Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong

[DND_Reborn]

Sure, but it would be compared to a 10th level fighter in output, and that's a very different comparison. You wanted to know why the rogue did so much damage? It's a 10th level character.

Except he is being compared to other "10th level" characters, i.e. the Fighter/Barbarian 5/5 and Barbarian/Monk 5/5.

What you're going to see, very soon if not already, is that the basic math of the game breaks down when you're freeing stacking 20 levels (or 30, in your case) of character abilities and synergies at "10th" level. You've made a change that undermines a core mechanic of the game -- it will break. Maybe you'll do fine with it, but your rogue is going to continue being a combat beast because they'll reliably get the 'one big' rogue hit and follow through with full fighter damage output. At 11th level, the assassin rogue will be making 4 attacks a round for 7d6 (sneak)+4d6 (4 weapon)+20 (assuming 20 dex) = 59 damage average. The regular fighter/barbarian will be doing 3d8 (longsword)+15(stat)+12(raging) = 41. It's not really close at all, because you've broken a core mechanic of the game. In the assassing crits (and I'm assuming they've gone champion?) or gets an assassinate round? Phish. In martial classes, being able to stack that free sneak attack hit onto a fighter attack routine is tremendous. There isn't an answer for it in the other martial abilities (at least with the choices you've made, a fighter/barb great weapon fighter with the right feats and your multiclassing rule would dish serious damage and almost never miss).

Your multiclassing rule will supercharge your martials and not do much at all for your casters. The reason is that martial abilities tend to stack and not consume more of the action economy while the casting classes can still only cast 1 spell a round (mostly, there's some sorcerer cheese you can pair with other classes to do some very interesting things, sorc/warlock under your multiclassing is a beast).

Heck, just spitballing, but a paladin/warlock/barbarian would be ungodly. Like, badly so. Greatweapon raging smites with GWM/GWF, PAM, Reckless Attack, and warlock slots while wearing platemail and taking 1/2 damage from everything? Maybe warlock isn't the right call, though -- sorcerer would be strong as well for the slots and the ability to close out a super nasty attack routine with a quickened twinned debuff/buff or a quickened fireball. Yeah, your M/C rule is straight out broken.

Honestly, I don't remember what archetype the rogue/fighter went for the fighter class, but I believe it was Cavalier (I know he didn't take Champion). I could be wrong, I would have to ask the player. I know the Fighter/Barb went Champion/Totem Warrior and I think the Barb/Monk is Zealot/Shadows for archetypes. The Sorc/Druid went Dragon bloodline/Moon I am pretty sure. For my triple-class I chose Scout/Knowledge Domain/War Magic. I find my spellcaster is doing very well and having so many slots available allows me to not have to toss cantrips most rounds.

Regardless, if our system works for us to meet the challenges we face and the play style we like and our DM fosters, it isn't broken.

It might not be to your liking, which is fine, but we like having more options and features, and so far it has worked very well, thank you. Now, as I have stated repeatedly, the only issue with the rogue doing so much damage was because the DM was misusing assassinate by allowing it nearly every encounter. With that remedied, our last session went much better in that respect anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Except he is being compared to other "10th level" characters, i.e. the Fighter/Barbarian 5/5 and Barbarian/Monk 5/5.



Honestly, I don't remember what archetype the rogue/fighter went for the fighter class, but I believe it was Cavalier (I know he didn't take Champion). I could be wrong, I would have to ask the player. I know the Fighter/Barb went Champion/Totem Warrior and I think the Barb/Monk is Zealot/Shadows for archetypes. The Sorc/Druid went Dragon bloodline/Moon I am pretty sure. For my triple-class I chose Scout/Knowledge Domain/War Magic. I find my spellcaster is doing very well and having so many slots available allows me to not have to toss cantrips most rounds.

Regardless, if our system works for us to meet the challenges we face and the play style we like and our DM fosters, it isn't broken.

It might not be to your liking, which is fine, but we like having more options and features, and so far it has worked very well, thank you. Now, as I have stated repeatedly, the only issue with the rogue doing so much damage was because the DM was misusing assassinate by allowing it nearly every encounter. With that remedied, our last session went much better in that respect anyway.

It has nothing to do with my liking it or not. It breaks several fundamental assumption of the game engine, especially on the nartials side. You're more than welcome to play this way, and I sincerely wish you good gaming, but, complaining about outcomes as if the rest of the core rules need to be asjusted is strongly counterindicated because you've already broken the core assumptions those rules rest upon. That's a fancy way of saying you broke it, you bought it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's a fancy way of saying you broke it, you bought it.

Fair enough. You should also keep in mind multiclassing in this way results in few HP and stronger abilities compared to a single class with the same XP amount. We find it a good trade-off. If we have issues with it as far as game balance is concerned, believe me I will be the first to bring that to the DM's attention!

Still, my OP was because I didn't think sneak attack should work against certain targets. That has been refuted to the point I am happy to have changed my position and see how sneak attack could apply to anything since it is not a weakness in the target the rogue is exploiting, but the ability of the rogue to exploit the situation and use their own abilities to maximize an attack. Coupled with how the DM as allowing assassinate (thus doubling sneak attack damage) in most encounters because the rogue was acting first, it was an issue. Yet, as others have pointed out the DM was basically ignoring the surprised condition requirement. Once I pointed that out in our session a few days ago, we worked it out and that is now resolved as well.

Yes, the rogue/fighter can deal out a lot of damage, but he still hits slightly less often that the other battlers, has a slightly lower AC, slightly fewer HP, and since both of them are part barbarian, they both can have damage reduction when raging. Again, it was the constant auto-crit of assassinate that started this part of the thread.

Unless anyone has questions about how our game is running using this multiclass variant, I don't really see much value in pursuing any thing else for this topic.

Thanks to everyone who participated and helped me gain a more workable understanding of sneak attack and fixing the misuse of assassinate. It is much appreciated!

 

[Dausuul]

In martial classes, being able to stack that free sneak attack hit onto a fighter attack routine is tremendous. There isn't an answer for it in the other martial abilities (at least with the choices you've made, a fighter/barb great weapon fighter with the right feats and your multiclassing rule would dish serious damage and almost never miss).

Your multiclassing rule will supercharge your martials and not do much at all for your casters.

Huh? That's not true at all. Double spell slots is a colossal buff. Unless you're doing the whole 5-minute workday thing, casters have to ration their high-end spells with great care. Double spell slots means you can lob twice as many fireballs before you have to fall back on cantrips.

You might be assuming that spell slots stack the way they do in 5E multiclassing, but I don't think that assumption is warranted. Based on @dnd4vr's description, it sounds like they threw the 5E multiclass system out the window entirely and went with the AD&D approach. That would mean each class tracks its own spell slots separately. @dnd4vr can correct me if I'm wrong here.

Looking over the list of characters, it seems like a reasonably balanced party, at least at a glance. The only character I'd be worried about not keeping up would be the fighter/barbarian; that one seems like it would have less synergy than the others. (The barbarian/monk is an interesting mix... is that character going Dex-focused or Str-focused? Str would seem like a better fit, since it lets you stack rage on top of Flurry of Blows, but I could see the other way too.)

Regardless, if our system works for us to meet the challenges we face and the play style we like and our DM fosters, it isn't broken.

Damn straight. It sounds like a fun game! There's nothing wrong with house rules, as long as everyone is on board and willing to address any issues that come up. This one has potential for game-wrecking combos, but contrary to what some folks on this board seem to think, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to squeeze out every possible drop of power from the ruleset.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Huh? That's not true at all. Double spell slots is a colossal buff. Unless you're doing the whole 5-minute workday thing, casters have to ration their high-end spells with great care. Double spell slots means you can lob twice as many fireballs before you have to fall back on cantrips.

You might be assuming that spell slots stack the way they do in 5E multiclassing, but I don't think that assumption is warranted. Based on @dnd4vr's description, it sounds like they threw the 5E multiclass system out the window entirely and went with the AD&D approach. That would mean each class tracks its own spell slots separately. @dnd4vr can correct me if I'm wrong here.

Looking over the list of characters, it seems like a reasonably balanced party, at least at a glance. The only character I'd be worried about not keeping up would be the fighter/barbarian; that one seems like it would have less synergy than the others. (The barbarian/monk is an interesting mix... is that character going Dex-focused or Str-focused? Str would seem like a better fit, since it lets you stack rage on top of Flurry of Blows, but I could see the other way too.)

Damn straight. It sounds like a fun game! There's nothing wrong with house rules, as long as everyone is on board and willing to address any issues that come up. This one has potential for game-wrecking combos, but contrary to what some folks on this board seem to think, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to squeeze out every possible drop of power from the ruleset.

Thanks for the support! Cheers!

The DM started in the boxed sets and 1E, but isn't limiting levels like they did. I played some multiclassing in 2E, so I am pretty familiar with it.

Yes, for my high elf rogue/cleric/wiz at 5/5/5 I have 4/3/2 slots for both classes, totaling 8/6/4. Obviously doing it this way, slots never cross over. The sorc/druid for instance cannot use his druid slots for more spell points, but he can apply his metamagic to his druid spells.

The barbarian/monk has high Str (18 I think) and good Dex (14) and good Wis (also 14). The DM allows unarmored defense from both classes to stack, but you don't double-dip Dex. With a Con 16 and buckler (+1 AC) her AC is 18 or so. Yeah, the stats are great, but the player rolled when we made characters as a group (I just did point-buy for mine...). She is a greatsword wielding Tiefling, and took GWM at 4th. Has only used the flurry a couple times, the player is more into the barbarian aspect than the monk...

The BIG reason we went this route was to keep the characters going. I've read a lot on how games burn out around 10th level, but we're in for the long haul. The problem is we have different concepts and classes we want to try out, so the DM decided just mash them together. I had a concepts for a scouting rogue, knowledgeable cleric, and a war wizard. Thus, I was able to mix them all together and it is a blast! The DM did the same with everyone. He asked what two characters classes/concepts would you most like to play? The mixes are the results. Now we have characters with great conceptual back stories and a variety of abilities to keep us playing the same characters for many levels to come!

 

[Dausuul]

Now I'm trying to imagine what I would end up with in that game. If you asked me what concepts I wanted to play right now, and then mashed them into a single character... well, I've been wanting to try a ranged warlock (my last warlock was a hexblade) who stole their power rather than bargaining for it. I have this image of a character with one glowing yellow eye which was taken from a fiend somehow. But I was also thinking about trying out a dual-wielding gloom stalker ranger. Less clear on the concept for that one, but perhaps a bounty hunter of some kind.

...This is a character you do not want to fight in the dark.

It'd be kind of neat to try to make that mix work. Fiendlock and TWF ranger are not a natural pairing, but the ability to flip between blaster-caster and melee could be very handy. Blitz an enemy in melee on the first round, then follow up with a fireball. Dark One's Blessing is excellent for a melee warrior. And the combination of Dark One's Own Luck, maxed-out Dex, and pass without trace would make the character a god of stealth.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You'll find it fun IMO. As far as I know, the DM is tracking our XP (we don't keep it) and uses the single-class total for gaging encounters. But a head's up: you HAVE to be on top of everything. It is basically like playing two or three characters at once, but you're limited into a pool of HP and only one collective action, movement, etc.

Now, you mention your last warlock was a hexblade, so imagine that coupled with a TWF ranger gloom stalker? Lots of neat stuff there! However, separating it into ranged-caster, melee-fighter would work very well, too. A big part I found was building up the concept and then seeing how the classes mesh together nicely.

All this has spawned the idea in our group of removing classes entirely and shifting to a more skills/abilities-based game concept. I like other systems like Shadowrun and Vampire where you improved your character but don't have "levels".

 

[Ovinomancer]

Huh? That's not true at all. Double spell slots is a colossal buff. Unless you're doing the whole 5-minute workday thing, casters have to ration their high-end spells with great care. Double spell slots means you can lob twice as many fireballs before you have to fall back on cantrips.

You might be assuming that spell slots stack the way they do in 5E multiclassing, but I don't think that assumption is warranted. Based on @dnd4vr's description, it sounds like they threw the 5E multiclass system out the window entirely and went with the AD&D approach. That would mean each class tracks its own spell slots separately. @dnd4vr can correct me if I'm wrong here.

Looking over the list of characters, it seems like a reasonably balanced party, at least at a glance. The only character I'd be worried about not keeping up would be the fighter/barbarian; that one seems like it would have less synergy than the others. (The barbarian/monk is an interesting mix... is that character going Dex-focused or Str-focused? Str would seem like a better fit, since it lets you stack rage on top of Flurry of Blows, but I could see the other way too.)



Damn straight. It sounds like a fun game! There's nothing wrong with house rules, as long as everyone is on board and willing to address any issues that come up. This one has potential for game-wrecking combos, but contrary to what some folks on this board seem to think, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to squeeze out every possible drop of power from the ruleset.

No, I didn't make that assumption. My analysis focused on the action economy. Being abke to throw more spells over time is, of course, a buff, but they still cast one at a time. The martials get to stack it all up at once.

Frex, your wizard/cleric 5/5 has 4 3rd slots (vs 2). They can still cast as many fireballs per round as a wizard 5. The rogue/fighter 5/5 gets both all the fighter goodies _and_ all the rogue goodies every round. Sneak attack plus fighting style plus extra attack plus subclass stuff. The action economy suffers.

 

[Satyrn]

Half-Orc Rogue/Fighter 5/5
Dragonborn Fighter/Barbarian 5/5
Dragonborn Sorcerer/Druid 5/5
High Elf Rogue/Cleric/Wizard 5/5/5 (barely made 5th in each, the others are half-way or better towards 6th in each already)
and a Tiefling Barbarian/Monk 5/5 (absent from session)

Your spellcasters are just entering their prime. They'll be leaving the assassin in the dust, damage-wise, as they start hurling lots of fireballs and lightning bolts, and unleashing spirit guardians.

Seriously, in one campaign the strongest character at my table was a wand of lightning bolts from level 5 to 9. Er, whoever held it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It just occurred to me that the OP may be using the old M/C seperate slots. I don't think it can be assumed they'd use just the new slot sharing in they're M/C. If so, not really more fireballs.