D&D 5E Multiclass vs. hybrid subclasses

[FrogReaver]

1. Fighter 1/Lore Bard 4. Take Inspiring Leader and healing/buff spells. You're one level behind a pure bard in spellcasting, but are a MUCH harder target with Heavy Armor, a shield, and Armor style. Pure fighters don't do the "suport tank" role well, so comparision here would be inapt. Better is to compare the multiclass to a Life Cleric 5: the multiclass is slightly better at debuffing and maintaining concentration at the cost of healing power and 1 level of spellcasting. Definitely comparable.
2. Why a paladin/sorcerer wouldn't take BB/GFB is beyond me, but even without them the combination of Divine Smite with Sorcerer spell slots in a Pal 2/Sor 3 is enough extra nova damage to compete with the stead(ier) dps of a Paladin 5, and with heavy armor is much more survivable than (and has slmost as many spell slots as) a Sorcerer 5. Either way the multiclass is comparable to one of the single classes.
3. Cleric 1/Aburation Wizard 4. MUCH harder to kill than either a pure Life Cleric or a pure Abjuration Wizard, a lot more 1st level spells known, and an identical number of spell slots all in exchange for being a level beind on maximum spell level. Definitely comparable to either pure class.
4. VHuman BM Fighter 4/(Variant) Ranger 1: The nova potential of Ambuscade with Action Surge, Superiority Dice, and CE/SS is almost unmatched at this level. It easily holds its own against the Fighter 5 or a Ranger 5 (and starting at level 6 leaves most (not all) of the pure class builds in the dust.
5. Paladin 2/Bard 3: See the analysis for Paladin/Sorcerer above.
6. This one is dependent on if your DM uses (and how they interpret) the errata for unarmed strikes. Fighter 1/Open-Hand Monk 4: Does 3 attacks at 2 more damage apiece (while Ki lasts) with lesser debuffs on furry as opposed to the Monk 5's 3 attacks with a chance to stun. Sure, stunning is better than a 30%ish damage boost, but at level 6 the multiclass gets stunning and extra attack too and still has the damage boost. Definately comparable. Also compares well to many (not all) Fighter 5 builds, trading some damage for increased control from open hand.
7. BM Fighter 3/Moon Druid 2 is a much superior wild-shape combatant to a Moon Druid 5, having more nova potential and dealing more damage per hit on an identical number of attacks. (The difference will be lessened at level 6, but the multiclass still hold its own.) Makes up for its melee strength with cinsiderably fewer spells when out of wildshape, but the extra specialization is arguably a worthwile tradeoff. Also has just as many attacks as a Fighter 5, better mental stats, and vastly superior available HP, at the cost of lower hit bonuses and much lower AC. (To put either single class to shame, grab Sentinel and Commander's Strike and be ridden by a PC Mastermind Rogue with Mounted Combat.)

1. IMO not comparable. Pure bard far outperforms. Level 3 spells like hypnotic pattern are hard to overcome. Not to mention short rest recharge bard inspiration instead of long rest. You are giving those things up for heavy armor?
2. IMO not comparable. You miss out on extra attack and don't get significantly more spells slots compared the Paladin 5. Also you miss out on the feat/stat bump and paladin oath benefit which isn't a trivial ability to leave out of the comparison.
3. Compared to a level 5 cleric you miss out on tide turning spells like spirit guardians and or fireball (the light cleric). Thus you are in a much worse position than a level 5 cleric at level 5. IMO not comparable.
4. I know very little about the abilities you cite so I'll leave this one alone. I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on it.
5. Same issues as 2.
6. As you mentioned, monk 5 is basically superior, ability to stun, extra attack and an extra ki. You want to give those abilities up for +2 damage in the best case on all your attacks? IMO not comparable.
7. This one is legitimate. Congragulations on finding one character build out of 7 that isn't much inferior to a single class at level 5. Even then it's only comparable because while I think druids get some of the worst level 3 spells of casters, they still get some pretty nice level 3 spells.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think that Monk 5 is so much better than Monk 3 rogue 2 that they are not comparable. I also believe rogue 5 would be better than it as well. With that said I understand your goal was to push stealth as high early as possible and this character achieves that better than most I've seen.

However, Consider a Monk 5 with 18 dex (since he gets the stat bump). With proficiency in stealth and pass without trace activated and +4 dex mod he comes in at 17 dex. The monk 3/rogue 2 you created comes in at 19.

IMO, all you have done at level 5 is created a watered down and less powerful monk with +2 higher stealth than he normally would have.

With that said I see a lot of benefit to adding rogue to monk post level 5 if one desired.

Of course they are different. What would be the point of multiclassing then? But DPR is by no means the only metric. Heavy armor, con save proficiency to not lose hunters mark all the time. Second fighting style, either more AC or if you don't use heavy armor and have decent dexterity for +2 to hit with bows. You could even be a polearm master or dual wielder if you start human and say wear medium armor. Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, wis 14, Int 8, cha 8. You could also be a heavy armor master or medium armor master and increase Dex and lower con a bit. Depending on how important stealth or AC is for you, there are many possibilities to not suck. Ranger DPR is high but his defense is often a bit lackluster. And kissing the ground all the time lowers DPR quite a bit.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course they are different. But DPR is by no means the only metric. Heavy armor, con save proficiency to not lose hunters mark all the time. Second fighting style, either more AC or if you don't use heavy armor and have decent dexterity for +2 to hit with bows. You could even be a polearm master or dual wielder if you start human and say wear medium armor. Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, wis 14, Int 8, cha 8. You could also be a heavy armor master or medium armor master and lower con a bit. Depending on how important stealth or AC is for you.

I'm confused a bit. Maybe you hit quote on the wrong post?

In any event. I haven't claimed nor insinuated that DPR is the only metric. However, if you are simply gaining a small bonus toward some other goal and want to take a major hit in DPR I will argue everytime that it's not worth the tradeoff.

That said, in the actual Monk3/Rogue2 vs Rogue 5 post you quoted the monk is less powerful because he is missing features like stun, extra attack and extra ki. Most of these features can be used defensively if one desired. Stun disables. Attacks can shove back. Ki can be used to dodge or disengage. So please don't mistake any mentions of power solely for damage. And please don't mistakes any mentions of being worse at damage as ignoring all other considerations.

 

[Yunru]

You are no where near a level 5 Ranger in effectiveness. You gain an extra fighting style and action surge and second wind. You give up, 2 level 2 spell slots, 1 level 1 spell slot, extra attack, stat bump.

IMO, your combination is simply not comparable a level 5 ranger.

You are nowhere near unbiased enough to make that statement. See, I can make statements too.

You give up level 2 slots, which the Fighter didn't have. You give up 1 level 1 slot, which the Fighter didn't have. You give up Extra Attack, but not really unless there's not two adjacent enemies.
You give up a stat bump? Congrats, your first valid counterpoint.

IMO your analysis is simply not comparable to one that would be part of a civilized discussion.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm confused a bit. Maybe you hit quote on the wrong post?

In any event. I haven't claimed nor insinuated that DPR is the only metric. However, if you are simply gaining a small bonus toward some other goal and want to take a major hit in DPR I will argue everytime that it's not worth the tradeoff.

That said, in the actual Monk3/Rogue2 vs Rogue 5 post you quoted the monk is less powerful because he is missing features like stun, extra attack and extra ki. Most of these features can be used defensively if one desired. Stun disables. Attacks can shove back. Ki can be used to dodge or disengage. So please don't mistake any mentions of power solely for damage. And please don't mistakes any mentions of being worse at damage as ignoring all other considerations.

Yes. Wrong post quoted.
Missing stunning strike is indeed a hit and I agree. However ranger 5 vs the fighter multiclass I wrote about is a tough one.
I probably value defense a lot higher than you. Depending on the party composition it may be important.

I also don't consider a fighter bard multiclasd as bad as you. Starting fighter gives you very high AC and CON save proficiency. Even without using weapons all that much you can now actually stand in melee and hold your concentration. So consider fighter 1 or 2 and bard 3 or 4. Make it 1/4 to not lose the ability score increase. Be a half elf. Have Str 16, Dex8, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 16 Dual wield Hand axes. You even have cutting words to use as a reaction so using the bonus action is not terrible. If you really want AC, use a longsword and a shield and defensive style. AC 19 at level 1 Probably more at 5. You still have an ability score increase left. Yeah you muss out level 3 spells but you make up fir it with reliability.

Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not entirely sure how the "comparability" between a single-classed and multi-classed character of equal level matters in any meaningful way since it often misses the point of why people often multiclass in the first place.

Let's take a paladin/sorcerer as one example. It may not be purely combat performance they are seeking, but something else entirely. She may, for example, be hoping to be a dragonborn dragonknight who has draconic sorcery. An eldritch knight does not quite fill that niche, as written, and what she has in mind is closer to a paladin but also with some of the dragonblood sorcerer abilities. It may be "just a ribbon ability," but she may actually want the bonus to charisma checks when dealing with dragons as a core part of her character concept. (And having this ability on her dragon-devoted character may actually prove exceptionally handy in the course of the campaign dealing with dragons.)

Let's state the obvious. A purebred paladin will be able to carry/pull the weight of paladin responsibilities better than a MC paladin/sorcerer can. Likewise, a purebred sorcerer will be able to carry/pull the weight of sorcerer responsibilities better than a MC paladin/sorcerer can. But the player of the paladin/sorcerer is not necessarily multiclassing for the sake of carrying the weight of either a pure paladin or pure sorcerer but of some other, albeit similar, niche. She cannot necessarily out-paladin a purebred paladin, but she can out-sorcerer the purebred paladin. She cannot necessarily out-sorcerer a purebred sorcerer, but she can out-paladin the purebred sorcerer. Whatever the case may be, she will be delaying her class abilities. So what?

The delay in a class ability and the loss of higher level abilities will always be part of the trade-off for multiclass characters. Yes, 3rd level spells are great. But the value or effectiveness of a character exists beyond the race to 3rd level spells, extra attack, or what other absurd metric becomes the moved goalpost. For many players who multiclass, it's a bit of a moot point. It tends to be about character concept more than anything else and the impact in the ambiguous arena of "character effectiveness" is often negligible at most tables. Until a single-class character class exists that can fill the mechanical and conceptual niche occupied by particular multiclass combinations, people will multiclass as such regardless of what anyone will tell them about how multiclassing sucks. So if multiclassing truly does suck, as some insist, then perhaps it would be better not to discourage people from multiclassing, but, rather, to actually build equally-effective new classes that fill the gap in which these various multi-class combos live.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yunru, a Ranger 5 has hordebreaker and extra attack. No matter how you slice it you are down an attack in comparison.

You are nowhere near unbiased enough to make that statement. See, I can make statements too.

You give up level 2 slots, which the Fighter didn't have. You give up 1 level 1 slot, which the Fighter didn't have. You give up Extra Attack, but not really unless there's not two adjacent enemies.
You give up a stat bump? Congrats, your first valid counterpoint.

IMO your analysis is simply not comparable to one that would be part of a civilized discussion.

 

[Yunru]

Yunru, a Ranger 5 has hordebreaker and extra attack. No matter how you slice it you are down an attack in comparison.

So? A Ranger 5 doesn't have bonus action, spell-less healing, Action Surge, or a second fighting style.

Besides which, you asked for one that was comparable with a Ranger or Fighter. It's definitely comparable to a Fighter, and most likely comparable to a Ranger, if perhaps not as strong.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not entirely sure how the "comparability" between a single-classed and multi-classed character of equal level matters in any meaningful way since it often misses the point of why people often multiclass in the first place.

I totally understand why they do. I don't deny roleplay considerations can TRUMP mechanical considerations. However, the fact that when it comes to multiclassing the roleplay considerations often do have to trump mechanical considerations is what informs my belief that multiclassing the 5e way is a poor vehicle to getting the character one wants to play. In general there shouldn't be such a wide gap between single class character concepts and character concepts that require more than 1 class.

Let's take a paladin/sorcerer as one example. It may not be purely combat performance they are seeking, but something else entirely. She may, for example, be hoping to be a dragonborn dragonknight who has draconic sorcery. An eldritch knight does not quite fill that niche, as written, and what she has in mind is closer to a paladin but also with some of the dragonblood sorcerer abilities. It may be "just a ribbon ability," but she may actually want the bonus to charisma checks when dealing with dragons as a core part of her character concept. (And having this ability on her dragon-devoted character may actually prove exceptionally handy in the course of the campaign dealing with dragons.)

Yes, what is generally a bad mechanical character may shine in some specific campaign settings. Yes there are exceptions to every rule, to every generalization. With that said our discussion is supposed to be about pros and cons of the multiclass system to hybrid system. Here's the rub. The hybrid system allows for that exact character concept in a mechanically powerful way. None of the current classes/subclasses cover that concept but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better covered by a hybrid class+subclass whether homebrew or official when wotc gets to it.

Let's state the obvious. A purebred paladin will be able to carry/pull the weight of paladin responsibilities better than a MC paladin/sorcerer can. Likewise, a purebred sorcerer will be able to carry/pull the weight of sorcerer responsibilities better than a MC paladin/sorcerer can. But the player of the paladin/sorcerer is not necessarily multiclassing for the sake of carrying the weight of either a pure paladin or pure sorcerer but of some other, albeit similar, niche. She cannot necessarily out-paladin a purebred paladin, but she can out-sorcerer the purebred paladin. She cannot necessarily out-sorcerer a purebred sorcerer, but she can out-paladin the purebred sorcerer. Whatever the case may be, she will be delaying her class abilities. So what?

Well that kind of is a very big what. Delaying powerful class abilities for piddly little class abilities from another class.

The delay in a class ability and the loss of higher level abilities will always be part of the trade-off for multiclass characters. Yes, 3rd level spells are great. But the value or effectiveness of a character exists beyond the race to 3rd level spells, extra attack, or what other absurd metric becomes the moved goalpost. For many players who multiclass, it's a bit of a moot point. It tends to be about character concept more than anything else and the impact in the ambiguous arena of "character effectiveness" is often negligible at most tables. Until a single-class character class exists that can fill the mechanical and conceptual niche occupied by particular multiclass combinations, people will multiclass as such regardless of what anyone will tell them about how multiclassing sucks. So if multiclassing truly does suck, as some insist, then perhaps it would be better not to discourage people from multiclassing, but, rather, to actually build equally-effective new classes that fill the gap in which these various multi-class combos live.

Besides your accusation of moving the goal posts and such I cannot find much wrong with the above.

I think framed this way we will both agree:
Multiclassing allows the existing classes/subclasses to cover a wider array of character concepts. It doesn't typically do so in the most mechanically efficient way but when no other option exists for a particular concept then it's not a terrible way to reach that concept out of the "building blocks" already provided in the existing classes.

However, any concept multiclassing can create, it would be better filled mechanically by a class/subclass specifically designed for the concept.

 

[FrogReaver]

So? A Ranger 5 doesn't have bonus action, spell-less healing, Action Surge, or a second fighting style.

Besides which, you asked for one that was comparable with a Ranger or Fighter. It's definitely comparable to a Fighter, and most likely comparable to a Ranger, if perhaps not as strong.

Yunru, "or" was the correct word choice. I couldn't have said "and" because almost no mutliclass is going to be comparable to both level 5 versions of the classes making it up. So while you can technically be right with the English language about my phrase being able to mean it the way you are using it now. It's obvious I did not mean it that way. If it wasn't obvious before then it should be now.

So, Ranger 3/Fighter 2 is not comparable to a Ranger 5. Thus, you have not provided an example that meets the intent of my request. I've stated my case. The extra fighting style, 2nd wind and action surge is far behind 2 level 2 spells slots, 1 level 1 spell slot, extra attack and a stat bump. Those are the only differences in Ranger 5 and Ranger 3/Fighter 2.