OneD&D UA - THE CLERIC AND REVISED SPECIES

[Psyren]

I'm also wondering on encounter design in 1dnd. It used to be "everything over 60' movement starts to become niche". Or "kiting is hard'ish to do". But now we've got:

Everyone having at least 30' movement.
Wood elves with 35' movement and Longstrider.
High elves with Misty Step.
Goliaths with 35'/45' large movement (and Cloud pseudo-misty step).
Ardlings with climb speeds or +profx10' dashes.

Alongside any other jank or difficult terrain removing abilities in sub/classes. Does it hint at a more open/ kite heavy environment? Or even 3d depth to consider in campaigns? Or just "dungeons/ building/ room size will limit that, but outside them it might/ will really matter"?

(Just wondering because original UA stuff tends to also portray at least a bit of core-gameplay design philosophy. Sort of like how 5e wasn't like the Next tests, but it was pretty close. Maybe Jumping is an action for a reason, because otherwise it would all be kiting/shooting rooftop shenanigans)

Don't forget Orcs who can double-Dash, and Dragonborn getting straight-up flight, also being core.

I agree this appears to be a deliberate design shift for 1DnD. If I had to guess at reasons, I'd land on two:

1) Increasing low-level survivability seems to be a big focus for them - see also them fiddling with things like the monster crit rule, and recommending feats like Tough for people who don't know what else to pick as their starter. They might have data somewhere that says that a high cause for new groups bouncing off D&D is getting downed or TPK during an early/unlucky combat session. They want to preserve the sense of danger - otherwise they would just give us all more HP and call it a day - but more speed/mobility means more get-out-of-trouble cards, as well as more reposition-to-safety-then-attack ones.

2) They want low-level characters to feel more heroic. Movement is an easy way to enable that - when you're quite literally running rings around a goblin, or able to quickly get between some bandits and some commoners, your character feels more like they're saving the day / superhuman.

[sambojin]

True. In some ways, I kinda like it.

[Tanarii]

I'd personally be fine with Fighter and Paladin (and maybe others that grant heavy armor proficiency if taken as your sole/first class, but those definitely) granting heavy armor proficiency with a single level dip, too.

This doesn't fix the problem.

Alternatively, make the Warrior Order give you Medium armor and shield proficiency if you don't already have it, and heavy armor proficiency if you do. And then make Cleric give you MEdium armor and shield proficiency if it's your first class, or light armor proficiency only if it's a multiclass. If it's so important to keep heavy armor prof. from being a dippable acquisition.

Also does not fix the problem.

The problem is that for 1 level of a class, you get several ASI/Feats worth of stuff: an armor prof upgrade of (even with the 'fix' you propose) at least 1 bump up, usually a weapons upgrade, as well as a number of class features.

Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.

[animorte]

This doesn't fix the problem.

Also does not fix the problem.

They should bump the multi-class requirement up to 14 in relevant stat.

Which still doesn’t address this:

Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll simplify that quote to say how I feel--

Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken[...].

Period. Level-by-level multiclassing and a class/level game don't go together well. It will always be a compromised mess. If it's not too strong it will be uselessly weak.

Now some may accept that. And that's their right. But I don't happen to like it, personally.

[Psyren]

Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.

Again, it's not "broken." Just athematic. The current 5e cleric granting Heavy at 1 wasn't making the sky careen to earth, they'd just rather not keep doing that. That's the "problem."

I'll simplify that quote to say how I feel--



Period. Level-by-level multiclassing and a class/level game don't go together well. It will always be a compromised mess. If it's not too strong it will be uselessly weak.

Now some may accept that. And that's their right. But I don't happen to like it, personally.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill - "level-by-level is the worst form of multiclassing, except for all the others."

[Segev]

This doesn't fix the problem.


Also does not fix the problem.

The problem is that for 1 level of a class, you get several ASI/Feats worth of stuff: an armor prof upgrade of (even with the 'fix' you propose) at least 1 bump up, usually a weapons upgrade, as well as a number of class features.

Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.

I honestly don't see it as a problem big enough to worry about. The price of multiclassing is always high enough that it just doesn't make for overpowered characters.

"You get too much!" Ignores what you lose, and that loss is as much in the forever-delayed access to abilities and features meant for lower levels than you will now get them. It's not so bad that it is not worth it, necessarily, but it is bad enough to be a cost one must consider and sometimes reject.

I am playing a druid in a game right now. The DM's extremely generous house rules allow full respecs until level 5. We just hit level 4. My concept is very rogue-y, but due to party composition andre way I wanted to approach the concept, he is a straight Druid 3. I have been seriously considering respecting so his first level is Rogue, for the much better skill proficiencies and the Expertise in two skills. The sneak attack even goes well with his preferred poisoned dagger approach to combat. But the delay on things he would have from delaying druid has me deciding that I am probably better off sticking with straight druid.

It isn't a sure thing, though. I am torn on it. And Rogue as level one is so, so much better than multiclassing into it later.

So I think it is probably fine, in terms of what you get vs. what you pay in opportunity costs by dipping even one level.

[Sorinth]

If the concern really is 1 level dip, then one potential solution is just to increase the penalties when not meeting the Strength Requirement. If in addition to the movement penalty you had disadvantage on initiative checks, or couldn't use your reaction that would probably stop dipping Cleric for HA in it's tracks. But it would still allow for the front-line Cleric build since they would want to meet there STR requirement anyways.

[Melil12]

Anyone thought about how changing the level structure affects backwards compatibility? For subclasses that won’t be redone for one dnd.

If you want say a Peace Domain cleric … how does that fit into this new One dnd format as backwards compatible? Do you then have to use the 5E cleric? Or just wait till they remake the Subclass?

[Segev]

Anyone thought about how changing the level structure affects backwards compatibility? For subclasses that won’t be redone for one dnd.

If you want say a Peace Domain cleric … how does that fit into this new One dnd format as backwards compatible? Do you then have to use the 5E cleric? Or just wait till they remake the Subclass?

Either use the 5.0 Cleric or wait for the subclass, probably. That's kind-of how it worked in 3.5: where backwards compatibility meant some class feature or choice wasn't viable, you either used the 3.0 version or you made due with what 3.5 gave you.

Note that there's a mix of things that go into "updating" to 5.1: you can easily use the 5.1 spells with 5.0 classes, for example. Or vice-versa.

I will probably try to encourage DMs to use 5.0 Keen Mind as an option, if 5.1 keeps the gutted version that was printed in the previous UA, for example.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah. It's not really heavy armour that is broken, it's the Shield spell that's the problem.

+3 rather than +5 then? (I like the proficiency idea, but that scales up rather largely in late game ... but when a CR 19 monster with a 29 STR has +15 to hit, is shield really that much of a problem, presuming Heavy Armor on Wizards/Full casters is gone?)
Just make a rule: Arcane Caster classes cannot wear heavy armor (or metal armor) because it interferes with (something).
Rune Knights and EK's are an exception...for "reasons to be determined".
Divine casters can.
Also: if they get rid of War Domain cleric I'd be perfectly happy.

They're allowed to want to prevent things that aren't a big deal mechanically for thematic reasons too. Dipping cleric for heavy armor training when not even martial classes can grant it is one such theme.

Yeah. But the whole "feel" argument gets turned over with their inane ardling gambit.
OK, here goes my rant: make Genasi Core, darnit!

I'm also wondering on encounter design in 1dnd.

We have time to discover that. Even in straight 5e it's a bit of a moving target.

We need to stop agreeing on solutions. People are looking at us funny now.

I'll cast fog cloud, so that can't see us doing that!

1)They might have data somewhere that says that a high cause for new groups bouncing off D&D is getting downed or TPK during an early/unlucky combat session.

Rant not indluged in.

2) They want low-level characters to feel more heroic. Movement is an easy way to enable that - when you're quite literally running rings around a goblin, or able to quickly get between some bandits and some commoners, your character feels more like they're saving the day / superhuman.

They need to read their own manual again.

In the first tier (levels 1–4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers. They are learning the features that define them as members of particular classes, including the major choices that flavor their class features as they advance (such as a wizard’s Arcane Tradition or a fighter’s Martial Archetype). The threats they face are relatively minor, usually posing a danger to local farmsteads or villages.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill - "level-by-level is the worst form of multiclassing, except for all the others."

There are a number of class restrictions in MC as is that can be tweaked to ensure that the one level dip exacts a higher cost ...

[Segev]

There are a number of class restrictions in MC as is that can be tweaked to ensure that the one level dip exacts a higher cost ...

I'm not sure it really needs to. The more this topic is discussed, the more I think the anti-MC position is motivated by being anti-MC rather than concern that MC is overpowered. I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that the premise for "we need to make MC less attractive" is often an unexamined assumption that MC is something to discourage.

If Multiclassing is to be discouraged, it should simply be banned. That can be done at a table level; it need not be baked into the rules for everybody playing the game. "But having to balance the game for MC makes game design harder!" Sure, and valid concern. But I don't think it makes it sufficiently harder that you should be bothered by discussion of it.

Generally speaking, the tools for balancing against making MC overpowered compared to staying in a single class amount to this: keep the single class interesting at every level, so every delayed level is an opportunity cost felt by the player.

The big "but it's so overpowered" things tend to be things like this thread's discussion: "I don't want a 1-level dip to give wizards heavy armor." But in the scheme of things, is a wizard delaying his access to higher-level spells by a level REALLY a negligible cost? Because that's how the "we can't let them 1-level dip for heavy armor!" argument seems to treat it. It almost seems like the opportunity cost of dipping is forgotten entirely, and treated as if the wizard gets to have the 1 level dip AND be a full wizard at the same time.

Again, I have what I consider a strong level 1 dip into cleric in a game I'm in right now. I took it at level 1 for character reasons on both the mechanical and "his path through life" side: he's a Knowledge Cleric raised in a temple orphanage who veered off into wizardry after absorbing enough training to be a cleric 1. So his first level, even, is cleric; an equivalent "Fighter 1/Wizard X" would not have his level 1 dip into Fighter be denied heavy armor proficiency, either. (I actually don't have heavy armor proficiency with this dip, due to Knowledge cleric, but if I did, it still wouldn't be a big deal: dex is a better secondary stat for me than strength would've been.)

With this dip, I consistently feel the pinch every odd level when I am a spell level behind. A couple of custom spells help as a work-around, to a degree - If you've read my thread on shadow evocation, you'll see why - but even so, it is a sting. Enough of one that the option to go full wizard in a respec would not be something I would reject out of hand; I'd have to think about it. I probably wouldn't take it because of those aforementioned flavor reasons; this build makes sense for this character. But it'd be tempting, nonetheless. And I think that shows that the wizard, at least, is well-designed in terms of its progression-attractiveness.

I'm feeling similarly about the option to take Rogue retroactively at level 1 with a third level druid I'm leveling up to 4th. In this case, despite the very tempting expertise and more skills and the fact that this character doesn't use damage cantrips but instead poisoned daggers, I am likely to just stick with druid for exactly the reason that levels 4 and 5 are painful to delay.


And, in the case of heavy armor: it's a very baked-in build choice. It isn't something you just "pick up" casually as a natural upgrade to medium armor. You need to have a strength of 15 or higher, and NOT to have a dexterity of 14 or higher, for it to really be worth it. The aesthetics are a bigger deal than the mechanics, honestly, and while I am all for thematic enforcement with mechanics, any "wizard type" who builds for heavy armor is deliberately going for the counter-theme aesthetic. And I think we should let him; it is hard enough to do, and encourages a different enough kind of character in terms of skills and approach to non-magic things, that it's simply not a problem.

It certainly isn't worse than a wizard with medium armor. And I don't see people bending into pretzels in apoplectic horror at the concept that they might dip Cleric or Fighter for that.

[Melil12]

And, in the case of heavy armor: it's a very baked-in build choice. It isn't something you just "pick up" casually as a natural upgrade to medium armor. You need to have a strength of 15 or higher, and NOT to have a dexterity of 14 or higher, for it to really be worth it. The aesthetics are a bigger deal than the mechanics, honestly, and while I am all for thematic enforcement with mechanics, any "wizard type" who builds for heavy armor is deliberately going for the counter-theme aesthetic. And I think we should let him; it is hard enough to do, and encourages a different enough kind of character in terms of skills and approach to non-magic things, that it's simply not a problem.

It certainly isn't worse than a wizard with medium armor. And I don't see people bending into pretzels in apoplectic horror at the concept that they might dip Cleric or Fighter for that.

Pretty much agree with this.

Heavy armor existing was never an issue, even if a caster spent feats or level dipped to get it. It still requires them to invest their resources to make it effective.

The real issue has always been the ways casters can stack AC and the shield spells interactions. Often times resulting in wizards trumping Martials in AC.

[GooeyChewie]

The real issue has always been the ways casters can stack AC and the shield spells interactions. Often times resulting in wizards trumping Martials in AC.

Sounds like we have an easy fix. Put a restriction on the Shield spell that says you cannot cast it while wearing heavy armor.

[Aquillion]

Sounds like we have an easy fix. Put a restriction on the Shield spell that says you cannot cast it while wearing heavy armor.

Or make Shield raise your AC to a specific value instead of by a specific value, which solves the problem at the root.

...hrm. The problem, though, is that certain gish classes are supposed to be able to benefit from that Shield interaction (it's a major feature for Eldritch Knights in particular.) Perhaps Eldritch Knights could just get a feature that makes Shield stronger for them, same as with Arcane Tricksters and Mage Hand.

[Xihirli]

Or medium armor / shields.
That’s more common with wizards anyway, to avoid the speed penalty.

[Psyren]

Yeah. But the whole "feel" argument gets turned over with their inane ardling gambit.

Rant not indulged in

They need to read their own manual again.

You mean the DMG?

"Even 1st-level characters are heroes, set apart from the common people by natural characteristics, learned skills, and the hint of a greater destiny that lies before them."

Anyone thought about how changing the level structure affects backwards compatibility? For subclasses that won’t be redone for one dnd.

If you want say a Peace Domain cleric … how does that fit into this new One dnd format as backwards compatible? Do you then have to use the 5E cleric? Or just wait till they remake the Subclass?

Looking at both versions of the Life Cleric, it looks like they've nerfed the domain-specific channel divinity feature (Preserve Life in Life's case) by pushing it back to 6th. This is likely to counterbalance the buff CD received at 1 via Divine Spark. The 6th level feature then got pushed back to 10. However, the "subcaspstone" got pulled down from 17th to 14th, meaning it will see play at a lot more tables.

Extrapolating from this to Peace we would get:

3: Domain spells, Emboldening Bond. (Implement of Peace would probably be removed as it's redundant with Holy Order.)

6: Balm of Peace

10: Protective Bond (NB: Potent Spellcasting removed as Blessed Strikes is now baseline.)

14: Expansive Bond

You'll want to look at the channel divinity and 10th (formerly 6th) level features to make sure they are powerful enough for their new level but other than that it's pretty compatible.

[stoutstien]

Or make Shield raise your AC to a specific value instead of by a specific value, which solves the problem at the root.

...hrm. The problem, though, is that certain gish classes are supposed to be able to benefit from that Shield interaction (it's a major feature for Eldritch Knights in particular.) Perhaps Eldritch Knights could just get a feature that makes Shield stronger for them, same as with Arcane Tricksters and Mage Hand.

Best bet is just give them a feature that does what you want it to do and cut out the noise trying to get anything that deals with spells to work properly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Best bet is just give them a feature that does what you want it to do and cut out the noise trying to get anything that deals with spells to work properly.

Yeah. Making everything a spell (or any other "reusable by many classes" thing like feats) comes with costs. One of them is that you can't fine-tune it. Which leads to either homogenization (to avoid the need to fine tune anything) and/or jank/distorted incentives (in either direction).

[Segev]

Pretty much agree with this.

Heavy armor existing was never an issue, even if a caster spent feats or level dipped to get it. It still requires them to invest their resources to make it effective.

The real issue has always been the ways casters can stack AC and the shield spells interactions. Often times resulting in wizards trumping Martials in AC.

And as you say, Medium armor is as much an issue with this as Heavy. (Or as little an issue, as the case may be.)

Frankly, I'd rather see martials get class features that enable spiking their AC against certain blows, rather than see wizards lose shield or have it become even more niche than it already is.

I am playing a wizard right now, but the number of times shield has made a difference is... 2, I think, in almost a year of play. If I'm getting hit, it's either a natural 20, or by so much more than my AC that a +5 is meaningless. Maybe this is just luck/vagaries of dice rolling, but even when I'm pseudo-tanking by using stacked AC and the dodge action to play wacky-wavey-armed-inflatable-tube-man in front of enemies with a fortuitously-chosen set of defenses, I get hit more than once per combat and I cast shield less than once per combat. And I do cast shield every time it would help. (The DM rolls his attack rolls in the open and tells us what he got.)

[animorte]

Looking at both versions of the Life Cleric

I made absolutely sure to do this when writing my review.

Extrapolating from this to Peace we would get:

You'll want to look at the channel divinity and 10th (formerly 6th) level features to make sure they are powerful enough for their new level but other than that it's pretty compatible.

I certainly hope so.

Frankly, I'd rather see martials get class features that enable spiking their AC against certain blows, rather than see wizards lose shield or have it become even more niche than it already is.

Parry as a reaction (not the maneuver).

[Tanarii]

But in the scheme of things, is a wizard delaying his access to higher-level spells by a level REALLY a negligible cost?

For medium or heavy armor and a shield, especially if it's Cleric so you get the spell slots accesss anyway? Yes, yes it is.

[Segev]

For medium or heavy armor and a shield, especially if it's Cleric so you get the spell slots accesss anyway? Yes, yes it is.

We disagree, then. The delay on higher level spells is a non-negligible cost I feel at least every odd level.

[animorte]

For medium or heavy armor and a shield, especially if it's Cleric so you get the spell slots accesss anyway? Yes, yes it is.

We disagree, then. The delay on higher level spells is a non-negligible cost I feel at least every odd level.

It depends on the cool features I’m getting from a dip. Just for armor? Absolutely not. If I dip, it’s going to be for some interesting flavor, a thematic inclusion to what I’m going for.

Yes, I feel when somebody else gets that higher level spell slot available, but I still have fun and have never struggled to keep up.

[ZRN]

The problem is that for 1 level of a class, you get several ASI/Feats worth of stuff: an armor prof upgrade of (even with the 'fix' you propose) at least 1 bump up, usually a weapons upgrade, as well as a number of class features.

Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.

Here's the thing: on balance, heavy armor isn't actually a strict "upgrade" from medium armor. Heavy armor gives you disadvantage on stealth and it requires a minimum strength score. And obviously medium armor is only an upgrade from light if you have <16 Dex.

Armor proficiencies/"training" don't generally increase your overall power level - they define the thematic possibilities for your character.

[Segev]

It depends on the cool features I’m getting from a dip. Just for armor? Absolutely not. If I dip, it’s going to be for some interesting flavor, a thematic inclusion to what I’m going for.

Yes, I feel when somebody else gets that higher level spell slot available, but I still have fun and have never struggled to keep up.

I didn't say I don't have fun. I said I feel the pinch. If the criterion for whether multiclassing is "too good" is "can you still have fun while multiclassing? Then it's too good!" then you're really just saying, "I don't want multiclassing to be allowed, and nobody who is doing it should be allowed to enjoy their character." The criterion for it should be whether the opportunity cost is felt; it is too good if you can multiclass and feel you lost nothing, and are strictly superior to single-classing.

I think we're actually in about the right place, though, where multiclassing is just good enough. And, if there's any flaw, it lies in the higher-level class features being too sparse or too weak.

[OvisCaedo]

There might be a couple individual cases where there are some multiclassing concerns for me, but... I'm not sure anything really springs to mind for me besides Hexblade being REALLY overloaded. And it's kind of a pretty silly subclass on its own even before multiclassing concerns.

[Tanarii]

It depends on the cool features I’m getting from a dip. Just for armor? Absolutely not.

The +6 AC or more is well worth it. Especially when paired with either keeping up with slot progression (Cleric) or getting Con saves (Fighter).

[animorte]

The criterion for it should be whether the opportunity cost is felt; it is too good if you can multiclass and feel you lost nothing, and are strictly superior to single-classing.

Correct.

I think we're actually in about the right place, though, where multiclassing is just good enough. And, if there's any flaw, it lies in the higher-level class features being too sparse or too weak.

This is probably true. That and some classes being front-loaded.

The +6 AC or more is well worth it. Especially when paired with either keeping up with slot progression (Cleric) or getting Con saves (Fighter).

It speaks volumes that it’s more valuable to drop a level, doesn’t it?

The solution still lies mostly within fixing multi-classing altogether. One of my ideas is a minimum of 14 (or maybe even 15) in prerequisite stat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Correct.

This is probably true. That and some classes being front-loaded.


It speaks volumes that it’s more valuable to drop a level, doesn’t it?

The solution still lies mostly within fixing multi-classing altogether. One of my ideas is a minimum of 14 (or maybe even 15) in prerequisite stat.

IMO, classes should be front-loaded. Because you want to be up and going, to have all your base tools to make your character actually work early on. Especially since the distribution of play-time is heavily front-loaded.

This is in inherent tension with level-by-level multiclassing. Thankfully, that latter is a variant option. Which automatically means that it loses any priority games and should be fixed to make it not care about front-loading. This may involve making it not level-by-level (or at least not full level-by-level), such as each class spelling out exactly what features you gain when if you multiclass into it. Which should be a strongly restricted subset of all the features.

IMO, multiclassing should always come out second class in any power comparison. Taking the next level of your original class should always produce a (vertically) stronger character than branching out, but branching out should be a source of horizontal growth, which some people might weight as more important for them.