D&D 5E Multiclass vs. hybrid subclasses

[FormerlyHemlock]

Mine were using crossbows so ranged weapons didn't start to favor the bard. There's no way a bard 1 ever should go into melee. So yes you can mention 19 ac but then you are comparing a melee character to a ranged character.

I don't know what this sentence in bold means. A Fighter 1/Bard 4 with Defense style and a Bard 5 are exactly as good at ranged weapons as each other. (Obviously an Archery style Fighter/Bard would be better, but that would be a silly investment of a fighting style IMO.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know what this sentence in bold means. A Fighter 1/Bard 4 with Defense style and a Bard 5 are exactly as good at ranged weapons as each other. (Obviously an Archery style Fighter/Bard would be better, but that would be a silly investment of a fighting style IMO.)

You can't use a crossbow with a shield

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Interesting. How useful that is at up to level 5 is really subjective. I would personally rate it as a slight benefit. Situationally useful but those situations will come up rarely in the games I've been a part of.

Well for one thing, it gives you arbitrary numbers of Armor of Agathys castings if you really need it. How powerful is at-will Armor of Agathys II? How powerful is at-will Shield? Pretty powerful. How powerful is having loads and loads of spell slots? Almost exactly as powerful as at-will Armor of Agathys and Shield. Plus, loads of Web spells, Scorching Rays, Bless spells, sorcery points for Quicken, Darkness for your Devil's Sight, etc.

It's a huge pain to build up those spell slots so I've never seen anyone build up a huge spell slot balance in practice, and at higher levels it ceases to be important, but at low levels it is quite interesting. Just imagine a Devil's Sight sorlock who spends 24 hours building up 16 2nd level spell slots (so he's at 4/18 sorcerer slots but 2 1st level warlock slots) and then goes into battle by casting Quickened Darkness followed by Fire Bolt, then starts spewing out Scorching Rays every round at advantage. AC 18 including Shield, and he's doing 21 * hit rate damage per round, plus a Quickened Fire Bolt for 2d10 (11) if he wants to spend sorcery points. He can hit an AC 15 Gargoyle for 19 points of damage per round (30 on rounds when he's Quickening a Fire Bolt), which compares favorably to a Str 18 GWM fighter's 17.50 damage (35 if Action Surging).

Obviously in real life (as opposed to a thought experiment under FrogReaver's no-Eldritch Blast constraint) he'd use Eldritch Blast instead of Fire Bolt, but it makes a relatively minor difference. Eldritch Blast just substitutes for Scorching Ray to save on spell slots, and does slightly more damage than Fire Bolt to increase nova DPR to about 34 instead of 30.

 

[MostlyDm]

Do any of you guys actually allow the Sorlock spell slot abuse trick in your games?

It seems like one of those cute thought experiments that I wouldn't allow at my table. Nobody has ever tried, so it's never come up, but I just can't see why I would ever let it fly.

 

[MostlyDm]

Addendum: I don't usually consider myself a very punitive DM. I'm happy for players that find clever combos and exploits. I let Great Weapon Paladins re-roll their 1s and 2s on smites, contrary to errata or tweets or whatever claimed this doesn't work.

But the sorlock thing has always seemed a bit beyond the pale, though admittedly I've never looked at it super closely.

 

[Yunru]

Eh, I would, if only because it takes so long the moments where it comes up would feel more like a cool thing than a constant exploit.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You can't use a crossbow with a shield

Obviously. But the sentence you wrote was "Mine were using crossbows so ranged weapons didn't start to favor the bard."

After studying your words, I believe you're making the claim that ranged weapons are dominant in 5E (controversial, but one I happen to agree with) and that if the Fighter/Bard is using melee weapons, that you'd have to give the pure bard lots of free attacks to represent him kiting enemies while the fighter/bard tanks on the front line.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you should be able to see what's wrong with that comparison if you stop to think about it for a second. Being able to tank when necessary is an advantage, not a hindrance.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Do any of you guys actually allow the Sorlock spell slot abuse trick in your games?

It seems like one of those cute thought experiments that I wouldn't allow at my table. Nobody has ever tried, so it's never come up, but I just can't see why I would ever let it fly.

...I've seen some characters built to be able to take advantage of the trick, but come to think of it, I have never seen anyone ever actually use it in play. (I rarely see PCs run out of spell points in the first place outside of rare apocalyptic conflicts involving necromancers, death slaads, and Robes of the Archmagi. Usually they just run out of HP.) I would allow it if someone tried, but I would also enforce the logistical consequences of going without sleep and spending weeks on end accumulating spell slots while everyone else has a life, and then when the sorcerer slept in one day and all of his 9999 spell slots evaporated due to a long rest I would cackle with glee.

I do not, however, let paladins apply GWF to smiting, and I frown when players try to smite only after a crit occurs. (Some of the players frown too, and prefer to declare their smites in advance, which makes me smile.)

 

[MostlyDm]

...I've seen some characters built to be able to take advantage of the trick, but come to think of it, I have never seen anyone ever actually use it in play. (I rarely see PCs run out of spell points in the first place outside of rare apocalyptic conflicts involving necromancers, death slaads, and Robes of the Archmagi.) I would allow it if someone tried, but I would also enforce the logistical consequences of going without sleep and spending weeks on end accumulating spell slots while everyone else has a life, and then when the sorcerer slept in one day and all of his 9999 spell slots evaporated due to a long rest I would cackle with glee.

I do not, however, let paladins apply GWF to smiting, and I frown when players try to smite only after a crit occurs. (Some of the players frown too, and prefer to declare their smites in advance, which makes me smile.)

Declaring smites after the fact is lame, agreed... I mainly use that rule to provide leeway for some of my more casual/forgetful players who (in total honesty) have those "Oh crap I wanted to smite!" moments. I then remind them they can declare after the fact, their horror turns to elation, and we move on.

The GWF thing certainly makes GWF appealing for paladins... but AC is so good, and shields are so strong, that I wanted to give the GWF Paladin something exciting. Bear in mind I don't generally allow feats, so he can't get GWM to outshine his theoretical nonexistent shield-bearing counterpart.

 

[Yunru]

Declaring divine smite after seeing the roll is not only fine, it's written in the ability. Unless you mean a smite spell.