D&D 5E Multiclass vs. hybrid subclasses

Hopefully pushing this thread in a more productive direction: I think what you expect to do with the PC determines whether you want to hybrid or multiclass. Many classes put most of the power in the class, and subclasses are like icing on the cake. So if you want the PC to dabble in magic, hybrids are the way to go (think of the EK as a 75% melee, 25% caster). With a lot of effort, you might be able to get that to 65/35. If you want to go 90:10, then take any kind of fighter and the magic initiate feat. If you are looking for something around 50:50, then you either play a paladin or a ranger or multiclass.

You pay more of a price for flexibility in previous editions, but 5e is a low system mastery edition, so having to pay a price is less costly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

[MENTION=5788]me[/MENTION]cha. I'll drop it and let you take it in a more productive direction. Thanks for the reminder!
 

Here is where I stand on multiclassing...I have characters in mind, and usually leveling in a straight class does not fulfill that vision. One of the best things in 5th Edition has been the inclusion of Backgrounds in the character creation process which lets you round out your Skills, Tools, and Languages. This is a step in the right direction for D&D, and I can't wait until the entire "Class" system is dropped for Skills.

One of the interesting things in 5th Edition has been figuring out where the power in a character comes from. An example is the staple of the martial classes, the Extra Attack. This sounds amazing, but as others have pointed out, the SCAG Cantrips scale in such a way that a martial character wielding a 1-handed weapon is about on par with the scaling of the Cantrip. What makes the Extra Attack pull ahead is factoring in Feats like GWM or Sharpshooter. But this is only factoring in straight damage in a white-room scenario. Its why the comment of whether a Fighter 2/Bard 3 is more or less effective than a Fighter 5 is completely impossible to answer. Too much variability exists.

Without question, a player multi-classes a character to gain a wider skillset and to do something they couldn't do as their primary class. The aforementioned F2/Bard3 may be building a specific Skald warrior that is built on the combo of Action Surging several Control Spell if the group got in over its head. In a group where both a Bard 5 and a Fighter 5 exists, maybe this isn't necessary...but the character is still able of Controlling enemies or getting injured allies back on their feet in a way the pure Fighter can't, and capable of getting 2 spells off or wearing armor which the pure Bard can't.

The hybrid sub-classes do a good job of dipping toes into the water, but they are also extremely limiting. I can see why someone may want to Multi-Class to get more of something that the base class isn't providing. For instance, take Arcane Trickster rogues. You get a few spells, but with the restrictions and limitations on spells it might not provide the player with enough, prompting the player to dive fully into the Wizard class to supplement spells and spell slots.

Personally, my character is a Fighter-Battlemaster 5 / Cleric - Light 1. This was not originally optimized, but a way for me to play a "Paladin" without playing a Paladin. The Cleric dip has allowed me to do things I would never have been able to do as a straight Fighter, and the mutli-class experience has enhanced my enjoyment of the game by being able to Cure Wounds, Spare the Dying (saved countless of NPC's this way), and Sacred Flaming. And of course, there is the Divine aspect that can be played up in RP. These are things no level of straight Fighter could compete with.

Speaking of my own personal build mentioned above, I could further Multi-Class to increase my overall effectiveness in other areas. I could take levels in Barbarian so I can tank more effectively (my party is a Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer) since I am already wearing magical medium armor. Straight Fighter does not provide anything like a Bear-Barbarian. I could legitimately dip into Paladin for extra Fighting Style (Defense or Dueling), as well as Nova potential via Smites and bonus Healing. I could take some Rogue levels and add Sneak Attack to my damage output since I am already "Shield Slamming" via Shield Mastery to knock enemies prone, which again a straight Fighter leveling would not provide.

So yeah...I suppose the short of it is that I fully support Multi-Classing and building the type of character you want to play. The Hybrid classes sort of scratch that itch, but classes are made up of a variety of abilities that can help create a unique character.
 

I think the hybrid subclasses and multiclassing are both good ways of creating a character concept, depending all on which way you want to go.

An eldritch knight 5 is going to be better in melee with a handful of spells to back him up. A fighter 2/wizard 3 is going to be slightly worse in melee, using a SCAG cantrip to keep up, but have access to 2nd level spells for more options. Their choice of subclasses will also affect the feel of the character.

One of my favourite characters is a take on the old 2e fighter/mage/thief. I create the character by going eldritch knight with the criminal background. If I go champion instead with the same background, then I'm a fighter/thief, no rogue class necessary.

A master swordsman you may pick a battlemaster. I like to use the rogue subclass swashbuckler for a master swordsman perhaps multiclassing it with fighter for a fighting style and action surge. We actually have a fighter 2/swashbuckler 3 in our current game, he works well, he doesn't have extra attack but he does have an extra 2d6 that applies to effectively every hit making him still deal a fair amount of damage.
 

Here is where I stand on multiclassing...I have characters in mind, and usually leveling in a straight class does not fulfill that vision. One of the best things in 5th Edition has been the inclusion of Backgrounds in the character creation process which lets you round out your Skills, Tools, and Languages. This is a step in the right direction for D&D, and I can't wait until the entire "Class" system is dropped for Skills.

While I completely agree with the rest of your analysis I wouldn't hold your breath on this. To many the class system is part of D&D's identity and taking it away will result in something that "isn't D&D." There are many other wonderful games available that do away with class-like systems and allow you to build your character a la carte. If you really want this I'd encourage you to shop around (though I know that groups can be wary of new games that they aren't familiar with).

My group has a little bit of multiclassing but so far only of the similar category variety. We have a fighter/barbarian and a warlock/cleric. Both of them are able to contribute excellently. I'm finding that the more important factor behind who is successfully contributing is the person making decisions behind the character rather than the character's build.
 

Frogreaver: In general most numbers are not prime.
Others: But 2,3,5,7 and so on are all prime numbers, you are wrong.
Frogreaver: yea, there's even an infinite amount of prime numbers, that doesn't negate that most numbers are not prime

That's kind of how this conversation is going... Yes, there's a few abilities that multiclass well pre level 5. If you don't pick one of those abilities then your multiclass character will suck from level 5 till one of your multiclassed classes reaches an individual level of 5.
There are an infinite number of prime numbers. There are an infinite number of non-prime numbers. Infinite cannot be greater than infinite. Therefore your example doesn't work because illogically there are the same number of prime numbers as non-prime numbers. :P

I mean, there's cantrip scaling, there's features that offer an extra attack early (usually at the cost of a bonus action), there's characters that just aren't combat focused enough to care.

Personally I'm going a step further and just working with my players to imitate 4e's true blue hybrid system. It works well enough. The Barbaranger loves it.
 

If the multiclass system is so robust let's try and make a few distinct characters. I won't place many restrictions on them.

1. fighter bard that doesn't rely on any of the above mentioned cantrips and is comparable to a single class character at level 5.
2. A paladin sorcerer that doesn't rely on any of the above mentioned cantrips and is comparable to a single class paladin or sorcerer at level 5.
3. A wizard cleric that is comparable to a wizard or a cleric at level 5.
4. A Ranger Fighter that is comparable to a ranger or fighter at level 5.
5. Bard Paladin without the above mentioned cantrips that is comparable to a bard or paladin at level 5
6. Monk Fighter that is comparable to a fighter or a monk at level 5.
7. Fighter Druid that is comparable to a Fighter or a Druid at level 5.

I could go on and on. You may can luck up and find a couple of characters in this ever growing list that you can make.

  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.)
 

Ranger 3/Fighter 2: Hordebreaker. Not as effective against a single target, but that's why you multiclass- for variety. Doubling up on Fighting styles is nice even if one of them's just going to be +1 AC. Hunter's Mark puts your damage ahead of a Fighter 5, and if you dual wield even moreso.
 

We did have a battlemaster 4/cleric 1 that worked quite well. He'd let the rogue have extra shots and supplemented the party's healing. He didn't last long though. His cleric worshipped a dragon, the party ranger hated dragons so he went and rolled up a trickster cleric instead.
 

Rogues mix well with Arcane casters I think, but still agree that most classes have so much goodies that one would not want to multiclass before level 5. For the same kind of classes (full casters or not full casters) I believe it works better to multiclass earlier.

My Swashbuckler 5/Dragon sorcerer 1 was given those levels in that order due to concerns over survivability based on my experience from the adventure it is in. This as anecdotal example of even Rogue being attractive to single class for 5 levels.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using EN World mobile app

dex based rogue/warlock works extremely well, IME. A strength based blade-lock has slightly more damage, but damage isn't the whole game, and the rogue MC makes up for it. Or be a tomelock and boost cha and have a decent dex, and use shillelagh, whatever.

I made a monk/warlock at one point, but that was a weird build. worked well, but still.
 

Remove ads

Top