D&D 5E Multiclassing order

[nswanson27]

I know there's been a lot of discussion on MCing. I was interested if there's been any discussion on the order in which you MC. For example, it seems like for a rogue/monk build, it's hands down better to start with rogue and then MC monk rather than the other way around. You get an extra skill and proficiency in rapiers. Doesn't it seem like there should be at least a comparable benefit going the other way?

 

[Logan1138]

Why would proficiency in rapier be a big deal? I don't think you could use the monk's off-hand attack as a bonus action with a rapier since it is not a "monk" weapon.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I know there's been a lot of discussion on MCing. I was interested if there's been any discussion on the order in which you MC. For example, it seems like for a rogue/monk build, it's hands down better to start with rogue and then MC monk rather than the other way around. You get an extra skill and proficiency in rapiers. Doesn't it seem like there should be at least a comparable benefit going the other way?

Seems to me that if the only reason you are MCing are for mechanical benefits rather than because they make story-sense for how your character is evolving... you'd probably be better off just talking with your DM and building/adapting existing classes/sub-classes to get them to be even more exact to what you wish to do. So for example, if you wanted to be a dual-wielding cleric... rather than MCing in a single level of fighter just to get the two-weapon fighting style... ask your DM to just let you take a fighting style as a cleric in exchange for one of the cleric abilities you aren't going to want/need (so long as they are balanced against each other). Then you don't have to worry about the "order" of the classes you take in a MC just to make sure the mechanics arrive precisely when you need them to.

 

[Blue]

There are a number of reasons to multiclass one class or another first. Different max HPs (given at 1st), different proficient saves, skills and weapon/armor. Each class ("A") only has a single entry for what additional you get if you take it after 1st that has to handle any class going in, X->A, Y->A or Z->A, so gives a reasonable amount. There are times it's not going to have perfect parity between which you have first, and frankly it would take a lot of complexity to try and it still would have corner cases for unusual character concepts or many-class multiclasses.

Take it as a solid, workable rule instead of a theoretical perfect balance and just move forward from there.

 

[the Jester]

You should start with the class that makes sense for your character. If you're worried about mechanical considerations, you're probably better off not multiclassing at all, at least most of the time.

 

[trentonjoe]

You should start with the class that makes sense for your character. If you're worried about mechanical considerations, you're probably better off not multiclassing at all, at least most of the time.

I completely disagree. If there is a mechanic you want "to work" you should map it out beforehand. I feel that classes don't dictate role, role playing, or anything else like they used to. I use classes like any other mechanic now, I don't let class dictate my fluff.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I completely disagree. If there is a mechanic you want "to work" you should map it out beforehand. I feel that classes don't dictate role, role playing, or anything else like they used to. I use classes like any other mechanic now, I don't let class dictate my fluff.

Understandable... but this is why I think a player is usually better off working with the DM to just swap in a mechanic they want into a class they already have, rather than trying to figure out an order of multiclassing to eventually get it. I mean, unless you genuinely want ALL the 1st to 4th level abilities you get from MCing across 2 or more classes... if you only want a single ability from like the 3rd level of a class, you're better off (and will probably end up being more powerful) if you just trade that ability into what you get from a straight class progression. Otherwise, you get a crapload of other abilities from the MC that you don't really want... plus you delay many abilities you'd get from your main class (especially ASIs and the like.)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I'm going to back up [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION] with the whole "talk to your DM". I'm a DM and I vastly prefer my players to come to me and say "Here's my idea for a character... he's an elven religious-warrior-monk. They take an oath like that of a druid (to not use metal items, to forsake 'technology', to be in harmony with nature, etc), but are trained in the ways of battle and tactics as a group more than individual-perfection. I think...[etc etc]". Then I can work with the player to craft some custom made archtype for Monk or Fighter or even Cleric that fits into my campaign settings feel and background.

I hate it when I've been DM'ing a particular player who has been playing a straight-laced military man fighter (with soldier background and everything), and then all of a sudden the player says "Oh, I took a level of Rogue last level-up. I'm a stealthy 'shadow ops' kinda guy now". *fume* I'm pretty sure that if the PC's were fighting a big bad wizard guy, then a couple months later I just blurt out "Oh, he isn't a wizard now. He took some other class levels and I added in some dragonblood so he has some dragon stuff now too...he's mostly an assassin half-dragon now.", they'd be... shall we say, "Non-plussed". Additionally it would completely break the immersion and basically throws away all the previous shared story we all built by playing the game in the first place.

Hmmm... I suppose that's why MC'ing is OPTIONAL (much like Feats are). And also why I don't use MC'ing (and soon, no Feats either... more trouble than their worth, IMHO).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[kerbarian]

If you're starting at higher levels, then there are times when multiclassing in one order is clearly better than another (like your rogue/monk example). Usually the most important part of the order, though, is what your character is like while you're leveling. If you want to get to rogue 5 / monk 5 eventually, the main question (for me) would be whether I want to spend the first five levels playing a monk or a rogue.

The main exception I can think of to this is if you're mixing something like fighter and wizard. Even if you'd rather start out mostly as a wizard, the hit points at first level and proficiency in constitution saves (for concentration) can make a strong argument for taking your first level in fighter.

 

[trentonjoe]

Hiya!

I'm going to back up [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION] with the whole "talk to your DM". I'm a DM and I vastly prefer my players to come to me and say "Here's my idea for a character... he's an elven religious-warrior-monk. They take an oath like that of a druid (to not use metal items, to forsake 'technology', to be in harmony with nature, etc), but are trained in the ways of battle and tactics as a group more than individual-perfection. I think...[etc etc]". Then I can work with the player to craft some custom made archtype for Monk or Fighter or even Cleric that fits into my campaign settings feel and background.

I hate it when I've been DM'ing a particular player who has been playing a straight-laced military man fighter (with soldier background and everything), and then all of a sudden the player says "Oh, I took a level of Rogue last level-up. I'm a stealthy 'shadow ops' kinda guy now". *fume* I'm pretty sure that if the PC's were fighting a big bad wizard guy, then a couple months later I just blurt out "Oh, he isn't a wizard now. He took some other class levels and I added in some dragonblood so he has some dragon stuff now too...he's mostly an assassin half-dragon now.", they'd be... shall we say, "Non-plussed". Additionally it would completely break the immersion and basically throws away all the previous shared story we all built by playing the game in the first place.

Hmmm... I suppose that's why MC'ing is OPTIONAL (much like Feats are). And also why I don't use MC'ing (and soon, no Feats either... more trouble than their worth, IMHO).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

To each his own, broski. I find it easier to say, "take a level in sorcerer" than to have people try to trade their proficiency in the shovel for 1st level bard spells

Whatever tells your story is best.