D&D 5E How many classes in multiclass is to much?
CydKnight
Explorer
As a DM I try to allow players to do what they want within RaR and a few minor house or campaign rules and do my best not to judge. As a PC, for me personally, multi-classing at all is too much. Call me a Class Purist? It's just that in 5E you can make the classes pretty diverse as it is (at least for me) and if you are an optimizer I feel you give up to much by even dipping a single level in this or that to justify the gains.
I do understand how it creates more character diversity for some which can be exciting for creating that unique multi-class concept. Still I don't think I will personally every play a multi-classed PC though I may in a scenario where we are playing a one-shot and that was one of the prerequisites for character creation.
I do understand how it creates more character diversity for some which can be exciting for creating that unique multi-class concept. Still I don't think I will personally every play a multi-classed PC though I may in a scenario where we are playing a one-shot and that was one of the prerequisites for character creation.
delph
Explorer
My DM is the same. He still tells single class with good feat is better than multiclass. But I'm not sure. I try to combine every possibility and no feat can give me the same result, nor stronger. They are better in some part, but I think not in full game. Maybe spellcasters can be damaged by lesser spell slots and spells. But melee/ranged classes aren't so penalized from not get 20 lvl.
Esker
Hero
And I've started as Fighter, then take one lvl Rogue.
And my progress is biggest problem for me nowNow I think about get fighter to 3, then start Ranger and finish with rogue...
Keep in mind that that progression (Fighter 1 --> Rogue 1 --> Fighter 3 --> Ranger 5 --> Rogue X) delays your first ASI until level 8, your second until level 11, and your third until level 15. Boosting your DEX is strictly better than picking up defense style. Note also that the benefit of colossus slayer, which costs you three levels of ranger, can be pretty much replicated by two more levels of rogue. Given your start at Fighter 1 / Rogue 1, I'd suggest taking at least one of those two classes (maybe both!) to at least level 4 for an ASI before starting on Ranger. And at that point, you may as well pick up Fighter 5 for extra attack, in which case... do you need any ranger levels at all? Why not just go Fighter 5 / Rogue X, taking arcane trickster and maybe magic initiate for some magic if that's an important part of your concept?
delph
Explorer
That was my first idea. But now i wanna made it like i wrote. And about ASI - i know it's little bit late, bit I'm not in hurry. My first ASI will not ne ASI, bit feat charger. On 3th lvl ranger I'll get Zephyr strike, And on 4th lvl it will be very good combo, I think.
Esker
Hero
You should do what's the most fun for you, obviously. I can't help but note, though, that both charger and zephyr strike are less valuable when you have rogue levels. Charger is diminished since a rogue can already dash and attack in the same turn using an action and bonus action. And the three additional rogue levels you could have instead of ranger levels would be worth about 5 extra damage anyway. And of course, once you have extra attack, charger is costing you two attacks to gain back one; much better to cunning action dash and then use your full action to attack. Zephyr strike does free up your bonus action to dash if you want to do a lot of "charge-by" attacks, and advantage is nice, but it's hard to imagine needing to dash a whole *lot* of the time, and again, you're giving up a lot to get it: a DEX boost gives you an always-on +1 to hit and to damage, another +5ish damage per turn from the extra sneak attack scaling, ..., and an arcane trickster (or swashbuckler with magic initiate) with an owl familiar may be able to get advantage on a whole lot of attacks out of that 1st level spell slot.
Andrew Gupta
First Post
I multiclass a lot. Most of my D&D characters over the past 42 years have been multiclassed in some way. But it is always to serve the purpose of modeling the character.
So my answer to your question is: any class added not required to model the character concept is probably one too many.
To be clear, I’m not saying the concept can’t grow or change over time. Most do. But if you find yourself shoehorning levels of fighter onto a character you’ve always imagined as being a weak meleer, you’re probably not being true to the character’s core concept.
I generally approach multiclassing as a logic exercise. For every multiclass level you take you have to give up high-end abilities in your core class. For example, most assassin build go F2/R3 to start, which means no capstone in either class. So you have to balance what you're gaining with what you're losing (all assuming you go all the way to 20th). Mostly I find MC concepts work fine with just the two classes, but occasionally there's good story and mechanics in a 3rd dip.
So I start by asking myself "what do I want this character to be able to do?" Then I mess around with different dips and classes until the total package looks something like what I wanted. After that you just have to figure out what order to take the levels in and you're good.
So I start by asking myself "what do I want this character to be able to do?" Then I mess around with different dips and classes until the total package looks something like what I wanted. After that you just have to figure out what order to take the levels in and you're good.
Yep, that’s essentially what I do.
However, I try to look at it from the in character perspective as well. So each class, feat, skill, spell and what have you looks like a decision made by the character, not by some gamer dude.
...which is why a certain lightning-obsessed, lightning-breathing Sorcerer of blue dragon descent had ONLY electrical/lightning spells as his offensive arsenal.
Similar Threads
