D&D 5E Multiclass vs. hybrid subclasses

[MostlyDm]

I think the +2 damage is more important for dueling than +2 to hit. Haven't run the math though.

Of course there's no reason you couldn't allow either (but not both) on a per-PC basis. Some guys get accuracy, some guys get damage.

Yeah, having the option might be nice. I imagine multi-class Fighter/Rogues with a heavy Rogue emphasis would probably prefer the accuracy boost, for example.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Sorry I couldn't elaborate more earlier. Was running out of time.

All I was responding to was the post that said I had the fighter versions AC figured wrong at 17 and it should be 19 because of a shield. I was trying to say that the reason I did not have the fighter bard equipped with a sword and shield was because the lore bard was using a crossbow and there is an inherent benefit to using ranged (less attacks against you, able to deal damage on more combat turns, etc.) So I didn't think it was fair to bring up the 19 ac when it restricted you to melee and compare that to a crossbow wielding bard because of the benefits just mentioned (most of which are harder to quantify).

So instead I just equipped both characters with a crossbow which brought the fighter/bard ac down to 17 but then I didn't have to try and make a subjective call over whether staying ranged was better than the +2 ac that being in melee gained.

Yes there is some small benefit to being able to use ranged attacks some fights and decide to melee when one of your front line characters is depleted. I acknowledge that. It's worth mentioning but doesn't carry a lot of weight since you can't easily change between sword and shield vs bow in mid combat. (takes an action to take off the shield).

On a side note I tend to agree ranged is better in 5e, though everyone being ranged is probably not quite the best either.

 

[FrogReaver]

... Not sure if joking or not.

Just in case not joking: A Sorcerer 3, can have 3 Sorcery points. Which, if you're build up spell slots, you convert into spell slots before converting the Pact Magic slots into Sorcery points.


As for level progression: Favoured Soul 1, Archfey Warlock 1, Favoured Soul 3, Archfey Warlock 2.

So level 1 we are the same.

Level 2 I'd give the sorcerer warlock a slight edge

Level 3 I'd give the sorcerer the edge (level 2 spells and the victory is by a large margin)

Level 4 Neither feat nor stat helps a ton here (maybe inspiring leader but I'd tend to give this level to the sorcerer/warlock by a moderate margin)

Level 5 Sorceror takes it by a large margin.

So by my analysis I'd give this level range to the pure sorcerer. (If EB is taken I'd consider the multiclass comparable)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes there is some small benefit to being able to use ranged attacks some fights and decide to melee when one of your front line characters is depleted. I acknowledge that. It's worth mentioning but doesn't carry a lot of weight since you can't easily change between sword and shield vs bow in mid combat. (takes an action to take off the shield).

If you want to be explicit about the tradeoff, you can just list fighter/bard as having the advantage "+4 to AC to range configuration; +6 to AC in melee configuration". That makes it clear that the fighter/bard has an option the bard doesn't have, e.g. when dungeoneering or chasing kobolds through cramped tunnels.

It really is nice to have at least one PC who's comfortable in melee.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you want to be explicit about the tradeoff, you can just list fighter/bard as having the advantage "+4 to AC to range configuration; +6 to AC in melee configuration". That makes it clear that the fighter/bard has an option the bard doesn't have, e.g. when dungeoneering or chasing kobolds through cramped tunnels.

It really is nice to have at least one PC who's comfortable in melee.

For a little while in our group there was no front line... bad idea...