D&D 5E Multiclassing order

[trentonjoe]

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.

This makes sense. The only things that can be effected by the order are:

Hit points
Saves
Skills (thieves still get more to start right)
Armor/Weapon Proficiency

right?

If you need one of those things make sure your first class has what you need.

 

[nswanson27]

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.

Well monks get an extra attack. Basically it would be better to hold a rapier in one hand and a shortsword in the other. Assuming shadow monk 6+ and you wanted to:
- shadowstep, attack, attack, you would want to use rapier with both attacks.
- attack, attack, martial arts, you would want to use rapier and then shortsword. Using the shortsword once fulfills the martial arts condition to be used for bonus action.

Seems legal to me, and a little more damage than just a shortsword alone (though not much more I admit).

 

[Rune]

I'm pretty sure that, if it ever comes up, I'll allow the multiclassing character to trade out old proficiencies (especially saves) with the new class. I might even allow trades between armor proficiencies and skills, though I'm not sure at what exchange rate.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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?

Keep in mind that starting as a monk grants you 2 extra hp (admittedly minor after a few levels) and, more importantly, Str and Dex as good saves (instead of Dex and Int). I believe Str saves are more common that Int, so it's worth considering.

Ultimately, MCing is an advanced option. There are no guarantees that you won't end up with a useless character if, for example, you make a character with one level in every class. They did a reasonable job of balancing it, but if MCing is allowed you can potentially end up with characters that are weaker (or stronger) than the single-class baseline.

 

[Logan1138]

Well monks get an extra attack. Basically it would be better to hold a rapier in one hand and a shortsword in the other. Assuming shadow monk 6+ and you wanted to:
- shadowstep, attack, attack, you would want to use rapier with both attacks.
- attack, attack, martial arts, you would want to use rapier and then shortsword. Using the shortsword once fulfills the martial arts condition to be used for bonus action.

Seems legal to me, and a little more damage than just a shortsword alone (though not much more I admit).

Are you aware that you would need to have the Dual Wielding feat in order to use a rapier in one hand and a short sword in the other because the rapier is NOT a light weapon?

Personally, if I were the DM, I would not allow that second scenario (use first attack with the rapier and the second attack with the other hand weapon, in this case a short sword) because the Two-weapon fighting entry is worded such that it would seem that you have to attack with the same weapon for your "main" attack in the Attack action and then your other hand is used for the bonus attack. Thus, if the rapier is your "main" hand you have to make both of your "regular" attacks with that hand and then use your bonus action to attack with your other hand (i.e. the one holding the short sword) leaving you with no other bonus action to take for a martial arts attack.

 

[GlassJaw]

Why do people who don't like multiclassing feel the need to butt in on every discussion about multiclass solely to voice their disapproval of it? If there is anything I hate about 5E, it's the anti-multi-classing purists.

How about you let me and my group play the game the way we choose?

 

[trentonjoe]

Why do people who don't like multiclassing feel the need to butt in on every discussion about multiclass solely to voice their disapproval of it? If there is anything I hate about 5E, it's the anti-multi-classing purists.

How about you let me and my group play the game the way we choose?

I find that funny too. If I have to read "it's an optional rule" one more time......

Are you aware that you would need to have the Dual Wielding feat in order to use a rapier in one hand and a short sword in the other because the rapier is NOT a light weapon?

Personally, if I were the DM, I would not allow that second scenario (use first attack with the rapier and the second attack with the other hand weapon, in this case a short sword) because the Two-weapon fighting entry is worded such that it would seem that you have to attack with the same weapon for your "main" attack in the Attack action and then your other hand is used for the bonus attack. Thus, if the rapier is your "main" hand you have to make both of your "regular" attacks with that hand and then use your bonus action to attack with your other hand (i.e. the one holding the short sword) leaving you with no other bonus action to take for a martial arts attack.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Why do people who don't like multiclassing feel the need to butt in on every discussion about multiclass solely to voice their disapproval of it? If there is anything I hate about 5E, it's the anti-multi-classing purists.

How about you let me and my group play the game the way we choose?

I hear that.

"How do I do [concept] with multiclassing?"

"You don't. You use the standard class and you like it."

Also, answering the question takes actual time and thought, so around here the people who want to challenge your premise are a lot quicker on the draw than the people who want to help solve your problems.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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 don't find it hard to believe that a character who has been adventuring would end up with some rogue levels. After all, adventurers basically spend all their time sneaking around dungeons and fighting in a manner that is typically not honorable.

And wouldn't you rather a player change a character slightly than continue to play a concept they find they no longer enjoy?

 

[kerbarian]

Are you aware that you would need to have the Dual Wielding feat in order to use a rapier in one hand and a short sword in the other because the rapier is NOT a light weapon?

Personally, if I were the DM, I would not allow that second scenario (use first attack with the rapier and the second attack with the other hand weapon, in this case a short sword) because the Two-weapon fighting entry is worded such that it would seem that you have to attack with the same weapon for your "main" attack in the Attack action and then your other hand is used for the bonus attack. Thus, if the rapier is your "main" hand you have to make both of your "regular" attacks with that hand and then use your bonus action to attack with your other hand (i.e. the one holding the short sword) leaving you with no other bonus action to take for a martial arts attack.

None of this is using two weapon fighting. It's just making attacks with one-handed weapons and then possibly getting an extra attack from martial arts -- there's never an extra attack from TWF.

To clarify, comparing a monk with just a short sword (and one empty hand) to a monk with a rapier and short sword:

Monk with short sword uses shadow step (bonus action) and then uses an attack action for two short sword attacks.
Monk with both weapons uses shadow step (bonus action) and then uses an attack action for two rapier attacks.

Monk with short sword uses an attack action for two short sword attacks, then a bonus action for martial arts.
Monk with both weapons uses an attack action for one rapier plus one short sword attack, then a bonus action for martial arts.

Having the option to make some of your attacks with a rapier can get you slightly more damage.