its own issue in that it means delaying access to some iconic abilities.

[stoutstien]

There are ability score requirements for multiclassing (not to mention other synergies and redundancies to take into account), so if a player wants to multiclass, he should know up front what he wants. And most players do have idea what character they want to play before the game even starts, player randomly deciding they want some mechanical thing mid-campaign is more of an exception. If there's a lack of communication between the DM and the player, that's social problem, not an issue of the system.



That's an issue of frontloaded classes and lack of decent high-level features, not the level-by-level multiclassing. You don't see that with spellcasters, because multiclassing delays their access to the new level of spells, and they do have good high-level features in the form of high-level spells. The same opportunity cost isn't there with, say, barbarian who doesn't get much in the way of features at high level, and their best features are available in the first 3 levels of the class. The correct way to fix that is to give non-full casters good high level features and make stuff less front-loaded, though the later has its own issue in that it means delaying access to some iconic abilities.
So you agree there's wobble but you just disagree where it's at?

Seeing how we're discussing 5th edition, and it's classes in regards to level by level multiclassing, you have to address them all. not just one of them.

Saying that multi-classing's fine but the classes are wrong isn't any different for me saying the classes are fine and multi-classing's messed up.

The only difference is one of them is a second-tier optional feature that was never tested prior to adaptation and the other is the edition. You can have 5e without multiclassing. you can't have 5e without classes.

The classes are far from perfect but they are also much easier to adjust in isolation. Trying to adjust them while assuming multi-classing is darn near impossible without a complete system reboot. Hence the concept of independent resource pool, more gates for spells be shifting them to class features, adjusting class progressions, modifying spell lists...

[JackPhoenix]

So you agree there's wobble but you just disagree where it's at?

Seeing how we're discussing 5th edition, and it's classes in regards to level by level multiclassing, you have to address them all. not just one of them.

It's classes, period. Once you fix that, you also fix multiclassing. Nothing you do to "fix" multiclassing will improve the issues the classes have on their own.


Saying that multi-classing's fine but the classes are wrong isn't any different for me saying the classes are fine and multi-classing's messed up.

Of course it's different. Multiclassing is an optional feature, any potential issue with it is much less of a problem than classes being messed up.


The only difference is one of them is a second-tier optional feature that was never tested prior to adaptation and the other is the edition. You can have 5e without multiclassing. you can't have 5e without classes.

So what? Removing multiclassing won't fix the issues with classes. If anything, the issue with classes is worse than any possible issue with multiclassing because "classes are the edition". Lack of good features in high-level barbarians is an issue whether you can multiclass or not. Multiclassing allows the player to mitigate that issue (through picking other good features available to other classes at lower levels to make up for the lack of good high-level features), and offers wider variety of possible character concepts.

[stoutstien]

It's classes, period. Once you fix that, you also fix multiclassing. Nothing you do to "fix" multiclassing will improve the issues the classes have on their own.



Of course it's different. Multiclassing is an optional feature, any potential issue with it is much less of a problem than classes being messed up.



So what? Removing multiclassing won't fix the issues with classes. If anything, the issue with classes is worse than any possible issue with multiclassing because "classes are the edition". Lack of good features in high-level barbarians is an issue whether you can multiclass or not. Multiclassing allows the player to mitigate that issue (through picking other good features available to other classes at lower levels to make up for the lack of good high-level features), and offers wider variety of possible character concepts.

The player should not be the one that addressing the issue. multi-classing is just a distractionary item preventing addressing classes because as long as there's the option of "oh just multi-class" it'll never be addressed. Especially if you are agreeing with me that certain combinations are more effective than the core class in representation of a concept within theme.

You can see this in the direction the play test is going. Not only are they not going to dress anything they're just going to slap more and more onto spellcasting because it's they're most solidified concept.

You also see this in about 90% of the threads about addressing classes because somebody's going to bring up "oh this doesn't work because of multi-classing". of course it doesn't work because of multi-classing. multi-classic doesn't work because of multi-classing. You can do all kinds of stuff if you disregard multi-classing.
You want to make high level barbarians automatically kill anything under CR 10 by headbutting or swing a weapon so hard it rips holes in reality? Go for it because there's no other interactions you have to worry about.

Adjusting classes for an individual table is easy. Adjusting anything with exponential interactions with each other isn't. That's why independent resource pools are so useful because even if you do include the ability for them to interact with each other they don't stack. You don't have to worry about the sorcerer using their spell slots to fuel paladin smites because it just doesn't work. You can still be a paladin/sorcerer you're just not going to be able to combine them in a way that exceeds the thematic and actual output of either of the options by themselves because you happen to game a certain tables resource recovery cycle pattern.

Also think you are misunderstanding what I'm describing. Something can be balanced and wobbly and something can be unbalanced and not wobbly. The classes are horribly unbalanced but not really wobbling. It's not wobbling because inherently the system didn't promise that the classes would be balanced. It's just not a system goal.
Multi-class also doesn't have a clause about being balanced or not but it does have requirements that are masquerading as such. It's wobbly because it's pretending to be balanced. It's pretending to be about adding options when in reality it is reducing them.

[Snails]

That's an issue of frontloaded classes and lack of decent high-level features, not the level-by-level multiclassing. You don't see that with spellcasters, because multiclassing delays their access to the new level of spells, and they do have good high-level features in the form of high-level spells. The same opportunity cost isn't there with, say, barbarian who doesn't get much in the way of features at high level, and their best features are available in the first 3 levels of the class. The correct way to fix that is to give non-full casters good high level features and make stuff less front-loaded, though the later has its own issue in that it means delaying access to some iconic abilities.

It is doubtful any simple and straightforward reduction in front loading would be accepted by the community. Plenty of people are already annoyed that it takes 2 or even 3 levels for important class features to come on line. Delaying further will get a lot of push back.

It is, of course, possible to add high level features to many of the classes. That somewhat mitigates multi-classing issues, but does not eliminate them.

I think it is plausible to re-engineer every class to explicitly address dipping, e.g. if you are not single-classed, you need 2 (or even 3) levels in Hexblade to get to use Cha to attack with your sword. This approach can become enormously fussy and annoying and would require a lot of design effort, but it could work.

[Slingbow]

Multiclassing in this style directly challenges the purpose of classes because now we are saying that they don't actually exist outside a packet of features. If a bard can choose to be a wizard just because they want to then bards nor wizards exist as a class.

A class is literally a suite of features/abilities.

A Bard can become a wizard just because they want to. As long as they meet the INT requirement.

What is the nature of existence anyway?

[False God]

A class is literally a suite of features/abilities.

A Bard can become a wizard just because they want to. As long as they meet the INT requirement.

What is the nature of existence anyway?

I would find a game where you could never learn a new class to be...odd. And very video-gamey.

Like, do some folks think in order to be a Class you need to wake up that class, brush your teeth that class, go to work that class, cook dinner that class and....never step outside your lane?

[Frogreaver]

It is doubtful any simple and straightforward reduction in front loading would be accepted by the community. Plenty of people are already annoyed that it takes 2 or even 3 levels for important class features to come on line. Delaying further will get a lot of push back.

It is, of course, possible to add high level features to many of the classes. That somewhat mitigates multi-classing issues, but does not eliminate them.

I think it is plausible to re-engineer every class to explicitly address dipping, e.g. if you are not single-classed, you need 2 (or even 3) levels in Hexblade to get to use Cha to attack with your sword. This approach can become enormously fussy and annoying and would require a lot of design effort, but it could work.

So 2 things.

1. Buff classes with weaksauce higher level abilities
2. Have multiclassing require 2 levels to get a new classes level 1 abilities in full. Proceed as normal from there. The first level level could give you hp, and one of their minor features, the next would give you everything else you normally get for a 1st level multiclass.

[Slingbow]

I would find a game where you could never learn a new class to be...odd. And very video-gamey.

Like, do some folks think in order to be a Class you need to wake up that class, brush your teeth that class, go to work that class, cook dinner that class and....never step outside your lane?

As a Warlock I will admit to using Eldritch toothpaste. I know I'm probably just falling victim to basic marketing, but I'm starting to think my teeth know things I don't yet sooo...

[stoutstien]

A class is literally a suite of features/abilities.

A Bard can become a wizard just because they want to. As long as they meet the INT requirement.

What is the nature of existence anyway?

.. wasn't that laterally how the gag went with OOTS comic about why this makes no sense?
Why spend a quarter of your life becoming a wizard when you can just multi-class later an skip to the good part and while being a wizard has no intelligence requirements multiclassing into them does.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

[Aimeryan]

.. wasn't that laterally how the gag went with OOTS comic about why this makes no sense?
Why spend a quarter of your life becoming a wizard when you can just multi-class later an skip to the good part and while being a wizard has no intelligence requirements multiclassing into them does.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

The one that has always got me is that to multiclass OUT of a class you need to meet the requisites for that class, which seems bizarre. Like, if your a Wizard with low Int but high Cha, you can't multiclass into Sorcerer which would make way more sense for you, instead you must stay Wizard which you obviously aren't suited for. Bizarre.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The one that has always got me is that to multiclass OUT of a class you need to meet the requisites for that class, which seems bizarre. Like, if your a Wizard with low Int but high Cha, you can't multiclass into Sorcerer which would make way more sense for you, instead you must stay Wizard which you obviously aren't suited for. Bizarre.

That's for game reasons. Because there aren't stay requirements to start as a class. So if there were only incoming requirements, you'd start as the one you don't qualify for and then jump ship.

Is it worth having them? Meh. That's a different ball of snakes.

[Aimeryan]

That's for game reasons. Because there aren't stay requirements to start as a class. So if there were only incoming requirements, you'd start as the one you don't qualify for and then jump ship.

Is it worth having them? Meh. That's a different ball of snakes.

I mean, one could argue why does it even matter? It can't be balance because I can't see how it is more balanced to force the player to remain being a low Int Wizard over allowing them to jump ship at level 2 and suffer with just one dead-ish level. If the stats matter to balance (which they do), then it matters that the player has low stats for the class and it should be more balanced for them to switch out.

If the idea, instead, is to safeguard newer players from entering a class they are not suited for in stats then the question becomes why isn't this in place for the first class, and why does it matter for the class being left?

I'm also not particularly for class requirements to enter the first class - many a person can imagine or have firsthand experience with not being suited to a path you were originally travelling, whether by being coerced into it ('Father sent me to the Clerics to be trained up, however, I never really felt suited to it'), or by situation at hand ('Orphans were trained by the locale militia to be Fighters, but it just wasn't where my talents lay'). The first class is already special in other ways (Proficiencies, starting gear, Saves, etc.), so it would not particularly odd to be special here too (and indeed, it is).

[animorte]

As a Warlock I will admit to using Eldritch toothpaste. I know I'm probably just falling victim to basic marketing, but I'm starting to think my teeth know things I don't yet sooo...
:smallbiggrin: I have also subscribed to the Eldritch newsletter, which includes the hygiene products, clothing line, accessories, cook books, and more!

[Bosh]

Rather, gut spellcasting. Spells are a subset of all magic. I'm of the opinion that every class should have the ability to do something magical (meaning "not possible on Earth"). This could be flashy or not, depending on the class. But not all classes need to cast spells (which are only one way of doing magic).

I'm fine with spells (and spell slots) being one form of "magical resource". Mainly for the classes that do very regularized things. Wizards? Fine. Clerics? Fine. Sorcerers? Not so much. Basically with spells you trade having a limited number of fixed, narrow effects for having more predictable application of those effects. A wizard who doesn't have a spell that does what's needed should have to cobble together some other, non-spell solution and be at a disadvantage.

A sorcerer doesn't (in this hypothetical) get to say "I cast X" with its nice, well-defined, well-bounded effects. Instead, he might have a bunch of broader things he can do, but then require a roll to succeed (with a DC depending on the desired effect) and have some resource to boost his certainty. He's always got something...but it might not always work.

While a barbarian hulks out (mini, doesn't necessarily change size) and literally gets skin as hard as steel. Not just increased pain tolerance or whatever, but literally weapons bouncing off of him. And (depending on subclass) may get abilities like walking through magical effects as if they're nothing, shooting lightning in an aura around him, or just plain not dying.

More ritualized, non-prompt magic could be democratized--I've got a design for specialized Ritual Scrolls that allow anyone holding it to create the included effect as a ritual as long as they're strong enough (aka high enough level) and pay the other costs (time, money, exhaustion). This accounts for ~70 spells that don't need to be spells any more, just effects anyone who wants to seek out one of these scrolls can do.

All are "magic" (aka fantastic, aka not possible on earth), but only some of them are what we think of as spells.

I'm half in agreement with you.

I think that DnD spellcasting has a lot going for it that a lot of people overlook. Also I think that if properly applied DnD spellcasting should be rich enough that a character class shouldn't NEED a whole 'nother subsystem on top of that to be cool.

HOWEVER, 5e spellcasting just feels too same from class to class to make each fullcadting class feel properly unique, which also ups the pressure to layer on cool **** on top of full casting which adds to both power creep and how complex the rules are for each class in ways I don't like.

Let's see how far we can stretch 5e spellcasting to make each casting class feel unique without adding in stuff on top of "this guy casts spells!"

1. 5e warlocks have a very different system of casting from everyone else but it seems more different for the sake of being different, I don't especially like it.

2. Full Vancian: you memorize a bunch of spells at the beginning of each day and those are the spells you have. No memorizing more than one copy of each spell. No way to cast the same spell more than once in each day.

3. 5e sorcerer/bard casting: feel that this is separate enough from full-on Vancian to make the class feel unique, in a way that wizards and sorcerers don't really feel that different in 5e. Basically this has more tactical flexibility while full Vancian has more strategic flexibility so they feel distinct.

4. Divine spheres: to take a bit of inspiration from 2e a cleric starts with one domain and can ONLY has spells from that domain (with perhaps a tiny handful of generic cleric spells that all clerics can cast) and later get access to a small handful of other domains. So clerics would have a good number of spells known but much less ability to cherry pick good spells (since you choose domains not individual spells). Hmmmm, not sure if that's enough to make clerics feel properly different. Maybe weak spells but powerful domain-specific riders to stick on the spells like order clerics in 5e?

5. Druids/shamans: each morning a druid allows them to be possessed by a specific spirit that gives them specific boosts and a specific set of spells known. The next day they can choose a different spirit to possess them.

That's five different ways to split up casting in DnD. Can't really think of a good way to make a bard classes have casting that feels properly unique. But then bards should never have been full casters in the first place.

As for giving all classes magical stuff I like a bit more low fantasy than many people and generally prefer nerfing casters down to earth more than giving everyone powerful magic stuff.

[JellyPooga]

For my money, I'd rather see every Class have access to a single resource pool rather than every Class having their own unique pool. i.e. Regardless of your Class or Classes, every character has access to the equivalent of a full casters spell point pool or a full casters level 1-9 spell slots. To avoid strictly magical connotations, this pool could be called anything; Stamina, Essence, Chi or whatever. Then each Class would merely offer different ways to access or utilise that pool; Wizards and other full casters would obviously access it with spells, Monks with Ki abilities, Fighters might all have Manoeuvres they could use, Barbarians their Rage and rage abilities, Rogues might have a suite of "Cunning" or "Mischief" abilities to use, etc. There could be room within this to permanently (or until you level up or get retrained) sacrifice points/slots for "always on" or "use at will" features (e.g. Warlock Invocations or the Rogues Cunning Action, perhaps even things like Cantrips or Extra Attack). Multiclass characters would simply function the same way that multiclass spellcasters do now; at higher levels multiclassing would offer breadth of knowledge or versatility, but not height; e.g. a Wizard 3/Cleric 4 has level 4 spell slots but only knows level 2 spells, just so a Rogue 3/Cleric 4 under this system would only have level 2 "Cunning" abilities and level 2 spells, but would be able to use their level 4 slots to (up)cast them.

It could get very "build a bear" without careful design, but it would offer a basic starting point (power wise) for every Class and avoid shenanigans like the Paladin 2/Sorcerer X Sorcadin that uses their full-caster suite of spell slots for smites, because the Smite feature would be designed to function on the premise of having that full-caster suite. The other aspect of this is that it consolidates short/long rest issues because everyone is using the same long-rest pool to access their features and abilities. No trying to cram in as many Short Rests as possible so the Warlock and Monk can alpha-strike their way through the dungeon, for example.

[Snails]

The one that has always got me is that to multiclass OUT of a class you need to meet the requisites for that class, which seems bizarre. Like, if your a Wizard with low Int but high Cha, you can't multiclass into Sorcerer which would make way more sense for you, instead you must stay Wizard which you obviously aren't suited for. Bizarre.

My guess is it is a half measure intended to discourage dipping. Because otherwise you could just start in the dip.

[KorvinStarmast]

:smallbiggrin: I have also subscribed to the Eldritch newsletter, which includes the hygiene products, clothing line, accessories, cook books, and more! My tome-lock Celestial is working on a submission, in which she discusses how the Mystic Arcanum feature needs to have more choices.

If bards can plunder anyone's spells with Magic Secrets, yet the Warlock is explicitly called out in the class description as being the ones who dig up magical secrets ... let's give Mystic Arcanum a little more oomph, eh?

"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock Magical Effects both subtle and spectacular. Drawing on the Ancient Knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, Demons, Devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm. warlocks piece together arcane Secrets to bolster their own power."

Skip a bit, brother

The magic bestowed on a Warlock ranges from minor but lasting Alteratnions to the Warlock's being (such as the ability to see in the darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells.
Unlike bookish wizards, warlocks supplement their magic with some facility at hand to hand combat...

Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. This thirst drives the warlocks into their pacts and shapes their later careers as well.
Basic Bard Magical Secrets:

By 10th level, you have plundered magical knowledge from a wide spectrum of disciplines. Choose two spells from any classes, including this one. A spell you choose must be of a level you can cast, as shown on the Bard table, or a cantrip. The chosen spells count as bard spells for you and are included in the number in the Spells Known column of the Bard table. You learn two additional spells from any classes at 14th level and again at 18th level. Not sure why bards get to plunder a wider array of magic than Warlock do. :smalltongue:

Also, mystic arcanum ought to be changeable on a level up.

Or is my tome lock being a whinging little pain in the neck?

Arcane Gate PHB
Circle of Death PHB
Conjure Fey PHB
Create Undead PHB
Eyebite PHB
Flesh to Stone PHB
Investiture of Flame XGE
Investiture of Ice XGE
Investiture of Stone XGE
Investiture of Wind XGE
Mass Suggestion PHB
Mental Prison XGE
Scatter XGE
Soul Cage XGE
Summon Fiend TCE
Tasha's Otherworldly Guise TCE
True Seeing PHB

[PhoenixPhyre]

My tome-lock Celestial is working on a submission, in which she discusses how the Mystic Arcanum feature needs to have more choices.

If bards can plunder anyone's spells with Magic Secrets, yet the Warlock is explicitly called out in the class description as being the ones who dig up magical secrets ... let's give Mystic Arcanum a little more oomph, eh?

"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock Magical Effects both subtle and spectacular. Drawing on the Ancient Knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, Demons, Devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm. warlocks piece together arcane Secrets to bolster their own power."

Skip a bit, brother

The magic bestowed on a Warlock ranges from minor but lasting Alteratnions to the Warlock's being (such as the ability to see in the darkness or to read any language) to access to powerful spells.
Unlike bookish wizards, warlocks supplement their magic with some facility at hand to hand combat...

Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. This thirst drives the warlocks into their pacts and shapes their later careers as well.
Basic Bard Magical Secrets:
Not sure why bards get to plunder a wider array of magic than Warlock do. :smalltongue:

Also, mystic arcanum ought to be changeable on a level up.

Or is my tome lock being a whinging little pain in the neck?

Arcane Gate PHB
Circle of Death PHB
Conjure Fey PHB
Create Undead PHB
Eyebite PHB
Flesh to Stone PHB
Investiture of Flame XGE
Investiture of Ice XGE
Investiture of Stone XGE
Investiture of Wind XGE
Mass Suggestion PHB
Mental Prison XGE
Scatter XGE
Soul Cage XGE
Summon Fiend TCE
Tasha's Otherworldly Guise TCE
True Seeing PHB

I agree that Warlocks are a better fit for "stealing others' spells" than bards are, thematically.

[stoutstien]

I agree that Warlocks are a better fit for "stealing others' spells" than bards are, thematically.

Aye and have a better frame as well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aye and have a better frame as well.

Yeah. I'd expect bards to have something around, you know, music. Such as something like expanding the (abysmal) Countercharm feature into letting you do performances that linger for a round or so after you stop, affecting allies (or enemies) around you. Those could be tiered so that at level 6 or so (when you get them) you might only be able to give a few temporary hit points (non-renewing, so no Twilight Cleric shenanigans) while at higher levels you could, say, grant rerolls on some things. Or force rerolls on enemies.

[stoutstien]

Yeah. I'd expect bards to have something around, you know, music. Such as something like expanding the (abysmal) Countercharm feature into letting you do performances that linger for a round or so after you stop, affecting allies (or enemies) around you. Those could be tiered so that at level 6 or so (when you get them) you might only be able to give a few temporary hit points (non-renewing, so no Twilight Cleric shenanigans) while at higher levels you could, say, grant rerolls on some things. Or force rerolls on enemies.

Definitely the Direction im taking them. Power instant effects with secondary riders that stick around for a set duration. They are one of the only 2 heros that can flat out cancel effects regardless of source and allow others to get additional uses or reduced costs for their "big" thing.

*Situational modifiers is my stand in for everything that can effect dice values and bards can cancel out negative ones regardless of how bad they are. This is huge for classes that want to use faster/risker tactics to deal with threats that could potentially just kill a hero or the whole party.*

[Kane0]

Yeah. I'd expect bards to have something around, you know, music. Such as something like expanding the (abysmal) Countercharm feature into letting you do performances that linger for a round or so after you stop, affecting allies (or enemies) around you.

Im still annoyed Countercharm got dropped in the playtest, it should have been turned into a reaction. Its ones of those few remaining vestiges of the history of the Bard and could have been a neat ability to boot, that isnt shackled to spells and spell slots.

[Bosh]

For my money, I'd rather see every Class have access to a single resource pool rather than every Class having their own unique pool. i.e. Regardless of your Class or Classes, every character has access to the equivalent of a full casters spell point pool or a full casters level 1-9 spell slots. To avoid strictly magical connotations, this pool could be called anything; Stamina, Essence, Chi or whatever. Then each Class would merely offer different ways to access or utilise that pool; Wizards and other full casters would obviously access it with spells, Monks with Ki abilities, Fighters might all have Manoeuvres they could use, Barbarians their Rage and rage abilities, Rogues might have a suite of "Cunning" or "Mischief" abilities to use, etc. There could be room within this to permanently (or until you level up or get retrained) sacrifice points/slots for "always on" or "use at will" features (e.g. Warlock Invocations or the Rogues Cunning Action, perhaps even things like Cantrips or Extra Attack). Multiclass characters would simply function the same way that multiclass spellcasters do now; at higher levels multiclassing would offer breadth of knowledge or versatility, but not height; e.g. a Wizard 3/Cleric 4 has level 4 spell slots but only knows level 2 spells, just so a Rogue 3/Cleric 4 under this system would only have level 2 "Cunning" abilities and level 2 spells, but would be able to use their level 4 slots to (up)cast them.

It could get very "build a bear" without careful design, but it would offer a basic starting point (power wise) for every Class and avoid shenanigans like the Paladin 2/Sorcerer X Sorcadin that uses their full-caster suite of spell slots for smites, because the Smite feature would be designed to function on the premise of having that full-caster suite. The other aspect of this is that it consolidates short/long rest issues because everyone is using the same long-rest pool to access their features and abilities. No trying to cram in as many Short Rests as possible so the Warlock and Monk can alpha-strike their way through the dungeon, for example.

One issue with this is that it is kind of analogous to getting rid of HPs and putting in an injury system. A good injury system might be a better game mechanic in some ways but HPs are pretty intrinsically linked to DnD in the minds of players.

How far can you push the envelope before you don't have a different edition bit simply a different game. The different editions of DnD are already more different from each other than the different editions of any RPG I can think of, at what point do you draw the line between "this is what I'd like to see in DnD in the future" and "what I like isn't really compatible with DnD so here's what I'd like to see in a game inspired by DnD."

This is especially the case for 6e. With 5e being so successful, 6e is going to inherently be a conservative edition of tweaks no a ground-up rewrite of basic rules.

As for a single unified resource I think that hit dice have a lot of potential for that. Give different classes different ways go draw on them as a way to "dig deep" in emergencies. This would be something on top of existing class resources and/or a way to recharge your normal resources in an emergency.

Having that on top of going back to the 4e standard of having healing require hit dice/healing surges would also give a nice boost to the classes with bigger hit dice, a lot of whom could use it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Im still annoyed Countercharm got dropped in the playtest, it should have been turned into a reaction. It's currently an action, I can see preferring it to be a reaction.

[Telwar]

It's currently an action, I can see preferring it to be a reaction.

That's another resource pool, what sort of action an ability takes, which a lot of people don't realize is a resource.

One of the reasons I loved playing a cleric and warlord in 4e is that my action pool and resource pool weren't taken up by healing. I could tell the wizard to walk that injury off using a dedicated resource pool source, and then use my real action to tell the barbarian to go smack that guy over there. Or my minotaur battle cleric could smack someone over the head and heal the fighter with their minor action.

Now in 5e, if I want to get a real heal off on an ally, I have to use an action, or cast a weak heal that means I can't cast a full spell and have to use either a cantrip or "cast sword," or some other action.

[JellyPooga]

One issue with this is that it is kind of analogous to getting rid of HPs and putting in an injury system. A good injury system might be a better game mechanic in some ways but HPs are pretty intrinsically linked to DnD in the minds of players.

How far can you push the envelope before you don't have a different edition bit simply a different game. The different editions of DnD are already more different from each other than the different editions of any RPG I can think of, at what point do you draw the line between "this is what I'd like to see in DnD in the future" and "what I like isn't really compatible with DnD so here's what I'd like to see in a game inspired by DnD."

This is especially the case for 6e. With 5e being so successful, 6e is going to inherently be a conservative edition of tweaks no a ground-up rewrite of basic rules.

As for a single unified resource I think that hit dice have a lot of potential for that. Give different classes different ways go draw on them as a way to "dig deep" in emergencies. This would be something on top of existing class resources and/or a way to recharge your normal resources in an emergency.

Having that on top of going back to the 4e standard of having healing require hit dice/healing surges would also give a nice boost to the classes with bigger hit dice, a lot of whom could use it.

I agree that it would be a big paradigm shift for the franchise, but that's not necessarily a bad thing and 3e had a wildly successful iteration of doing partway towards just that with the Tome of Battle. It wouldn't take a genius to see the value of combining the way ToB gave martials a system that functioned in much the same way that only spellcasting had previously, with the more streamlined approach that made 5e as popular as it is.

Integrating multiclassing into the core mechanics of each Class this way also opens up saved design space for the things that actually matter (i.e. the abilities actually being used, such as spells and manouevers) as opposed to trying to expand every Class into other classes niche with ever increasingly weird and obscure subclass themes that may or may not hit the mark, or worse, create gonzo imbalanced combos. Easier to balance a single ability around a known benchmark than to try and predict how or when a given suite of abilities will collide with another in unexpected ways.

[greenstone]

I think paladin smiting and healing should be the same pool, and different from spell slots.

Make the player choose - healing or harming?

I'd also make them dice, in the same way battlemasters get superiority dice.

[Bosh]

I agree that it would be a big paradigm shift for the franchise, but that's not necessarily a bad thing and 3e had a wildly successful iteration of doing partway towards just that with the Tome of Battle. It wouldn't take a genius to see the value of combining the way ToB gave martials a system that functioned in much the same way that only spellcasting had previously, with the more streamlined approach that made 5e as popular as it is.

Integrating multiclassing into the core mechanics of each Class this way also opens up saved design space for the things that actually matter (i.e. the abilities actually being used, such as spells and manouevers) as opposed to trying to expand every Class into other classes niche with ever increasingly weird and obscure subclass themes that may or may not hit the mark, or worse, create gonzo imbalanced combos. Easier to balance a single ability around a known benchmark than to try and predict how or when a given suite of abilities will collide with another in unexpected ways.

So.... bringing back 4e then? While there are some 4e ideas that I like (healing surges!) and 6e does seem to be inching towards 4e design philosophy in some ways (making rules tighter and less open-ended) a wholesale move back to 4e models would create a huge backlash.

From a purely financial perspective the best bet would be to go really really conservative, tweak a few things, and give everyone an across the board power boost (basically what PF 1e did to 3.5e).

That's not what I'd want personally, but I don't think that people whose first D&D book was the Rules Cyclopedia is really WotC's target demographic these days.

[Oramac]

I think paladin smiting and healing should be the same pool, and different from spell slots.

Make the player choose - healing or harming?

I'd also make them dice, in the same way battlemasters get superiority dice.

That......is actually a pretty awesome idea.

[Sception]

I actually like the idea of paladins keying smites off spell slots, it works thematically, both are expressions of divine magic, with the "Smite" being the paladin's martial twist on divine spellcasting.

Paladins also already have three resources: Spells, Channel Divinities, and Lay on Hand points.

And divine sense, if you're talking about 5e & not playtest. If you're talking about playtest then paladins also have one free cast of find steed and one of any oath spell, which are additional things to track separate from your normal spell slots

As for mixing spell and non-spell resources, in many cases I dislike it, such as element monk, or the warlock invocations which let you cast a spell once a day but also use a pact slot. But some I quite like, including the paladin's divine smite. I like how the mechanic blends the martial and spellcasting halves of the martial half-caster paladin.

That said, re: the playtest, I would have preferred the paladins divine smite to be their base class channel divinity. Make it do a scaling amount of radiant damage by default, with the option to spend spell slots for additional damage or effects, replacing the smite spell line and making smite a more mechanically defining class feature, though not one that requires spell slots to function if a given player happens to prefer using their spell slots to cast actual spells. Making it use channel divinities would also reduce the nova/spam potential without having to nerf it quite as hard as the playtest did.

[False God]

I think paladin smiting and healing should be the same pool, and different from spell slots.

Make the player choose - healing or harming?

I'd also make them dice, in the same way battlemasters get superiority dice.

I had a player in an old game who wanted to play a healing paladin, so I gave them a mace that did just that. You still had to hit your target, but the mace healed instead of doing damage and allowed them to convert their smite into healing while wielding it.
I had it listed as the "Idiot Bat" in my notes.

[Amechra]

I've been thinking about this for a little bit because something felt a little off about it... and I feel like I've figured out why. Namely, I feel like this thread is conflating "having resource pools" and agency.

What makes spellcasters interesting isn't that they only have X casts of Magic Missile between rests, it's that they have the option to attack in a way that can't miss (same goes for the variety of different spells they get that target different saves and deal different types of damage). Knock is interesting because it lets you trade one problem ("this door is closed, and it would take the Rogue time to unlock it") for another one ("the door's open, but I've alerted all the guards in the process").

Sure, the fact that some spells are limited-use does help encourage varied gameplay (you get a limited number of Fireballs because otherwise you would probably cast Fireball all the time forever), but it's just one tool in the "make play more interesting" toolbox. Adding Moxie points to the Fighter isn't going to make the Fighter feel more exciting if those Moxie points are just going to be spent to let them do stuff they already can but with a little more damage (or whatever).

So... what cool thing are you going to let the Fighter do? And why do you feel the need to hide it behind a limited resource?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've been thinking about this for a little bit because something felt a little off about it... and I feel like I've figured out why. Namely, I feel like this thread is conflating "having resource pools" and agency.

What makes spellcasters interesting isn't that they only have X casts of Magic Missile between rests, it's that they have the option to attack in a way that can't miss (same goes for the variety of different spells they get that target different saves and deal different types of damage). Knock is interesting because it lets you trade one problem ("this door is closed, and it would take the Rogue time to unlock it") for another one ("the door's open, but I've alerted all the guards in the process").

Sure, the fact that some spells are limited-use does help encourage varied gameplay (you get a limited number of Fireballs because otherwise you would probably cast Fireball all the time forever), but it's just one tool in the "make play more interesting" toolbox. Adding Moxie points to the Fighter isn't going to make the Fighter feel more exciting if those Moxie points are just going to be spent to let them do stuff they already can but with a little more damage (or whatever).

So... what cool thing are you going to let the Fighter do? And why do you feel the need to hide it behind a limited resource?

No, that's not the point. This thread isn't about casters or martials. It's about not loading all the resources that characters have into one generic pool. It's against, for instance, the UA ranger having to spend spell slots to do anything interesting. Or druids hypothetically having to spend spell slots to wild shape.

It's saying that a diversity of resources is good. And that all classes should have several, non fungible, non shared resources to use. That's all. The details of how that resources are allocated or used are not part of my point with this thread. It's even within a class--wizards shouldn't fuel everything on spell slots. Monks should have some things they can do X/day without burning ki. Lay on hands and divine sense shouldn't come out of the same pool or share pools of uses with anyone else. You shouldn't get better at smiting by taking sorcerer levels. Etc.

[Bosh]

I've been thinking about this for a little bit because something felt a little off about it... and I feel like I've figured out why. Namely, I feel like this thread is conflating "having resource pools" and agency.

What makes spellcasters interesting isn't that they only have X casts of Magic Missile between rests, it's that they have the option to attack in a way that can't miss (same goes for the variety of different spells they get that target different saves and deal different types of damage). Knock is interesting because it lets you trade one problem ("this door is closed, and it would take the Rogue time to unlock it") for another one ("the door's open, but I've alerted all the guards in the process").

Sure, the fact that some spells are limited-use does help encourage varied gameplay (you get a limited number of Fireballs because otherwise you would probably cast Fireball all the time forever), but it's just one tool in the "make play more interesting" toolbox. Adding Moxie points to the Fighter isn't going to make the Fighter feel more exciting if those Moxie points are just going to be spent to let them do stuff they already can but with a little more damage (or whatever).

So... what cool thing are you going to let the Fighter do? And why do you feel the need to hide it behind a limited resource?

I agree completely, giving people varied and interesting things to do is a lot better than just loading their character sheet up with more bells and whistles.

For example my favorite ability in 5e if the thief subclass's Fast Hands ability. This allowed me to do all kinds of things (often by manhandling bits of the room I'm in rather than using stuff in my inventory) that are a lot of fun while not sacrificing my attack. And there's not any resource pool or anything attached to that, just something fun I can use in different ways over and over and over.

It being so open ended allowed me to use it in all kinds of interesting ways while a more narrow and pinned down class ability that can only be used in one way doesn't give you the same feeling of fun when you use it since you're just playing a round peg in a round hole over and over, it just feels mechanical. A lot of spells or class abilities in 5e are "make X problem go away" abilities and that can make for boring gameplay:

GM: X problem is happening!
Player: I use my "make X problem go away ability!"
GM: The problem goes away. Moving on...

As you point out things like knock that trade one problem for another one are more interesting.

Of course open-ended ability like the thief's fast hands ability are harder to balance and write rules for so there's always the temptation for the designers to get rid of things like that to make the rules system more tight and predictable and we can see the 6e UA specifically gutting Fast Hands, which makes me think that 6e has some design philosophy behind it that might not fit so well with my play style.


No, that's not the point. This thread isn't about casters or martials. It's about not loading all the resources that characters have into one generic pool. It's against, for instance, the UA ranger having to spend spell slots to do anything interesting. Or druids hypothetically having to spend spell slots to wild shape.

It's saying that a diversity of resources is good. And that all classes should have several, non fungible, non shared resources to use. That's all. The details of how that resources are allocated or used are not part of my point with this thread. It's even within a class--wizards shouldn't fuel everything on spell slots. Monks should have some things they can do X/day without burning ki. Lay on hands and divine sense shouldn't come out of the same pool or share pools of uses with anyone else. You shouldn't get better at smiting by taking sorcerer levels. Etc.

What I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around is how casting can be "one generic pool" since casting can cover just about ANYTHING. it just seems weird to me that, say, the cleric class is built around channeling divine power in the form of spells that can do random magical effects but ALSO getting a "channel divinity" power that is distinct from spells that are magic that clerics can do that channels divine power that do things that are more or less the same as spells. Just seems needlessly repetitive and fiddly to me to have two whole class abilities and resource pools that are the same things both flavor-wise (channel divine power) and in rules terms (do a random magical things that can be most anything).

I rather preferred what you were saying here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654398-Class-Design-Philosophy-Unique-Cool-Things I would prefer to have the designers go all in to give each class a really cool unique thing than to have each class have different things to juggle.

If you want to make casting less generic you can have the systems of learning and memorizing spells differ more than how they do in 5e (as I talked about upthread) or have different sub-class be able to add riders on certain spells (like order clerics) but since magic can do mostly freaking ANYTHING I don't see why full casting classes need other stuff on top of that to be interesting. Just make the way each class approaches casting be more unique.

There's also the issue that by giving EVERY class "several, non fungible, non shared resources to use" would make 6e harder to me to run. If my younger son wants to tag along and D&D with his older brother I can give him a simple character and have him shove that class's resources in the face of the enemy and he's happy. But he's too young to juggle "several, non fungible, non shared resources to use" so if a game had that I wouldn't be able to play it with my younger son and that'd make me sad.

Instead of just loading up a lot of **** on each character, focus more on making the **** they do have flexible and open ended (like my beloved Fast Hands ability).

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around is how casting can be "one generic pool" since casting can cover just about ANYTHING. it just seems weird to me that, say, the cleric class is built around channeling divine power in the form of spells that can do random magical effects but ALSO getting a "channel divinity" power that is distinct from spells that are magic that clerics can do that channels divine power that do things that are more or less the same as spells. Just seems needlessly repetitive and fiddly to me to have two whole class abilities and resource pools that are the same things both flavor-wise (channel divine power) and in rules terms (do a random magical things that can be most anything).

I rather preferred what you were saying here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654398-Class-Design-Philosophy-Unique-Cool-Things I would prefer to have the designers go all in to give each class a really cool unique thing than to have each class have different things to juggle.

If you want to make casting less generic you can have the systems of learning and memorizing spells differ more than how they do in 5e (as I talked about upthread) or have different sub-class be able to add riders on certain spells (like order clerics) but since magic can do mostly freaking ANYTHING I don't see why full casting classes need other stuff on top of that to be interesting. Just make the way each class approaches casting be more unique.

There's also the issue that by giving EVERY class "several, non fungible, non shared resources to use" would make 6e harder to me to run. If my younger son wants to tag along and D&D with his older brother I can give him a simple character and have him shove that class's resources in the face of the enemy and he's happy. But he's too young to juggle "several, non fungible, non shared resources to use" so if a game had that I wouldn't be able to play it with my younger son and that'd make me sad.

Instead of just loading up a lot of **** on each character, focus more on making the **** they do have flexible and open ended (like my beloved Fast Hands ability).

I have a huge problem with the "magic can do anything" idea. Because "can do anything" is isomorphic to "does everything" (thematically). And classes that can do everything can never be given any kind of uniqueness. Personally, casting should be brought down so that there is room for other things. "I cast spells" should never be a class's primary or only identity, because that's not an identity. It's shared with anyone else who casts spells at all.

And these resources don't have to be big. Look at the paladin--they're a poster-child of resources done right. They've got
a) channel divinity
b) spells + smite
c) lay on hands
d) divine sense

Most of those are small effects or situational. But if they all used spell slots, they'd never get used at all because they're always worse than smiting (or maybe spells).

[Bosh]

I have a huge problem with the "magic can do anything" idea. Because "can do anything" is isomorphic to "does everything" (thematically). And classes that can do everything can never be given any kind of uniqueness. Personally, casting should be brought down so that there is room for other things. "I cast spells" should never be a class's primary or only identity, because that's not an identity. It's shared with anyone else who casts spells at all.

And these resources don't have to be big. Look at the paladin--they're a poster-child of resources done right. They've got
a) channel divinity
b) spells + smite
c) lay on hands
d) divine sense

Most of those are small effects or situational. But if they all used spell slots, they'd never get used at all because they're always worse than smiting (or maybe spells).

Two points here, paladins and spellcasting.

My older son's favorite class in 5e is the paladin and they have a lot of things going for them: a decently strong beatstick class with a good suite of abilities to keep it from being boring for most people. Paladins do what they set out to do just fine. However, just because paladins are a solid class means that other classes need to be similar. For example my younger son finds that there are too many thing to juggle while playing a paladin and I find paladins a bit boring to play since most of their abilities are "good number goes up!" (lay on hands, smite, auras) while I like more open-ended things like my beloved Fast Hands that can used in a variety of ways.

However, for paladins I could see a version of them without spellcasting in which smites could have various riders instead of just radiant damage. Seems a bit redundant for paladins to have both a smite ability and several smite spells. I'm not sure if they NEED so many things in order to be fun.

Now for spell casting. You said: ""I cast spells" should never be a class's primary or only identity," well, what else is the identity of a wizard? As for clerics they don't really have much of an identity outside of that, despite 5e's channel divinity giving them something that's thematically completely redundant with casting spells.

Think of "I cast spells" as a block of granite. Obviously giving a slew of classes each a big block of granite is redundant. What you have to do is carve away at that granite by restricting it in various ways to make each one unique so that each spellcasting class gets an interesting statue carved out of the granite instead of just a boring block. Some ways to carve away at the granite:

1. Give more distinct spell lists to each class and perhaps spells that are unique to certain sub-classes.

2. Give more distinct means of managing spell slots to each class, as opposed to 5e which feels very samey (full Vancian with no repeats memorized for wizards, 5e standard for sorcerers, having your spells more closely tied to domain with the possibility of multiple domains for clerics, etc. etc. see my post upthread).

3. Give various subclasses riders to add to their spells (like the Order cleric in 5e).

4. Make more interesting spells with built in trade-offs (Knock opens doors BUT makes a lot of noise) rather than "I cast a spell and problem goes away" or more open-ended spells that reward creativity (I love Command so much).

5. Have different ways of recharging spell slots possibly for some classes (draining your own Hit Dice to do some last ditch power as a sorcerer, doing a specific god-sanctioned course of action for a cleric, reading a spell directly off of your spell book which erases it from your spell book for a wizard, etc. etc.).

Plenty of ways to carve that granite.

Also from a class balance perspective, full casting in powerful enough in D&D that full casting classes either up overpowered or with a pretty minor additional shtick. Classes that need more than just casting to be interesting (bards!) really really shouldn't be full casters (bards!) from a simple game balance perspective unless there is a large-scale across the board nerf to casting that'd require a ground up reworking to a lot of D&D which would be beyond which is we can expect to see from a relatively conservative edition like 6e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If (note the conditional, I'm not convinced that's fully true in general) full casting conflicts with actually having interesting features that set you apart (and no, small differences in what color your blob is don't count as interesting), then maybe no one should be a full caster. Leave level 6+ spells as rare rituals (in the classic sense) or the powers of foes like liches, not something PCs can do on their own resources. Heck, they could keep those slots but not get the spells. And then get features that tie into up casting.

But really, if every full caster was more like a sorcerer or warlock (or even cleric, really), the issue goes away (as long a you remove or fix a couple specific spells). Relatively few known spells and/or highly narrow, thematic list gives plenty of room for other interesting features. Sure, the wizard needs to change. But that's fine, it has no meaning other than to steal everyone else's cool toys and say "I do that better". Which is a horrible niche.

[stoutstien]

One advantage of the multiple pool approach in classes is that even if they are a tad more complex, like the paladin, you don't have to play them in one certain "correct" way for them to work.
This allows players to slowly dip into the complexity on their terms rather then complexity acting as gatekeeping for certain classes or options.

[Bosh]

If (note the conditional, I'm not convinced that's fully true in general) full casting conflicts with actually having interesting features that set you apart (and no, small differences in what color your blob is don't count as interesting), then maybe no one should be a full caster. Leave level 6+ spells as rare rituals (in the classic sense) or the powers of foes like liches, not something PCs can do on their own resources. Heck, they could keep those slots but not get the spells. And then get features that tie into up casting.

But really, if every full caster was more like a sorcerer or warlock (or even cleric, really), the issue goes away (as long a you remove or fix a couple specific spells). Relatively few known spells and/or highly narrow, thematic list gives plenty of room for other interesting features. Sure, the wizard needs to change. But that's fine, it has no meaning other than to steal everyone else's cool toys and say "I do that better". Which is a horrible niche.

Well part of the problem with a proliferation of classes is that to make new classes you have to carve off slices of old classes. This has been especially bad with the fighter as so many classes carve off pieces of the fighter's niche until not much is left besides "I hit it with my axe." Same goes for wizards. Originally the whole reason for having sorcerers in 3.0ed was a lot of people not liking Vancian casters (which, fair enough, I love Vancian casting but it's not for everyone) but now that wizards aren't Vancian anymore there's a **** ton of conceptual overlap and the best way to resolve that is to carve off pieces of the wizard's niche.

If you have fewer more interesting classes you don't NEED stuff aside from "I cast spells" to make a class unique.

But then I have fairly strong OSR tendencies (although not THAT strong, I really wish OSR games would get over their bizarre stubbornness to defend every drop of Gygaxian bathwater) and think that a lot of problems with 5e could be solved by bringing back things from TSR-D&D in a modified form (for example high level fighters being INCREDIBLY good at saving throws just to throw out a really simple example).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well part of the problem with a proliferation of classes is that to make new classes you have to carve off slices of old classes. This has been especially bad with the fighter as so many classes carve off pieces of the fighter's niche until not much is left besides "I hit it with my axe." Same goes for wizards. Originally the whole reason for having sorcerers in 3.0ed was a lot of people not liking Vancian casters (which, fair enough, I love Vancian casting but it's not for everyone) but now that wizards aren't Vancian anymore there's a **** ton of conceptual overlap and the best way to resolve that is to carve off pieces of the wizard's niche.

If you have fewer more interesting classes you don't NEED stuff aside from "I cast spells" to make a class unique.

But then I have fairly strong OSR tendencies (although not THAT strong, I really wish OSR games would get over their bizarre stubbornness to defend every drop of Gygaxian bathwater) and think that a lot of problems with 5e could be solved by bringing back things from TSR-D&D in a modified form (for example high level fighters being INCREDIBLY good at saving throws just to throw out a really simple example).

Except the fighter and wizard aren't interesting at all. They're vague and their entire problem is that they have no niche. Smaller, more thematic classes do steal pieces of them...which they should. Because "does everything magic" or "does everything martial" sucks both mechanically and thematically as a form of class design. At least as soon as you have more than maybe three classes (I Fight, I Cast Spells, and I ... do non-magic non-fighting stuff?).

[Bosh]

Except the fighter and wizard aren't interesting at all. They're vague and their entire problem is that they have no niche. Smaller, more thematic classes do steal pieces of them...which they should. Because "does everything magic" or "does everything martial" sucks both mechanically and thematically as a form of class design. At least as soon as you have more than maybe three classes (I Fight, I Cast Spells, and I ... do non-magic non-fighting stuff?).

I think either vague or thematic classes can work.

Vague: works well if the class is built around a mechanic that can do a lot of different things and works best if players come up with a character concept first and then look for a class that fits that. A vague class with no hardcoded niche can work well for that since it's a big basket that can catch many different character concepts.

Thematic: has a built-in niche and a lot of hardcoded flavor. Works well for giving players something solid to work with but can be frustrating to deal with if you have a character concept that falls in between the themes of the classes in the game and can require some work-arounds (for example in 5e my favorite class is the barbarogue since there's no class that really fits my default character concept).

Both can work well. What DOESN'T work well is if you mix both of them, which D&D has had a loooooooooong history of doing ever since classes started proliferating off of the original three.