D&D 5E Optimal Multiclassing

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Since what you quoted is from multiple posts from 2 separate messgae boards and condensed for
his benefit, let me clarify 'cuz it seems ur misunderstanding

It has nothing to do with that. I'm actually talking about multiclass prereqs. Monks need two stats at 13, wizards need one, etc.

I think this is an issue that seems like a bigger deal than it should be in practice. It's a case of them not bothering with unnecessary symmetry for a good reason: the basic point of mc stat prereqs is to "keep you honest," so that you don't dip into a class that's completely unrelated to your character archetype just for some juicy low-hanging mechanical fruit. Basically, if you don't meet these bare-bones minimum requirements, you're not really trying to be a member of that class. the classes that require two stats to multiclass are just the classes that require two stats to be effective.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

What are your votes for best one level dip? I vote fighter. Best two level dip? That's easy: warlock.

Fighter and rogue are pretty tempting two-level dips as well. Up it to three levels and Battlemaster takes the gold IMHO.

Conversely, let's have nominees for the "primary" classes that benefit most from a one-level dip elsewhere. Wizards are clear winners here, since they have the worst starting proficiencies, but you could make an argument for blade warlocks too.

 

[aramis erak]

If all classes are relatively balanced, why is Ftr Str OR Dex, Mnk Dex AND Wis, Pal Str AND Cha, Rgr Dex AND Wis, and all other classes are just one Stat?
Ftr being 'either/or' implies it's easier to MC into.
Mnk, Pal, Rgr being 'and' implies it's harder to MC into those classes.

Really, it's three different fighter class modes...
The Strength Based "Heavy" - he swings a mass-weapon.
The finesse based "Fencer" - he's thrusting with sharp stuff (with the finesse trait)
The Archer.

Feature-wise, the same features work pretty well thematically for all three. But one shouldn't need to be Str 13 to become a fencer. And A fencer multiclassing out shouldn't need to be Str 13, either.

There's little need for a separate fencer or archer class, either - the standard fighter features work well enough.

So, it's "are you a Dex based fighter or a Str based fighter"?

 

[Runny]

Fighter and rogue are pretty tempting two-level dips as well. Up it to three levels and Battlemaster takes the gold IMHO.

Conversely, let's have nominees for the "primary" classes that benefit most from a one-level dip elsewhere. Wizards are clear winners here, since they have the worst starting proficiencies, but you could make an argument for blade warlocks too.

Blade locks might be the only concept that actually require multiclassing. Maybe that was a consideration when invocations were written based on level as opposed to level in the warlock class. Melee warlocks in 4e were exclusively hybrids, so this might be character they were trying to emulate.

Also, I think fighter was made an intentional juicy one level dip. It makes a lot if sense for lots of adventurers to pick up some fighting prowess along the way.

 

[Kalshane]

Sounds like the problem is you are trying to port from 3e where multiclassing was almost always more powerful than single classing to 5e where the two are more balanced without being willing to change your level progression. Instead of looking at doing the exact same thing and trying to get exactly the same output from a new system look at the whys of what you did and look at the tools you now have available to achieve those goals..

I agree with this. Converting characters from one edition to another has always been a mix of art and science. While some characters translate directly very easily (particularly single-classed martial types) others take some finagling.

I've been playing around with converting different characters from different editions (2nd, 3rd and 4th) into 5E and some move over very easily (particularly single-classed 2nd Ed characters. Select an appropriate background, eyeball their Non-Weapon Proficiencies into Skills, note their new class/race abilities and you're good to go.) and others take more work.

I had a dual-classed (Fighter 2) Thief 11 from 2nd Ed Skills and Powers focused on throwing daggers that I eventually converted over to 3rd Ed. Since there was no real "minor magical ability" option in 3rd Ed, I swapped one of his Thief, I mean Rogue, levels for a level in Sorcerer. I also gave him Quick Draw, PBS and Rapid Shot for the dagger-throwing. It wasn't perfect, but it kept the feel of the character. At the end of the campaign he was a Fighter 2/Rogue 11/Sorcerer 1/Homebrew PrC 1 with the Spring Attack chain as well. My dice playing the character, particularly in situations where he was gambling or the situation was a long shot, where almost consistently hot, to the point the character was referred to in game as being really lucky.

Converting him to 5E, I went over his sheets from both editions, and ended up with a Fighter (Eldritch Knight) 4/Rogue (Thief) 11 with the Mobile, Lucky and Skilled feats. EK was a bit of a stretch, since his 3E sorcerer spells were non-blasty and his 2E abilities were pretty much Detect Magic and heightened scroll use. But I stuck with Abjuration spells and took Detect Magic as his freebie, so it worked out.

Again, the character isn't a direct map from edition to edition, but the overall feel is there.

For the monk who used to be a rogue, unless those rogue abilities were a core aspect of the character (and with the only 1-for-1 ability really being Sneak Attack, I don't see how it is essential) I agree with the others that the Criminal background makes a lot more sense than a rogue dip.

 

[Talaeden_Denthiir]

I think this is an issue that seems like a bigger deal than it should be in practice. It's a case of them not bothering with unnecessary symmetry for a good reason: the basic point of mc stat prereqs is to "keep you honest," so that you don't dip into a class that's completely unrelated to your character archetype just for some juicy low-hanging mechanical fruit. Basically, if you don't meet these bare-bones minimum requirements, you're not really trying to be a member of that class. the classes that require two stats to multiclass are just the classes that require two stats to be effective.

If a class requires two stats to be effective and others require just one, is it really balanced?

 

[Talaeden_Denthiir]

Really, it's three different fighter class modes...
The Strength Based "Heavy" - he swings a mass-weapon.
The finesse based "Fencer" - he's thrusting with sharp stuff (with the finesse trait)
The Archer.

Feature-wise, the same features work pretty well thematically for all three. But one shouldn't need to be Str 13 to become a fencer. And A fencer multiclassing out shouldn't need to be Str 13, either.

There's little need for a separate fencer or archer class, either - the standard fighter features work well enough.

So, it's "are you a Dex based fighter or a Str based fighter"?

Like I said previously, i don't have a problem with fighters being an, "or", i have a problem with others being an ,"and".

 

[77IM]

If a class requires two stats to be effective and others require just one, is it really balanced?

It can be, sure, if the overall power level is about the same.

The classes requiring two stats have less flexibility in their builds, but that doesn't make them any weaker, just less varied. This doesn't typically matter since most parties have at most one of each class. Fighters are one of the most frequently doubled-up classes (there's two in the Starter Set pregens) so that's why they have the supreme flexibility of the "or."

 

[atgeirr]

Picking up heavy armor proficiency

One effect of the multiclassing system is that it can no longer be used to get heavy armor proficiency, since none of the classes that usually grant it at level 1 do so for multiclass characters. However, there is still one way: multiclassing into cleric, and taking the life, nature or war domains gives you bonus proficiencies that include heavy armor. Since it is a part of the class abilities and not the class proficiencies it falls outside the regular proficiency-limiting mechanic. I do not know if this is intended or not, but it does make Cleric 1(life, nature or war) a great 1-level dip, especially for a wizard with no armor proficiencies.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

If a class requires two stats to be effective and others require just one, is it really balanced?

If a class gives you d6 hit dice and others give you d10s, is it really balanced? Same answer: you have to look at the whole class, not try to take individual elements in isolation.