What's the use in multiclassing?

[Kaeso]

As you may know from my previous thread, I'm currently making the switch from 3.5e to 5e. After having checked out all the classes in the PHB and, unlike in 3.5e, they all seem to have their merits in 5e. They all have interesting things to do and there are barely any dead levels. This makes me wonder what use there is to multiclassing. To me, multiclassing in 5e seems to have the same problems as the fighter in 3.5e had with having feats instead of class features. A high level single classed PC in 3.5e has a few very neat high-level tricks at his disposal, while a multiclassed PC would merely have a large collection of low-level tricks, making him weaker than either of his classes if he had single classed them. It's no longer like 3.5e where for example the monk or fighter were good for six levels at best.

So what use is there in multiclassing in 5e, if there is any at all?

[Strill]

Character customization. Creative builds. For example, Rogue 3 (Assassin) has some great synergy with plenty of other classes.

[Beleriphon]

So what use is there in multiclassing in 5e, if there is any at all?

There's a number of abilities that scale with total level rather than the levels in a given glass (cantrips for example).

[Scirocco]

Also of note: Wiz 1/EK +X gets you a spellbook, ritual casting, more spells known per day, an extra spell slot, more cantrips (which scale with level). EKs are going to be restricted casting 1st level spells for a significant portion of their career so this is a huge boon. In exchange they delay Ability Score/Feat progression, Extra Attack, and their archetype features.

My familiar, Owlelujah argues that it's worth the dip.

Now extensive multi-classing like in 3.5 just isn't worth it overall.

[Edge of Dreams]

One good use for multiclassing is to cover certain archetypes that can't be done by a single class, such as imitating the Mystic Theurge prestige class from 3.5. A Wizard 9/Cleric 11 multiclass in 5e can cast up to 5th level Wizard spells and 6th level Cleric spells, while having exactly the same number of spells-per-day as level 20 single-classed Wizard or Cleric. It's a trade-off of raw power vs. versatility.

[Daishain]

There almost isn't one, and this is deliberate. For good or ill, the developers seem to be actively discouraging multiclassing. (although they have made it less of a pitfall for spellcasters.)

[Galen]

One good use for multiclassing is to cover certain archetypes that can't be done by a single class, such as imitating the Mystic Theurge prestige class from 3.5. A Wizard 9/Cleric 11 multiclass in 5e can cast up to 5th level Wizard spells and 6th level Cleric spells, while having exactly the same number of spells-per-day as level 20 single-classed Wizard or Cleric. It's a trade-off of raw power vs. versatility.
Of course, if he was a single-class Wizard, he could have cast Wizard spells up to 9th level and Cleric spells up to 8th level (by using Wish). So in this particular case, he lost both power and versatility :smallannoyed:

[Shadow]

There are a few classes in which a small dip can ber extremely beneficial. But for the most part multiclassing only serves to fill concepts rather than builds, and even in those cases more often than not a homebrewed subclass would do it just as well.

One example that comes to mind for a thematic multiclass was a discussion we were having regarding a swashbuckler type.
The idea that I had for it is now something that I really *REALLY* want to play.
Fighter (battle master) 3 (or 4/5) / Rogue (thief) 17 (or 16/15)

Battle Master maneuvers: disarming, feinting, riposte (choose 2)
Defense style (or possibly Dueling).
Crossbow Expert (which is why Defense).
Martial Adept for 1 more Superiority Die, grab the other maneuver that you didn't choose before and 1 more (trip).
Lucky is almost a no brainer for a swashbuckler.

1d8+5 (rapier) +8or9d6 (sneak attack) +1d6+5 (bonus action handbow, applies SA if rapier misses)
If you went to 5th level fighter, you'd get another 1d8+5 rapier attack.
And if the rapier hits, save your bonus action for cunning action fun.

Feinting allows sneak attack when you're fighting 1v1.
Tripping allows sneak attack when you're fighting 1v1 (if used with the xbow attack first or with action surge) and offers a little BF control.
Riposte and Uncanny Dodge create a situation where, once per turn, anytime someone rolls an attack against you you can either choose to take half damage or OA (with SA if anyone else is in melee or if the attacker is prone [or whatever for Adv]).
Disarm > bonus cunning action use object > kick the weapon away so he can't pick it up.

A slight 3-5 level dip and the right feats, and I have the swashbucklingest swashbuckler that I could want to play.

[SaintRidley]

Of course, if he was a single-class Wizard, he could have cast Wizard spells up to 9th level and Cleric spells up to 8th level (by using Wish). So in this particular case, he lost both power and versatility :smallannoyed:

Except that wizard can only cast one cleric spell per day, and only if Wish isn't better used for something else. Seems like false versatility to me.

[MaxWilson]

Of course, if he was a single-class Wizard, he could have cast Wizard spells up to 9th level and Cleric spells up to 8th level (by using Wish). So in this particular case, he lost both power and versatility :smallannoyed:

I think it's overstating things a bit to say that a 9th level wizard has Cleric spells up to 8th level. He gets one per day at most, but if your only option for casting Bless (excellent little spell) is to cast Wish... effectively you can't really cast Bless.

Edit: yeah, what Saint Ridley said.

[Abithrios]

Of course, if he was a single-class Wizard, he could have cast Wizard spells up to 9th level and Cleric spells up to 8th level (by using Wish). So in this particular case, he lost both power and versatility :smallannoyed:

What other people have said plus the trick comes online really late. You might argue that high level spells of one type offer more versatility than low level spells of the other type, but I don't know the spell lists well enough to know if that is the case.

[hecetv]

Also I think it really depends on how far your game is going to go.... In a hypothetical game which goes from 1 all the way to 20 over however long and then sees play at 20 for a while, you are probably realistically gimping your effectiveness by multi classing, but in a game that goes to level 4? Or even level 10? I don't know. It might not effect you as much. A lot of really powerful game changing abilities come in at level 2 (action surge, warlock invocations, whatever the rogue one is called, etc) which I think a case can be made for dipping into without really crippling yourself in a lot of cases, and similarly there are builds out there with way greater dips that might not be so weak. But again it depends on how far a campaign goes. If endgame is level seven is a level seven fighter really much stronger than fighter 5 anything 2? Idk. But fighter four anything 3 is probably going to be way weaker for not getting multi attack.

Ok I'm rambling really badly. Sorry.

[MeeposFire]

There are a number of builds that work only if you start at certain levels. For instance unless you start at a high level doing one of the many cha shillelagh builds is very painful because you either go a long time without extra attacks or a long time using a low str/dex score rather than your cha score. As you say that is due to the multiclassing issues. Starting at high level it works but at low levels no way due to too much pain.

[Rummy]

Blade lock really requires a level in fighter or a couple in Paladin for heavy armor. F1WX is a great choice for blade locks... Con save prof is fantastic for Gishes.

[MaxWilson]

There are a number of builds that work only if you start at certain levels. For instance unless you start at a high level doing one of the many cha shillelagh builds is very painful because you either go a long time without extra attacks or a long time using a low str/dex score rather than your cha score. As you say that is due to the multiclassing issues. Starting at high level it works but at low levels no way due to too much pain.

I don't think you can get CHA Shillelagh except by going Bard, because only Bard can get Shillelagh as anything except a Cleric/Druid spell. If you take Magic Initiate it's still a cleric/druid spell, and if you take it via Warlock Pact of the Tomb it seems to still be a cleric/druid spell as well, but bards explicitly get it as a bard spell.

[Eslin]

I don't think you can get CHA Shillelagh except by going Bard, because only Bard can get Shillelagh as anything except a Cleric/Druid spell. If you take Magic Initiate it's still a cleric/druid spell, and if you take it via Warlock Pact of the Tomb it seems to still be a cleric/druid spell as well, but bards explicitly get it as a bard spell.

Pact of the tome*, and it's charisma based if you do it via that.

[Shadow]

it's charisma based if you do it via that.

Most DMs would rule that way, yes. But it doesn't specifically state that they become Warlock spells and thus Cha based, compared to the Bard's Magical Secrets similar ability which does specifically state that they become Bard spells.

[Abithrios]

Many multiclass builds work best after a certain point. Otherwise, you miss out on some of the cool stuff in the class, such as improved divine smite.

Pact of the tome*

But casting spells from crypts is way more fun than casting them from books.

Edit.

Most DMs would rule that way, yes. But it doesn't specifically state that they become Warlock spells and thus Cha based, compared to the Bard's Magical Secrets similar ability which does specifically state that they become Bard spells.
Does it specify at all what kind of spell it is at all? A spell does not belong to a particular class just because it only appears on one list.

[Shadow]

Does it specify at all what kind of spell it is at all? A spell does not belong to a particular class just because it only appears on one list.

In the other situations where spells from other class' lists are granted, it always specifically states that the spell uses the original casting stat (like from the feat) or that it is added to your list (like from the bard ability or domain spells).

Even the Warlock expanded spell list via Patron explicitly states that they become Warlock spells.
The cantrips from Tome say nothing of the sort.
A strict reading of the RAW means that they are not Cha based. Most DMs will rule otherwise, but by RAW they are not Cha based from Tome.

[OldTrees1]

8 levels of Bard(College of Lore) mingled into 12 levels of Rogue(Arcane Trickster) ends up with a better casting Arcane Trickster with more Expertise.

Specifically: Rogue 1-6 / Bard 1-3 / Rogue 7-12 / Bard 4-8

[Spacehamster]

12 levels battlemaster and 8 levels assassin that I'm aiming at gives great things for multiclassing 3 attacks(4with offhand) every turn, 4d6 sa, superiority die and crazy crazy damage when you get the drop on an enemy since all dies gets multiplied you first get crit with superiority die + sa, and all other hits on the surprise round crits aswell. Works great with Orc racial. :)

[MukkTB]

1 level dip - You still get a full set of feats. You lose your capstone but some classes have a terrible capstone and level 20 play isn't so much a guaranteed thing anyway, especially if the group starts at one. On the other hand many classes are still strongly front loaded. For example fighter 1 still nets you all kind of proficiencies, a nifty little healing ability, and a combat style.

2 level dip - At this point your first feat from class levels has been significantly delayed. You're down the level 19 feat. I'm not a fan. However there are some really good things for many classes at level 2. The fighters action surge, the Wizard's arcane tradition.

3 level dip - My general opinion is to go to 4 for the feat. However some classes come *online* at 3 and can be abandoned for something else afterwards.

4 Level dip - You picked up all the class features and you got a feat. Many class features are level dependent rather than class level dependent. Depending on your build you may be pretty clear to go someplace else next.

This system penalizes random multiclassing in an extreme way. Chart the course and figure out how good the character will be for every level played. Make sure you don't lose out on feats you need. Make sure you're happy with the class features you get.

[odigity]

1 level dip - You still get a full set of feats. You lose your capstone but some classes have a terrible capstone and level 20 play isn't so much a guaranteed thing anyway, especially if the group starts at one. On the other hand many classes are still strongly front loaded. For example fighter 1 still nets you all kind of proficiencies, a nifty little healing ability, and a combat style.

Or War Cleric for armor/weapons and 1st lvl spellcasting. Or Warlock for EB and possible 6thp per kill.


2 level dip - At this point your first feat from class levels has been significantly delayed. You're down the level 19 feat. I'm not a fan. However there are some really good things for many classes at level 2. The fighters action surge, the Wizard's arcane tradition.

Or the Rogue's Cunning Action, or the Warlock's 2x Invocations (usually Agonizing/Repelling Blast or Devil's Sight + something).


3 level dip - My general opinion is to go to 4 for the feat. However some classes come *online* at 3 and can be abandoned for something else afterwards.

Some level 17 class abilities might be worth more than a feat to you (like 9th level spells or Quivering Palm), in which case 17/3 is preferable to 16/4.


4 Level dip - You picked up all the class features and you got a feat. Many class features are level dependent rather than class level dependent. Depending on your build you may be pretty clear to go someplace else next.

You pay a high price for that feat. 4th level is usually dead in most classes because of the ASI/feat, whereas 5th and 17th are great. Spellcasting advances on odd levels, for example, and Extra Attack is at 5th level on classes with it (except Valor Bard). WotC really made it an exercise in painful tradeoffs. Which I guess means they did good. :)

Of course, a lot of this has been covered in previous threads dedicated to multiclassing dips:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377982-Let-s-talk-about-multiclass-cutoff-points-OR-We-need-a-guide-to-multiclassing!
http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4133666

[Abithrios]

In the other situations where spells from other class' lists are granted, it always specifically states that the spell uses the original casting stat (like from the feat) or that it is added to your list (like from the bard ability or domain spells).

Even the Warlock expanded spell list via Patron explicitly states that they become Warlock spells.
The cantrips from Tome say nothing of the sort.
A strict reading of the RAW means that they are not Cha based. Most DMs will rule otherwise, but by RAW they are not Cha based from Tome.

I just looked over Pact of the Tome and Book of Ancient Secrets. Neither one specifies which class the spells count towards. By the strictest interpretation of RAW I can think of, the spells are not based on any ability modifier. For example, you could use Pact of the Tome to get eldritch blast, then get Agonizing blast, which would result in getting cha to damage, but not attack (your attack modifier would just be your proficiency bonus).

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to make them cha based regardless of source. I think the second most sensible idea would be for them to be based on the casting stat of any one class with the spell on their list. Neither one of these are strict RAW, but I think the first is closer. Fortunately, strict RAW is only played at a minority of tables, regardless of edition.

[Knaight]

The biggest thing is that multiclassing is still an option to model characters that you make when a single class won't do the job very well. Single classing is probably generally more powerful; 5e encourages more archetypal characters in a few ways. Still, the options are there, and there isn't generally much of a power hit.

[Demonic Spoon]

The biggest thing is that multiclassing is still an option to model characters that you make when a single class won't do the job very well. Single classing is probably generally more powerful; 5e encourages more archetypal characters in a few ways. Still, the options are there, and there isn't generally much of a power hit.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. I imagine multiclassing was kept in because the designers knew that they couldn't cover all possible character types in the PHB. Subclassing is really a much more elegant system, but is limited by the released subclasses.

[Person_Man]

My opinion is that it was included for the sake of tradition, to mollify people who enjoy 3.X style multi-classing. But the vast majority of multi-class combination suck terribly, because the basic class design structure does not support it.

More specifically, for a class based system (as opposed to generic or point buy systems), multi-classing would only work well if Feats, Extra Attack, class abilities, and spells all fully scaled based on your character level (so 1st level class abilities would still be useful at 20th level) AND/OR if class abilities were arranged into Tracks (like Legend) AND/OR if every class had reasonably balanced 4E or Tome of Battle style Powers/Maneuvers/whatever which progressed along a reasonable multi-class chart (like spellcasters, and only spellcasters, currently have in 5E).

[Shadow]

My opinion is that it was included for the sake of tradition, to mollify people who enjoy 3.X style multi-classing. But the vast majority of multi-class combination suck terribly, because the basic class design structure does not support it.

I wouldn't say the vast majority, but I agree with the sentiment in a general sense.
As I said before, there are a few classes which multiclass very well. I'm primarily a rogue player, and I've come up with many ideas using a rogue base which are extremely effective multiclasses.
The 3-5 level fighter battle master / thief I listed above is one example. Six levels of way of the shadow monk on pretty much any rogue build is another (and is actually more powerful than a straight rogue if built properly). An arcane trickster with a few levels of wizard (or any other caster) is yet another. Rogue is already very versatile, and multiclassing a rogue for a few levels of something else only adds to that versatility, usually with very little loss.
Any class which offers the extra attack ability (especially monk) is arguably worth a multi on a rogue, as the 3d6 (average 10.5) is made up for by that extra attack (1d6+5~8.5 with the possibility of SA if the first attack missed).

The team has confirmed that RAI, a monk/rogue can use any simple weapon to sneak attack.
This means that a rogue 13 / monk 6 / fighter 1 can have:
7d6 SA using a quaterstaff (versatile) with finesse, extra attack, martial arts (1d6+m bonus), possible flurry, polearm master (OA), great weapon fighting style (reroll 1s & 2s), with three chances to apply sneak attack every round on your turn, and if the bonus attack wasn't needed you can bonus disengage to step away and make the enemy step into melee again triggering PM to force the OA every round.
It's the most ridiculous rogue DPR build that I could come up with, and it's perfectly legal by RAW with the inclusion of the RAI by the dev team regarding monk weapons becoming finesse weapons.

[MarkTriumphant]

Most DMs would rule that way, yes. But it doesn't specifically state that they become Warlock spells and thus Cha based, compared to the Bard's Magical Secrets similar ability which does specifically state that they become Bard spells.

I'm not sure how else it could be ruled. You are selecting a spell, not a spell from someone else's spell list. Therefore it is a Warlock spell by default.

Edit: I see that you covered this in later comments. Ignore me.

[Shadow]

I'm not sure how else it could be ruled. You are selecting a spell, not a spell from someone else's spell list. Therefore it is a Warlock spell by default.

Yes and No. It is my belief that the omission was simply an oversight. But like I said, every single other time where any class can gain a spell from another spell list it specifically tells you which stat you'll be using. Pact ot the Tome cantrips are the *sole* excepton to this. By a *strict* reading of the RAW, that omission means a lot, as it is the only time that omission occurs.
They are not warlock spells by default. They belong to spell lists from other classes by default.

edit:
yeah, so you see what I mean

[Chaosvii7]

Blade lock really requires a level in fighter or a couple in Paladin for heavy armor. F1WX is a great choice for blade locks... Con save prof is fantastic for Gishes.

Starting War Cleric into bladelock is better because if you have even a passable wisdom modifier you can get extra attacks from the domain ability and get a little bit more mileage out of your nova. THEN you dip fighter for action surge.

And don't even get me started on the Ranger dip for Horde Breaker. That's a whole different can of worms.

I'd argue the only class that needs to dip is Warlock, actually. Not to say I don't love it, it's my favorite class by an insanely wide margin, but even I can admit that it's just not as powerful unless it's getting potatoes for it's meat from other classes.

[odigity]

The team has confirmed that RAI, a monk/rogue can use any simple weapon to sneak attack.


Can you clarify, or better yet, link to the source on this one, since it's such a big deal?

Are you saying that while normally a Rogue can only sneak attack with a finesse weapon, when combined with Monk which can use Dex for all simple weapons, it gives those weapons the Finesse property, thereby allowing them to be used during sneak attack?

[Shadow]

Can you clarify, or better yet, link to the source on this one, since it's such a big deal?

Are you saying that while normally a Rogue can only sneak attack with a finesse weapon, when combined with Monk which can use Dex for all simple weapons, it gives those weapons the Finesse property, thereby allowing them to be used during sneak attack?

That's exactly what I'm saying.
Search twitter and/or thesageadvice and you should easily find where Mearls or Crawford (I don't remember which) states that he'd allow multiclass a rogue/monk to sneak attack with a spear (I think that was the weapon the question pertained to).

Finesse is the ability to use Dex for melee. Martial arts allows any simple weapon to be used with Dex. Ergo, martial arts effectively turns any simple weapon into a finesse weapon.

edit:
It was Mearls. (http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/monk-sneak-attack/)
Satsuma @SatsumaOranges
@mikemearls Multiclass Rogue/Monk: He attacks with a spear. Technically not a finesse weapon, but a monk treats it like one. Sneak attack?

Mike Mearls @mikemearls
@SatsumaOranges it doesn't break anything, so I'd allow it.
11:21 AM - 23 Sep 2014

[Tiber]

Actually, I've been looking at multi-classing my Arcane Trickster into Wizard, and it doesn't seem like a good idea. An (Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight) X/ Wizard 1 gets more cantrips and first level spells to choose from (including a spellbook), a 2 level boost in spell slot progression compared to another level in the same class, and the ability to regain a level 1 spell casting after a short rest. The cost of this is a little bit of HP, the progression of the main class (for rogues, this includes sneak attack die progression most notably), and it delays your ability to learn the higher level spells to use with your spell slots.

With regards to Ritual Casting, it's not the same as taking the Ritual Caster feat. The feat lets you learn rituals with a spell level <= your character level / 2 (rounded up I believe). With Wizard, the rule for copying spells into your spellbook is that you have to have spell slots for the level of the spell. This appears to be overwritten by multiclassing rule that you can only know spells based on each class individually, meaning you only ever get level 1 rituals from Wizard 1.

[Person_Man]

I wouldn't say the vast majority, but I agree with the sentiment in a general sense.
As I said before, there are a few classes which multiclass very well. I'm primarily a rogue player, and I've come up with many ideas using a rogue base which are extremely effective multiclasses.

You are correct. The Rogue is a semi-exception because of Sneak Attack. Every other non-Rogue build that relies on attacks with weapons (as opposed to Cantrips) for their default/at-will attacks needs Extra Attack around 5th level, and some other form of bonus damage around mid levels. Otherwise their average damage output can fall way behind that of other classes. For example, Fighter 4/Barbarian 4 gets just 1 attack per round, except for those limited extra attacks gained by Action Surge, Battlemaster maneuvers, etc.

And even then, the Sneak Attack limitation on Finesse and Ranged weapons tends to limit any potential damage gains to the baseline of every other class, since you can't use Heavy weapons.

I would also add that the Monk is a terrible class to multi-class into. Most of its cool stuff requires Ki Points. Ki Points scale based on your class level. So you're using those abilities very few times per day at mid-levels if you're a multi-class build. So you'd basically be spending 6ish levels of Monk just to pick up one or two cool abilities, which seems terribly inefficient to me.

[Shadow]

Actually, I've been looking at multi-classing my Arcane Trickster into Wizard, and it doesn't seem like a good idea.

That depends on how much of each class you're looking at.
A small dip into wizard isn't very beneficial.
But a fairly even split actually is. For example, a rogue 9 / wizard 11 has:
6th level spells known
7th level slots as a 14th level caster
an arcane tradition specialty
two more upgrades to that specialty
five levels of spell recall
5d6 sneak attack
cunning action
uncanny dodge
evasion
8 cantrips
17+Int spells known/prepared
mage hand legerdemain
magical ambush
A fairly even split between them almost makes this the quintessential arcane trickster from 3e, only with more rogue goodies.


I would also add that the Monk is a terrible class to multi-class into. Most of its cool stuff requires Ki Points. Ki Points scale based on your class level. So you're using those abilities very few times per day at mid-levels if you're a multi-class build. So you'd basically be spending 6ish levels of Monk just to pick up one or two cool abilities, which seems terribly inefficient to me.

Better AC potential than your normal proficiencies offer (or equivalent to what +3 studded offers, only likely sooner), Dex for simple weapons allowing sneak attack with a versatile spear or staff, bonus attack for more SA opportunities without the need for a second weapon in hand, extra attack for more SA opportunities and to make up for the SA loss from multiclassing, deflect missles, slow fall, shadow step and cast minor illusion at will. And all of that without ever needing or spending a single Ki point. Ki is just gravy.
With 6 points of Ki which recharge on a short rest you can flurry, throw caught missles, dodge as a bonus, stun enemies, and cast darkness, darkvision, pass without trace & silence.
Monk may be a poor choice to multiclass in most cases, but for a rogue it's an AMAZING multiclass. You lose almost nothing and gain a whole host of cool tricks and abilities which synergize extremely well.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I think monk/cleric would work decently. Thematic, too - it would make a great monastery abbot npc.

[Person_Man]

Monk may be a poor choice to multiclass in most cases, but for a rogue it's an AMAZING multiclass. You lose almost nothing and gain a whole host of cool tricks and abilities which synergize extremely well.

I somewhat disagree on this specific point, although it depends on the details of exactly what combination you use and your ability scores.

A high level Rogue will probably have higher damage output then a comparable Rogue/Monk. Sneak Attack is relatively easy to trigger. Although getting Dex to damage from Martial Arts is nifty, Flurry of Blows requires Ki and thus can only be used a limited number of times per day, and the Monk Weapon/Unarmed Damage doesn't scale up to a meaningful level until high levels. (I'm sure you could construct certain situations where it works out fine though - it depends on your ECL and mix of classes).

Both classes get Evasion. So that would be a dead-ish level if taken twice.

There is some overlap between Cunning Action and Monk abilities that increase mobility or Shadow Jump. In combat, they're both basically used to get you where you need to be or retreat. Although there are some situations where you would really like both, in many situations having either would work fine, and in those situations having both is basically wasted.

Similarly, Expertise in Stealth and Pass Without Trace technically add to each other, but functionally overlap. Very few enemies have the ridiculously high Perception check that would be needed to notice a PC using either of these two abilities. I mean, how often do you really come across an enemy with a 20+ Perception? Is it really worth piling multiple class resources into that one thing to deal with a corner case? And even then, for those rare circumstances a Rogue is better served by being in the same party as a Ranger, Shadow Monk, or Bard with Pass Without Trace (which has an area of effect) rather then taking it himself. And eventually, a strait Rogue will get Reliable Talent, making access to Pass Without Trace even less important.

Perhaps most importantly, a lot depends on your ability scores. If I only have two high ability scores, then I'm definitely going strait Rogue with high Dex and Con, instead of a Rogue/Monk with high Dex and Wis (and mediocre or low Con). Having more hit points trumps the +2ish AC you might squeeze out of Unarmored Defense and the similar bonus to Wisdom Saves (knowing that Slippery Mind eventually gives you Wis Save Proficiency). Whereas if you happen to get lucky and roll three high ability scores, then a Rogue/Monk with high Dex/Con/Wis would indeed make more sense.

The above is not to say that its a bad idea. Just that the specifics matter. Which goes back to my original point. Yes, smart people on the forums like you can put together clever multi-class combinations. But by default, many multi-class combinations don't work well, or end up being a wash with some unexpected drawbacks.

[Shadow]

The damage output is equivalent under normal circumstances, and actually higher for the monk multi most of the time.
Do the math. In a vaccuum it's even. In real combat circumstances the multi pulls ahead due to more attacks (extra attack, a few flurries when needed, reliable ways to force an OA and sneak attack out of turn, etc).
Yes, flurry of blows requires Ki, but flurry of blows isn't even needed. The damage is equivalent without flurry of blows. With flurry of blows, even a few times per combat (and lets be honest, 6 rounds of combat is a lot of flurries) the multi pulls ahead significantly.
Do the math.
Straight rogue with a +3 rapier vs straight rogue with two +3 shortswords vs multiclass monk 6 with a +3 staff.

monk/rogue +3 staff flurry 1d8+8 (12.5) + 1d8+8 (12.5) + 1d6+5 (8.5) + 1d6+5 (8.5) + 7d6 (24.5) = 66.5
monk/rogue with +3 staff without flurry 1d8+8 (12.5) + 1d8+8 (12.5) + 1d6+5 (8.5) + 7d6 (24.5) = 58
straight rogue with dual +3 short swords 1d6+8 (11.5) + 1d6+3 (6.5) + 10d6 (35) = 53
straight rogue with +3 rapier 1d8+8 (12.5) + 10d6 (35) = 47.5

Multiclass is the winner. And that's even before PM and GWF style and things like that are factored in. Not only is he the winner in DPR, but he has a lot more tricks and fun that he can play with.
I would argue that a multiclass monk/rogue is better than a straight rogue in almost every way.
Toss a single level of fighter on there and every single one of those 2d8+9d6(+26) gets to reroll 1s and 2s. It's asinine how much better the multiclass is than the straight rogue at this point.

As far as stats go, you can easily start with 16 14 14 after racial mods, with a few points left over, grab polearm master, and still get 20s in both Dex and Wis (18 Wis if non-human variant with those starting stats). 14 Con is nothing to cry about. And like I said, those were with racial boosts already factored in. If you really want to min-max him it's even easier to get the stats you need.
Stats for this aren't an issue.

[Delwugor]

One example that comes to mind for a thematic multiclass was a discussion we were having regarding a swashbuckler type.
The idea that I had for it is now something that I really *REALLY* want to play.
Fighter (battle master) 3 (or 4/5) / Rogue (thief) 17 (or 16/15)
I think that's the thread I started requesting assistance, and btw everyone provided great help.

I am running the swashbuckler now and he's working very well for my purposed. Originally I was thinking of slight dips into fighter (Duelist), but the the group is missing a fighter as the player hasn't started, so my character is filling in a more offensive role in melee.
He just hit 3rd level and because of the group change I decided to multiclass with Fighter now instead of after 3rd or 4th level. He had already shown to be effective in maneuvering melee, but now he has a bit more staying power and can keep toe-toe with the enemy.

As a Rogue, he's not as good as the Rogue (Arcane Trickster) but is still good enough to fill in or help out when needed. His skill proficiencies are absolutely wonderful, I usually prefer to play skills more than most players. My problem is that I don't really like the Rogue Archtypes since they don't fit in with a swashbuckler, will see.

So now I have a very good and effective multi-talented character that can swing from the chandeliers, jump circles around the enemy, can do most non-magical and non-social skills, go toe-toe with bad guys and help out in any number of areas. Not an optimized or powerful character but I am enjoying him very much and will see how he progresses - next will be Rogue3/Fighter1.

[Shadow]

I think that's the thread I started requesting assistance, and btw everyone provided great help.

What did you end up deciding on? I know there were tons of suggestions, and I don't recall you ever telling us what you fell on.

edit:
Nevermind, I just looked it up and we're talking about two different threads.

[MaxWilson]

That's exactly what I'm saying.
Search twitter and/or thesageadvice and you should easily find where Mearls or Crawford (I don't remember which) states that he'd allow multiclass a rogue/monk to sneak attack with a spear (I think that was the weapon the question pertained to).

Finesse is the ability to use Dex for melee. Martial arts allows any simple weapon to be used with Dex. Ergo, martial arts effectively turns any simple weapon into a finesse weapon.

edit:
It was Mearls. (http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/monk-sneak-attack/)
Satsuma @SatsumaOranges
@mikemearls Multiclass Rogue/Monk: He attacks with a spear. Technically not a finesse weapon, but a monk treats it like one. Sneak attack?

Mike Mearls @mikemearls
@SatsumaOranges it doesn't break anything, so I'd allow it.
11:21 AM - 23 Sep 2014

I hope this doesn't start an argument, but there's a difference between a rules clarification and a tweeted opinion from a developer. For something like the Warlock invocation problem, a developer clarification is meaningful because it clarifies the writing. They meant it to be "warlock level" but forgot to make that explicit in the text. For something like the monk/rogue question here, it's not a clarification at all. It's just an opinion from one DM, and those opinions aren't always coherent. (I've seen Crawford rule two different ways on the same question.)

Clarifications can and should affect RAW, opinions do not.

[Shadow]

Clarifications can and should affect RAW, opinions do not.

No argument from me on that point. I am the head cheerleader for DM Rulings. He's the final arbiter. But clarification from the designer that he'd allow it in his own game carries a lot of weight with regards to what most DMs will (and probably should) rule in thier own games.

[MaxWilson]

No argument from me on that point. I am the head cheerleader for DM Rulings. He's the final arbiter. But clarification from the designer that he'd allow it in his own game carries a lot of weight with regards to what most DMs will (and probably should) rule in thier own games.

I somewhat agree but not completely. 5E is a designed product, and the skills of the designer were part of that process, but so were playtesting and editorial feedback and discussion amongst designers. An off-the-cuff ruling isn't a designed rule, it's a shoot-from-the-hip guess. That's why designers contradict each other, because those rulings haven't gone through the design process. Think of it as a first draft.

[Delwugor]

What did you end up deciding on? I know there were tons of suggestions, and I don't recall you ever telling us what you fell on.

edit:
Nevermind, I just looked it up and we're talking about two different threads.

Could you provide me a link to the other thread? I'd like to read it and see if it gives me more ideas. I'm more interested in portraying and playing the concepts than actual numbers, as long as it doesn't lead to a nerfed character I'm good.

[odigity]

For something like the Warlock invocation problem, a developer clarification is meaningful because it clarifies the writing. They meant it to be "warlock level" but forgot to make that explicit in the text.

Wait, what? Are you sure about that? (Link?) Because I'm planning on dipping a second level of Warlock at 15th level to pick up the Master of Myriad Forms invocation, and not being able to do so would be very disappointing...

[Xetheral]

Wait, what? Are you sure about that? (Link?) Because I'm planning on dipping a second level of Warlock at 15th level to pick up the Master of Myriad Forms invocation, and not being able to do so would be very disappointing...

I'm not aware of any developer tweets either way on the subject, which itself I find interesting. If it was simply written poorly, clarifying it should be straightforward. I have to wonder if different designers intended different things.

[Abithrios]

Wait, what? Are you sure about that? (Link?) Because I'm planning on dipping a second level of Warlock at 15th level to pick up the Master of Myriad Forms invocation, and not being able to do so would be very disappointing...

I am not sure about developer tweets, but customer service's answer is to ask your DM.


I'm not aware of any developer tweets either way on the subject, which itself I find interesting. If it was simply written poorly, clarifying it should be straightforward. I have to wonder if different designers intended different things.


Maybe they are play testing now in preparation for a final rule once they know which is better.

[Shadow]

Could you provide me a link to the other thread? I'd like to read it and see if it gives me more ideas. I'm more interested in portraying and playing the concepts than actual numbers, as long as it doesn't lead to a nerfed character I'm good.

Yeah, gimme a minute to find it and I'll edit it in.
edit: here ya go (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379194-Achieve-good-dmg-with-swashbuckling-rapier-Rogue-w-o-Assisinate)

[MaxWilson]

Wait, what? Are you sure about that? (Link?) Because I'm planning on dipping a second level of Warlock at 15th level to pick up the Master of Myriad Forms invocation, and not being able to do so would be very disappointing...

As requested, here's the tweet on warlock invocation levels: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/525327270899355648

[MeeposFire]

Don't forget that monks also get a bonus action attack from martial arts that does not need ki. This means you can get an additional attack over a standard rogue or get your dex mod to damage on that bonus action attack compared to the two weapon rogue.

[Speaker]

A thing I've notice when people theory craft multiclass builds is that the forget it affects their feat/attribute progression so they make builds that lose a lot of power. They trade power for cool tricks when they multiclass. The way spellcasting works now makes multiclassing into something like warlock or wiz a great option though.

[edge2054]

@Shadow, have you looked at Druid/Rogue at all? I think a lot of Rogue abilities would be usable in beast form. Plus a Rogue shape changed into a cat with Pass Without Trace active sounds kinda nice.

*also a big rogue fan*

[Shadow]

@Shadow, have you looked at Druid/Rogue at all? I think a lot of Rogue abilities would be usable in beast form. Plus a Rogue shape changed into a cat with Pass Without Trace active sounds kinda nice.

*also a big rogue fan*

I haven't looked into it much. The way that wildshape works will make this less than effective as you level up. The higher you go, the less effective it will be.
Multiclassing a class that relies on those class levels for its class features' scaling will only compound the usual drawback of multiclassing.
You'll be a bad rogue and an even worse shapeshifter.


But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and if I looked into it I'd find something that shows me otherwise.... but I doubt it.

[edge2054]

The sage advice blog is caught up from the holiday break.

Official ruling is that monk unarmed attacks (and presumably weapons) are not finesse weapons.

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/defensive-duelist-and-savage-attacker/

[Shadow]

The sage advice blog is caught up from the holiday break.

Official ruling is that monk unarmed attacks (and presumably weapons) are not finesse weapons.

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/defensive-duelist-and-savage-attacker/

That's not an official ruling. That's the ruling that Crawford would apparently make. And that ruling is different from the ruling that Mearls would make. So just like CustServ would tell you, it's the DMs call.

[edge2054]

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/golden-rule-vi/

Crawford is the official rules guru. Mearls is the rulings over rules guy.

Your table is free to run it how you like Shadow. I really like the Monk/Rogue build but was figuring something like this would happen. As I play AL 'rulings over rules' doesn't really apply to my table :/

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble.

[Shadow]

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/golden-rule-vi/

Crawford is the official rules guru. Mearls is the rulings over rules guy.

Your table is free to run it how you like Shadow. I really like the Monk/Rogue build but was figuring something like this would happen. As I play AL 'rulings over rules' doesn't really apply to my table :/

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble.

AL League has officially (and I mean "officially, as in, in print in an official iunterview") stated that they embrace the rulings over rules philosopy and don't force decisions on it if they don't absolutely have to. So yes, it does apply at your table. AL games use rulings all the time as well, and the vast majority of them are just that rather than "rules."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but hose games aren't any more "official" than a table in my basement.

And explain to me what the difference is between the official rules guru and the lead designer of the game.

If it ends up in Errata or FAQ, then it becomes an official rule.
Until that time, it is just a ruling, even if there's a tweet about it.

edit:
I'd also like to point out that:
1) The tweet you're refering to is in regards to warlock incantation level reqs.
2) Even Crawford contradicts himeslf at times.

[Scirocco]

Shadow's right there... AL is nothing at all like PFS. AL GMs are quite empowered to decide how to run things.

I for one decided to have our Wild Mage (who basically had half her class features ignored) roll even on cantrips (not RAW at all, but it was more fun).

[Yagyujubei]

another example of MC being superior to pure build would be the skillmonkey utility build.

1cleric/4bard/15rogue nets you the greatest skill versatility possible, and if you're going Arcane Trickster here you'll actually end up with 1 more 4th level spell slot than a pure 20 AT rogue would. you delay your sneak attack growth considerably but that's not really the point of the build.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

And explain to me what the difference is between the official rules guru and the lead designer of the game.

Mearls defers to Crawford on actual rules questions. Crawford has the final say.