Multiclass: Yea or Nay?

[Rolen]

So I've recently hit 5 on my Ranger, and now I'm at a loss as it what I should do next. Should I continue straight Ranger or should I multiclass? And if I multiclass, into what and how far?

Our group composition so far is an Eldritch Knight, a Life Cleric, a Draconic Sorceress, and me, the Hunter Ranger. At one point we had a Rogue NPC, but uh... he kind of caught a sudden case of the dead, and then he got reanimated, and then I had to put him down by way of a scimitar to the face. It was a sad time. Anyway, locked doors and chests continue to confound our party now, and while the DM lets the EK use Acid Splash to slowly eat through things, it's loud, and slow. Other times we can break through stuff, but again, loud.

Now, the DM will also let me pick up proficiency with Thieve's Tools in less than 250 days if I can find a trainer, but if I just multiclass to Rogue, I can just pick up the proficiency that way. Which takes me to my current ponderings. If I multiclass to Rogue, how many levels of Rogue should I take? We are going to be going as far as 20, and the Ranger capstone I find is... eh, take it or leave it. Should I just get trained in the tools and go straight 20? 17 / 3? 14 / 6? 12 / 8? Or maybe Just go 5 / 15 and never look back?

My current stats are: 11 STR, 18 DEX, 14 CON, 12 INT, 16 WIS, 7 CHA. Got an emphasis on shooting things with a longbow going on.

[Daishain]

Level five is a good level to branch out from Ranger if you're going to do so. As I see it, you have two good options in regards to rogueing things up.

Three to four levels of Assassin if you want to boost your alpha strikes considerably. If going for more levels than that, Arcane Trickster could help you expand your magical repertoire with some useful tricks (just stay away from spells that are affected by casting stat).

[Arkhios]

Either way really. Tool proficiencies can be learned on downtime and over the course of adventuring, if thieves' tools is the only thing you really want.

However, going for rogue (both Thief and Assassin) might prove worthwhile, as sneak attack works well from range as well (it specifically requires a ranged weapon or a melee finesse weapon) with no range limit.
In addition to thieves' tools proficiency, you'll get Expertise (double proficiency bonus) in two skills (or one skill and thieves' tools) you're proficient with, which are really useful.

As for how far you should invest in Rogue, I'd say go by feel.

[Gtdead]

Unless you like the flavor abilities that ranger gets later, there isn't much point to keep leveling as one.

Between Fighter and Sorceress, killing swarming enemies should be a breeze, so I don't see much point going 11 lvl for whirlwind. Going rogue for skillmonkery and extra single target burst damage is a sound decision.

Personally I'd aim for 11 rogue levels, 13 if Arcane Trickster. From there on, you can grab 2 lvls of fighter if you like.

[Malbrack]

So I've recently hit 5 on my Ranger, and now I'm at a loss as it what I should do next. Should I continue straight Ranger or should I multiclass? And if I multiclass, into what and how far?

Level 5 is a great place to walk away from a Hunter Ranger. You already have two of the three most important abilities: (1) Horde Breaker or Colossus Slayer and (2) Extra Attack. Other than additional spellcasting, (3) Volley is about all you have to look forward to. Plus, you already have your max number of 1st level spell slots--allowing 4 hours of Hunter's Mark--and you have access to 2nd level spells.

Other good endpoints for Ranger include 11 (for Volley and max number of level 3 spell slots), 12 (it's just one more level beyond 11 to get another ASI, allowing you to hit 20 with 5 ASIs), 13 (for access to 4th level casting) and 17 (for access to 5th level casting).

So if you're looking at multiclassing to Rogue, think about how many levels you'd want: 3, 7, 8, 9, or 15.

If it were me, I would build toward 12 Ranger/8 Rogue. You get Volley and 3rd level spells from Ranger, a bunch of goodies from Rogue (including Cunning Action, Fast Hands or Assassinate, 4d6 Sneak Attack, Evasion, Expertise in 4 skills), and still end up with 5 ASIs. From where you're at, I would go Rogue for the next 4 levels, then bring Ranger to 12 before finishing with Rogue.

[Specter]

Definitely multiclass.

Level 6 is pretty much dead unless your DM is obssessed about these stupid terrains, and Expertise makes it all worthwhile. Expertise in Stealth and use Pass Without Trace you're essentially invisible.

[napoleon_in_rag]

For the purpose of min/maxing, assassin seems the way to go.

Though as a DM, I would ask:

"How does this fit your character's background, alignment, and history? Do you have a good roleplaying reason to multiclass?"

I would never say no to a player's request like this but I would insist they use their imagination to develop their character's story and reconcile the differences in motivation between a Ranger and an Assassin.

[Ewhit]

I agree with above I have a 5 ranger and after the 2 attacks and the Amin first level spell hunters mark I went rogue assassin.

Make sure you have alertness feat and it's just the best

1. Pick locks
2.surprise = crit
3. going first before any enemy gives advantage
4. Sneak attack works if you have advantage or if target is within5 feet of ally
5. Cunning action
6. Uncanny dodge
7. Evasion

Hopefully you have colossus slayer and hunters mark for more damage each round

[smcmike]

For the purpose of min/maxing, assassin seems the way to go.

Though as a DM, I would ask:

"How does this fit your character's background, alignment, and history? Do you have a good roleplaying reason to multiclass?"

I would never say no to a player's request like this but I would insist they use their imagination to develop their character's story and reconcile the differences in motivation between a Ranger and an Assassin.

What are the differences in motivation between a ranger and an assassin, exactly? They seem pretty similar to me. Do you demand detailed stories for adding levels to a single class characters? For example, when I add my Bear Totem ability to a single classed barbarian, what sort of explanation do you expect?

[PoeticDwarf]

Rogue is great for rangers

[Foxhound438]

5/15 and never look back. Past 5 in ranger there's really nothing stellar there, maybe multiattack if you want it for flavor. The rogue has 2/3 of the highest Hunter options, so you're gaining there. High level sneak attack is pretty great when you have 2 attacks.

Only other thing I might recommend would be going out to ranger 9 ultimately, conjure animals for 4 crocadiles to restrain your targets.

[Knaight]

For the purpose of min/maxing, assassin seems the way to go.

Though as a DM, I would ask:

"How does this fit your character's background, alignment, and history? Do you have a good roleplaying reason to multiclass?"

I would never say no to a player's request like this but I would insist they use their imagination to develop their character's story and reconcile the differences in motivation between a Ranger and an Assassin.

You mean a reason like them realizing that in the course of their adventuring they are suddenly down a number of key skills which might be worth learning, complements of the person who had them being killed, then turned into an undead monstrosity that tried to kill the party?

[Citan]

So I've recently hit 5 on my Ranger, and now I'm at a loss as it what I should do next. Should I continue straight Ranger or should I multiclass? And if I multiclass, into what and how far?

Our group composition so far is an Eldritch Knight, a Life Cleric, a Draconic Sorceress, and me, the Hunter Ranger.

Now, the DM will also let me pick up proficiency with Thieve's Tools in less than 250 days if I can find a trainer, but if I just multiclass to Rogue, I can just pick up the proficiency that way. Which takes me to my current ponderings. If I multiclass to Rogue, how many levels of Rogue should I take?

My current stats are: 11 STR, 18 DEX, 14 CON, 12 INT, 16 WIS, 7 CHA. Got an emphasis on shooting things with a longbow going on.
Hi!
I suppose you took the Hunter archetype?
If so, as other said, unless your DM allows you to really play the "Favored Terrain" benefits, you can safely walk away from Ranger for now, considering your need to fill in for past Rogue. Although Volley is still something to aim for, in later levels.

So, you have three ways to go about this.
1. Go Arcane Trickster Rogue
this brings you the Expertise you need, the "oh-so-good" Cunning Action and additional spellcasting. Reason why I don't advise the other archetypes, because it's a net loss. And many spells will be very useful to you. Take three levels immediately (four if you need ASI) then do as you wish between Ranger and Rogue.
I'd suggest going up to lvl 9 in the end (Ranger 11 / Rogue 9) so you can put enemies at disadvantage against your spells (Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns or even AT spells), get a hefty boost on damage and still get Volley
If you don't care about Volley, then go Rogue all the way (but you will then actually become a Rogue with a bit of Ranger fluff^^).
If you plan on filling the "Rogue" role all the way in (damage striker / sneaker), Ranger 5 / AT or Thief Rogue 15 is the way to go. Otherwise Ranger 11 / AT Rogue 9 is a very good deal also.

2. Go Knowledge Cleric
This seems like an unusual way to go, but it can work: if you don't need tool proficiency every wall turn, the Channel divinity could be enough.
While you don't get extra damage, expertise and Cunning Action (which could compete with Hunter's Mark though), you get much better spellcasting right off the bat and useful cantrips and spells that can lift a bit of weight from your Life Cleric.
And lvl 6 Channel Divinity can be quite useful too. :)
So end build such as Cleric 3 / Ranger 17 (for Swift Quiver) or Cleric 7 / Ranger 13 (to get Conjure Woodlands Beings) or Cleric 8 / Ranger 12 (more ASI) can all work, depending on how much you fancy spellcasting.
If you just want more spell slots for Hunter's Mark and occasional proficiency in anything while limiting the dip because you aim at Ranger 11+, Knowledge Cleric 3 is the way to go.

3. Mix and Match
In the case you're no more interested in Ranger class features, but you like having spellcasting slots and spell variety, make it a three way. :)
Stop Ranger altogether. Start Rogue, as high as you wish (5 for Uncanny Dodge, 7 for Evasion), then add Druid levels into the mix.
My suggestion would be Rogue 7+ (for Evasion) and Druid 7+ (to get most of the useful spells you could have learnt as Ranger, especially the Conjure, and many others). Several Land domains could be interesting to you (Desert? Mountain? Underdark?).
Ranger 5 / Rogue 7 / Land Druid 7 or Ranger 5 / Rogue 5 / Moon Druid 9 (for flying Wild Shape) are very good.
And you don't tread on anyone else's specialties (in fact, you just reinforce the "nature's man" aspect of classic Ranger.
If you want to feel like a Ranger with spellcasting on steroids, while also filling the Rogue shoes, Ranger 5 / AT Rogue 7 / Underdark Druid 7 is the way to go.

Have fun!

[napoleon_in_rag]

What are the differences in motivation between a ranger and an assassin, exactly? They seem pretty similar to me.

A stereotypical Ranger is a wilderness protector. A stereotypical Assassin is an urban paid killer.


Do you demand detailed stories for adding levels to a single class characters?

No, of course not. But I insist that first level characters have a background that explains how they gained that class.

I allow multiclassing including far out ones like Paladin/Warlock. But I expect the player to use their imagination to make the change fit their story.

That's my DMing style. I emphasize collaborative storytelling over just hack and slash. If a player doesn't like it they don't have to play in my campaign.

[Malbrack]

1. Go Arcane Trickster Rogue
this brings you the Expertise you need, the "oh-so-good" Cunning Action and additional spellcasting. Reason why I don't advise the other archetypes, because it's a net loss. And many spells will be very useful to you. Take three levels immediately (four if you need ASI) then do as you wish between Ranger and Rogue.
I'd suggest going up to lvl 9 in the end (Ranger 11 / Rogue 9) so you can put enemies at disadvantage against your spells (Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns or even AT spells), get a hefty boost on damage and still get Volley
If you don't care about Volley, then go Rogue all the way (but you will then actually become a Rogue with a bit of Ranger fluff^^).
If you plan on filling the "Rogue" role all the way in (damage striker / sneaker), Ranger 5 / AT or Thief Rogue 15 is the way to go. Otherwise Ranger 11 / AT Rogue 9 is a very good deal also.

I can see your point, but I wouldn't recommend Arcane Trickster if he only intends to take a few levels of Rogue. I think Assassinate has more value than a few level 1 illusion/enchantment spells. Your cleric or druid multi-class ideas sound pretty good though, especially since he has a decent Wisdom.

[smcmike]

A stereotypical Ranger is a wilderness protector. A stereotypical Assassin is an urban paid killer.



No, of course not. But I insist that first level characters have a background that explains how they gained that class.

I allow multiclassing including far out ones like Paladin/Warlock. But I expect the player to use their imagination to make the change fit their story.

That's my DMing style. I emphasize collaborative storytelling over just hack and slash. If a player doesn't like it they don't have to play in my campaign.

My point is simply that classes don't have to fit with a stereotype. Adding rogue abilities to a character doesn't require that they start acting like a stereotypical rogue ... Do you require that anyone who takes the assassin subclass actually kill people for money?

In terms of my barbarian example, the "of course not" doesn't seem warranted. My barbarian is a sailor who grew up in the slums of waterdeep. Most class features fit just fine with that background, but the totem spells don't, really, and if I'm going to use them they probably need an explanation.

[Malbrack]

And to expand on my preference for Assassin over Arcane Trickster, think about action economy. Having utility from spells is great, but any spell that requires concentration conflicts with Hunter's Mark. Any spell that uses a bonus action conflicts with applying/moving Hunter's Mark. Any spell that requires an action has to be better than 2 bow attacks + horde breaker or colossus slayer + sneak attack damage + Hunter's Mark damage.

[napoleon_in_rag]

My point is simply that classes don't have to fit with a stereotype. Adding rogue abilities to a character doesn't require that they start acting like a stereotypical rogue.

This depends on how you view a character class.

If you view a character class as just a set of abilities and modifiers to be added to an existing character with no explanation, no big deal.

If you view a class as a important part of a character's identity for roleplaying purposes, then describing background does matter. So in this example, how does the Ranger learn these rogue abilities? Has the Ranger's outlook on morality changed to allow back stabbing? Does he now prefer living in a city to roughing it in the woods?


In terms of my barbarian example, the "of course not" doesn't seem warranted. My barbarian is a sailor who grew up in the slums of waterdeep. Most class features fit just fine with that background, but the totem spells don't, really, and if I'm going to use them they probably need an explanation.

Well, you didn't give these details before. I would say that for a stereotypical barbarian background, Bear Totem is an easy fit. For this specific example of an urban barbarian, I would tell the player to use their imagination and come up with a reason.

Examples:

The character's mother was once bit by a werebear and had a very slight case of lycanthropy. Some of this got passed on to her son.

When a child, the character went to a menagerie and felt an unusual kinship with the caged bears. This feeling grew and grew until he decided to take the bear totem.

While asleep one night, the great bear spirit came to him in a dream.


I just insist that the player has a reason beyond "I want to increase my damage per round". Again, that's my DMing style. I emphasize collaborative storytelling over just hack and slash. Other DMs feel differently and that's OK.

[rrwoods]

A class is a bag of abilities with a name to conveniently refer to them. I agree that justifying the *abilities* in the character narrative is a Good Idea, but justifying the label is nonsense to me.

I'm not going to tell anyone they're Having Fun Wrong, however I've never met a player that disagrees, and the players are the reason the game exists.

[Saggo]

Something to consider is not just what you lose, but the delay too. Feral Senses and Foe Slayer you can live without, but 3 levels of Rogue will push Swift Quiver from 17 to level 20. That's a long time without it. Volley also goes from 11 to level 14.

If neither of those concern you (Swift Quiver does compete with Cunning Action for bonus action), at least 3 levels of Arcane Trickster would be good. Lots of utility and good synergy for minimal DPR loss.

[napoleon_in_rag]

A class is a bag of abilities with a name to conveniently refer to them. I agree that justifying the *abilities* in the character narrative is a Good Idea, but justifying the label is nonsense to me.


But all of the classes are more than just a set of abilities. Paladins, Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Rangers, Bards, Rogues, etc, all involve taking up a certain character path to gain those abilities.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But all of the classes are more than just a set of abilities. Paladins, Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Rangers, Bards, Rogues, etc, all involve taking up a certain character path to gain those abilities.
There are two schools of thought here. For some, classes are, well, Classes- things that define a character, things that are noticeable in-world. Classes can be refluffed, but they MEAN something. For others, it's the character and their abilities that matter, not the specific set of classes. They attach little importance to where abilities come from, but look at their character holistically. Identify comes from saying "I'm a ruthless stealthy fighter with a bit of magic and a grudge against certain creature types," rather than "I'm a Ranger who is also trained as an Assassin."

Both are valid ways to play. I and others favor the latter as a less limiting form of character creation, but there's certainly nothing wrong with wanting to define things more intensely.

[rrwoods]

But all of the classes are more than just a set of abilities. Paladins, Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Rangers, Bards, Rogues, etc, all involve taking up a certain character path to gain those abilities.
If you buy into that, sure. But if a player comes up with a character concept that isn't justified by the "certain character path" presented in the text but CAN provide a compelling and interesting narrative, I generally say "sounds awesome, let's make it work!" Rather than "nah, sorry, that doesn't fit the book's preconception of what a 'rogue' is."

Practical optimization isn't about squeezing out every last drop of power, it's about squeezing out every last drop of *fun*. When a player discovers a sweet multi class combo (or heaven forbid, reads about it online), if it's not disruptive to gameplay and there's a cool narrative that supports it, I'm all for it.

You're right that it might just be a different style, but I've found the whole group (including me!) has more fun when I allow more sweet stuff. I'll admit I'm new at DMing, but I'm not new at D&D, and what I've learned as a player has served me very well in terms of making sure players are happy with their characters and the other players' characters.

[Malifice]

Ranger offers nothing after 5th.

For the rest of your levels, I would take 11 levels in rogue (expertise, cunning action, +6d6 sneak attack, few extra skills, uncanny dodge, evasion, reliable talent), and 4 levels in BM Fighter (for supeority dice [precise strike, menacing attack and pushing attack all work well with archery] and action surge).

[Saggo]

Nothing for single target DPR, for sure. Rogue can give Evasion and bonus action Hide, but not those with decent AoE and 4 attacks.

[Malifice]

Nothing for single target DPR, for sure. Rogue can give Evasion and bonus action Hide, but not those with decent AoE and 4 attacks.

Ranger 5/ Rogue 11 / Fighter 4 is much better at everything the Ranger 20 does other than AoE.

And Ranger AoE spells are middling at best.

[Saggo]

Ranger 5/ Rogue 11 / Fighter 4 is much better at everything the Ranger 20 does other than AoE.
Conceded, other than spellcasting.


And Ranger AoE spells are middling at best.
Enough to warrant consideration.

[Malifice]

Conceded, other than spellcasting.

The lack of utility from spellcasting is more than made up for with [expertise + reliable talent] from Rogue and [cunning action + action surge+ superiority dice] from Fighter and Rogue.

With 11 Rogue levels, you'll have expertise in perception, stealth, nature and survival, and will treat any roll of less than 10 as a 10. You can dash, hide and disengage all as a bonus action (a godsend on any archer), and if you stll cant get the distance you want, hit them with a menacing attack to make them too scared to close the distance to melee.


Enough to warrant consideration.

If its a gap in the party. Generally from 5th level onwards, your party Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizard have this covered. Heck even Clerics and Eldritch knights are better than Rangers with AoE.

Its my main gripe with the Ranger. It suffers from three main flaws. The first being it's speciality is the exploration pillar of the game which most DM's handwave or dont really get into that much, and is in any even a distant third behind the combat and social pillars in most campaigns. Its second problem is it gains nothing of note after 5th level (nothing that compares with the high level abilities of the other classes). Finally it lacks a clear role outside of exploration. Its basically a mediocre fighter that has decent utility and weak AoE spells (a role that is already filled by the EK).

The first 5 levels of ranger are great (and even then you can skip 5th level if you're getting extra attack from a different class though). It rapidly runs out of steam though, and offers nothing past 5th level that you couldnt do better by MCing.

I really dont know how they plan on fixing it, other than by redeveloping the whole class. Personally I would strengthen the base chassis of the class and roll all the hunter abilities in as base class features (plus more stuff). I'd then rip out spellcasting from the base class (for all you Aragorn wanna-be's). For subclasses/ archetypes I would put spellcasting back in as one archetype (the Warden), have a second archetype focus on 'scouting' and skirmishing and doing all that cool lone wolf stuff (the Scout) and finally I would include a revamped beastmaster as my third option (the Beastmaster).

But I digress.

[rrwoods]

Ranger 5/ Rogue 11 / Fighter 4 is much better at everything the Ranger 20 does other than AoE.

And Ranger AoE spells are middling at best.
What do you think the best ordering is for that build?

[Malifice]

What do you think the best ordering is for that build?

Depends where your focus lies. For raw archery goodness, I would nab Ranger for the first 5 levels (Archery F/S, sharpshooter or +2 Dex at 4th, hunters mark and Hunter goodies). Then I'd spear off to Fighter for 3 levels (for action surge and superiority dice [precise strike, menacing attack and pushing attack work well - also consider the manouver than knocks things prone - its great for shooting crap out of the sky) then Rogue all the way for the rest.

For a more scouty/ stealthy/ skirmisher focus, my 5 levels after Ranger 5 would be Rogue assasin (expertise in stealth and perception, cunning action, assasinate, 3d6 sneak attack, +2 dex or a feat and uncanny dodge) before branching off into fighter for the next 4 levels and then hitting rouge for the rest (your capstone is reliable talent and an extra +1d6 sneak attack damage which is better than the Rangers capstone as is).

[JellyPooga]

I really dont know how they plan on fixing it, other than by redeveloping the whole class. Personally I would strengthen the base chassis of the class and roll all the hunter abilities in as base class features (plus more stuff). I'd then rip out spellcasting from the base class (for all you Aragorn wanna-be's). For subclasses/ archetypes I would put spellcasting back in as one archetype (the Warden), have a second archetype focus on 'scouting' and skirmishing and doing all that cool lone wolf stuff (the Scout) and finally I would include a revamped beastmaster as my third option (the Beastmaster).

But I digress.

So much this. I want to like Ranger, but it's such a lacklustre Class that I find myself struggling to find reasons to bother with it. My own thoughts on redesign are remarkably similar to yours.

OT: Rogue, as others have suggested, is a great complement to Ranger. Another option worth consideration is Warlock. Casting Hunters Mark every short rest with Pact Magic is all sorts of useful and auto-scales. Warlock is a grab-bag of utility too and if flavour is an issue then a Fey Patron has you covered.

Ranger 5/Rogue 5/Warlock 10 doesn't have the punch of Wizard 20, but it does have a remarkable degree of utility and is surprisingly hard to kill, whilst having enough damage output to make a difference in a fight.

[MrStabby]

I would suggest rogue 1 for a start. If you are worried about RP then I think this is a prefect fit - sneak attack, expertise in some combination of knowledge nature, stealth and perception can help you flesh out the wilderness aspect of the class.

As others have said, I would decide where you want to go - do you want a more mystic woodsman in harmony with nature (more cleric/druid class levels) or a more brutish uncivilised character (either barbarian or fighter depending on your stats).

You don't have to leave behind the ranger drive/motivations because you multiclass)

[Herobizkit]

Just going to drag video games into here a second...

If buddy from Shadow of Mordor isn't a Ranger/Assassin, I dunno what is. :)

[Citan]

And to expand on my preference for Assassin over Arcane Trickster, think about action economy. Having utility from spells is great, but any spell that requires concentration conflicts with Hunter's Mark. Any spell that uses a bonus action conflicts with applying/moving Hunter's Mark. Any spell that requires an action has to be better than 2 bow attacks + horde breaker or colossus slayer + sneak attack damage + Hunter's Mark damage.
Well, you were right in your previous post: for only 3 lvl dip, Arcane Trickster is a lesser choice than Assassin or Thief (which I would favor because useful throughout).

But I got the impression from how he wrote his post that the OP wasn't so keen on getting higher Ranger abilities, but rather on the "big sniper" aspect . So I was making my suggestions based on this.

And if you go as far as lvl 6, Arcane Trickster becomes the clear winner. Because you still get more lvl1 slots for Hunter's Mark, but you also get lvl2 slots for Mirror Image or Blindness which are non-concentration.
And it gets even better when you get later levels, because you get more useful spells to avoid (Suggestion?) or prepare (Invisibility?) fight, with disadvantage for creature if you're hidden, making potentially good combos. ;)

I would suggest rogue 1 for a start. If you are worried about RP then I think this is a prefect fit - sneak attack, expertise in some combination of knowledge nature, stealth and perception can help you flesh out the wilderness aspect of the class.

As others have said, I would decide where you want to go - do you want a more mystic woodsman in harmony with nature (more cleric/druid class levels) or a more brutish uncivilised character (either barbarian or fighter depending on your stats).

You don't have to leave behind the ranger drive/motivations because you multiclass.
This.
(Although I would go as far as "take two" because Cunning Action is that good. ^^)
Allow me to bold the last sentence to stress it's a very pertinent one. :smallwink:

[Saggo]

The lack of utility from spellcasting is more than made up for with [expertise + reliable talent] from Rogue and [cunning action + action surge+ superiority dice] from Fighter and Rogue.

With 11 Rogue levels, you'll have expertise in perception, stealth, nature and survival, and will treat any roll of less than 10 as a 10. You can dash, hide and disengage all as a bonus action (a godsend on any archer), and if you stll cant get the distance you want, hit them with a menacing attack to make them too scared to close the distance to melee.
The spellcasting is something a Ranger/Rogue/Fighter can't easily replicate or sustain, offering unique utility like Plant Growth and Tree Stride while adding respectable DPR and useful AoE at half-caster progression for endurance. Ranger is not a better thief or single-target DPR than an MC, but it does more things an MC can't easily do and do without delaying level progression. A niche is a niche, but that's a far cry from definitively nothing.



If its a gap in the party. Generally from 5th level onwards, your party Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizard have this covered. Heck even Clerics and Eldritch knights are better than Rangers with AoE.
Like you say, it's a gap to be filled, and it's better filled by two people in one turn rather than one person in two turns with the chance of hostiles scattering. Hunter's Multiattack also has no resource cost, a great property.


Its my main gripe with the Ranger. It suffers from three main flaws. The first being it's speciality is the exploration pillar of the game which most DM's handwave or dont really get into that much, and is in any even a distant third behind the combat and social pillars in most campaigns. Its second problem is it gains nothing of note after 5th level (nothing that compares with the high level abilities of the other classes). Finally it lacks a clear role outside of exploration. Its basically a mediocre fighter that has decent utility and weak AoE spells (a role that is already filled by the EK).

The first 5 levels of ranger are great (and even then you can skip 5th level if you're getting extra attack from a different class though). It rapidly runs out of steam though, and offers nothing past 5th level that you couldnt do better by MCing.

I really dont know how they plan on fixing it, other than by redeveloping the whole class. Personally I would strengthen the base chassis of the class and roll all the hunter abilities in as base class features (plus more stuff). I'd then rip out spellcasting from the base class (for all you Aragorn wanna-be's). For subclasses/ archetypes I would put spellcasting back in as one archetype (the Warden), have a second archetype focus on 'scouting' and skirmishing and doing all that cool lone wolf stuff (the Scout) and finally I would include a revamped beastmaster as my third option (the Beastmaster).

But I digress.
I agree with the assessment (except where obviously noted above) and would rather see it reworked than left as is. I always thought having Favored Enemies auto-Marked was an interesting tweak.

[Rolen]

A lot of good arguments in here, and plenty to consider. I actually clear forgot about Swift Quiver and a few of the other pretty good Ranger spells, but as was mentioned, dealing with groups of enemies isn't really an issue when you have a Sorceress throwing around Magic Missiles, Scorching Rays, and now soon-to-be Fireballs. That's not even getting into the EK or the Cleric. (Though I doubt the Cleric will be concentrating on said AOE aura, it's still an option)

Having taken Colossal Slayer, my ability to AOE is kinda limited to Hail of Thorns, and now Spike Growth. Both of which take Concentration, so, no Mark with that. I'm more or less the single-target guy. Straight through the heart, and all that.

A typical difficult fight for us involves me picking people off unless they're presenting a good opportunity to use Hail of Thorns, the Cleric either attempting to bash somebody over the head or playing healbot after the EK goes in, and either hits somebody with his glaive, or thunderwaving if every / most enemies are in range, usually ending up getting surrounded, to which I use him as the center for a Hail (Such teamwork, I know.) And the Sorceress throws a ton of magic at everything. We usually end up murdering mooks pretty good, but then the higher end 'boss' enemy comes and that's where we end up facing the difficulty. Magic gas tank is already bottoming out, Cleric already used quite a few spells keeping the EK on his feet after getting surrounded (and maybe maybe not getting shot by yours truly), and wouldn't you know it? The 'boss' hits like a truck so now it's a race to see if we can luck out. So I'm thinking of just straight up leaving the AOE business to them and picking off stragglers, or otherwise concentrating on any BBEG's and just turning them into pincushions.

Argument can certainly be made for dipping 2-3 levels of Fighter, I'd like to refrain from potentially fringing on another players class, which is why while I certainly have the Wisdom for it, I'd probably not take any levels of Cleric either, even if it could have really good gains. (I might consider a small dip in fighter though, it's just people kiiiinda expect certain things out of Cleric. *cough*heal/buffbot*cough*) As I mentioned previously, I only have a Charisma of 7, so Warlock is kind of out.

I already more or less play my Ranger like a Rogue as it is. Sneak around, look for stuff. I've even picked a lock... once. Kind of hard to do so regularly with no training or actual tools. Now, you might ask, "Why didn't you just roll a Rogue to begin with?" The answer to that question is... I honestly have no idea. I didn't really intend to be very rogue-like from the beginning, but you know they say. "I didn't choose the Rogue life, the Rogue life chose me." or.. something like that. The group has me scout ahead, and on more than one occasion I've pulled off a sneak attack (That is, attacking from stealth, obvs.) I even attempt to look for traps. (And like any smart person, have the Fighter open it when I don't find anything.)

My exploration abilities pretty much never come up ever, and Favoured Enemy is pretty useless as well. I'm actually pretty disappointed in 5E's Ranger, and it could definitely use some work.

As for my Rangers moral character... ehh... He's the kind of guy that exemplifies "Good Is Not Nice." Somebody running away that we need to question? Shoot him in the achilles tendon so he can't run anymore. Need something in order to save a lot of people but the lawfully legal owner of it won't give it up? Break in, steal it. Anyone that willingly gets in the way is probably evil. He's the type that doesn't let small things like "morals" get in the way of the big picture, the greater good. Sure he might make a lot of people mad, but in the long run, they're all safer for it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So yeah, overall I'd say that Rogue seems perfect. Take your next 15 levels of that.

[Sigreid]

I'm of the opinion that unless there is a specific ability you want, multiclass ing weakens the character.

[JellyPooga]

I'm of the opinion that unless there is a specific ability you want, multiclass ing weakens the character.

It's a longer argument than I'd like to get into, but it basically boils down to this: it depends on the character, as well as the game itself (style, length, level, content, etc.). Spellcasters, as a rule, tend to be weakened by Multiclassing, by virtue of higher level spells generally being better than lower level ones cast in higher level slots. Non-Spellcasters, though, have certain break-points that they'll want to hit before switching out (if at all).

The Ranger? I'm of the opinion that it's almost never worth taking more than 5 levels. If you want to focus on spellcasting, multiclass to a class that's better at spellcasting. If you want to focus on the skills/scout aspect, you're almost almost better off multiclassing to Rogue or Bard. If you want the martial aspect, then Fighter and Barbarian are your MCing friends. About the only reason to stick with Ranger in to the mid-late game is because you're GM isn't using the multiclassing optional rules...in which case I wouldn't be playing one in the first place.

[danhass]

Selective multiclassing is usually going to improve a PC's combat effectiveness. But for many combat effectiveness in the primary concern. Having a good story behind the decision to multiclass is pretty cool.

[DontEatRawHagis]

So I've recently hit 5 on my Ranger, and now I'm at a loss as it what I should do next. Should I continue straight Ranger or should I multiclass? And if I multiclass, into what and how far?

Our group composition so far is an Eldritch Knight, a Life Cleric, a Draconic Sorceress, and me, the Hunter Ranger. At one point we had a Rogue NPC, but uh... he kind of caught a sudden case of the dead, and then he got reanimated, and then I had to put him down by way of a scimitar to the face. It was a sad time. Anyway, locked doors and chests continue to confound our party now, and while the DM lets the EK use Acid Splash to slowly eat through things, it's loud, and slow. Other times we can break through stuff, but again, loud.

Now, the DM will also let me pick up proficiency with Thieve's Tools in less than 250 days if I can find a trainer, but if I just multiclass to Rogue, I can just pick up the proficiency that way. Which takes me to my current ponderings. If I multiclass to Rogue, how many levels of Rogue should I take? We are going to be going as far as 20, and the Ranger capstone I find is... eh, take it or leave it. Should I just get trained in the tools and go straight 20? 17 / 3? 14 / 6? 12 / 8? Or maybe Just go 5 / 15 and never look back?

My current stats are: 11 STR, 18 DEX, 14 CON, 12 INT, 16 WIS, 7 CHA. Got an emphasis on shooting things with a longbow going on.

I just want to say this sounds like the perfect D&D group and game. 4 players of differing classes, NPC that was raised as a zombie to attack allies, and you are multiclassing not for power gamer reasons.:elan:

[PoeticDwarf]

5/15 and never look back. Past 5 in ranger there's really nothing stellar there, maybe multiattack if you want it for flavor. The rogue has 2/3 of the highest Hunter options, so you're gaining there. High level sneak attack is pretty great when you have 2 attacks.

Only other thing I might recommend would be going out to ranger 9 ultimately, conjure animals for 4 crocadiles to restrain your targets.
Or 8 giant frogs. Those can break some encounters

[Sigreid]

It's a longer argument than I'd like to get into, but it basically boils down to this: it depends on the character, as well as the game itself (style, length, level, content, etc.). Spellcasters, as a rule, tend to be weakened by Multiclassing, by virtue of higher level spells generally being better than lower level ones cast in higher level slots. Non-Spellcasters, though, have certain break-points that they'll want to hit before switching out (if at all).

The Ranger? I'm of the opinion that it's almost never worth taking more than 5 levels. If you want to focus on spellcasting, multiclass to a class that's better at spellcasting. If you want to focus on the skills/scout aspect, you're almost almost better off multiclassing to Rogue or Bard. If you want the martial aspect, then Fighter and Barbarian are your MCing friends. About the only reason to stick with Ranger in to the mid-late game is because you're GM isn't using the multiclassing optional rules...in which case I wouldn't be playing one in the first place.

I agree that multiclassing can be very good and cool and a good move. My statement was that when you do it, you need to know why you're doing it and what you expect to get out of it. Multiclassing without knowing what you intend to get out of it leads to characters don't have any real synergy.

[Arkhios]

I agree that multiclassing can be very good and cool and a good move. My statement was that when you do it, you need to know why you're doing it and what you expect to get out of it. Multiclassing without knowing what you intend to get out of it leads to characters don't have any real synergy.

Agreed. While a character is relatively easy to make, any further steps that take you away from your current path shouldn't be taken lightly.
A juicy class feature or two is always a bad reason if that's the only reason. Every class is more than what they can do. It's the same reason why you chose the first class in the first place.
Why didn't you become a rogue instead, you might ask. Well, that boils down to what was your character's upbringing before he or she began adventuring. If you were trained in ways that had you become a ranger, then that's what you are from the core. If your playstyle would later appear preferring to staying unseen, waiting for a right time to strike, and then vanishing again, you have already justified yourself with advancement in rogue, if you chose to do that.

[Sigreid]

So much this. I want to like Ranger, but it's such a lacklustre Class that I find myself struggling to find reasons to bother with it. My own thoughts on redesign are remarkably similar to yours.

OT: Rogue, as others have suggested, is a great complement to Ranger. Another option worth consideration is Warlock. Casting Hunters Mark every short rest with Pact Magic is all sorts of useful and auto-scales. Warlock is a grab-bag of utility too and if flavour is an issue then a Fey Patron has you covered.

Ranger 5/Rogue 5/Warlock 10 doesn't have the punch of Wizard 20, but it does have a remarkable degree of utility and is surprisingly hard to kill, whilst having enough damage output to make a difference in a fight.

I know all the white room stuff, but our ranger with medium armor expertise is one of the most effective members of the party.

[JellyPooga]

I know all the white room stuff, but our ranger with medium armor expertise is one of the most effective members of the party.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong; Rangers in actual play are perfectly fine. It's what you do with a tool that makes it effective and it's how you play a character that makes it both fun and powerful. Some saws are sharper than others, though.

For me, the problem with Ranger is its lack of identity. Weird, right? For a Class whose features are almost exclusively based on it's fluff, I tell you it has no ID? Yeah, the problem is that they've tried to cram too many "ranger" ideas into the class;
- Is it a scout? Rogue does it better.
- Is it a mystic nature guy? Druid or Warlock does it better.
- Is it a wilderland warrior? Fighter and Barbarian do it better.

What we've ended up with is this mish-mash of ideas all vaguely related to being a "Ranger", none of which give any real focus. Whatever reason you're playing Ranger, you're probably getting a bunch of features you're not interested in and probably won't use to their best effect, if at all. It's like the devs had this great idea by introducing Archetypes in 5ed, but when it came to making the Ranger, they got bored, forgot about the potential that Archetypes gives you and mashed all their ideas into one big awkward mess.

By separating out the ideas that have gone into the Ranger into Archetypes, with the chassis having a strong martial theme (perhaps in just the way suggested by Malifice), you end up with a much more satisfactory product, IMO.

[Fighting_Ferret]

The problem is builds vs characters. No I'm not saying anything is wrong with multi-classing (I am not a fan of dips). A build is a thought out mechanical construction built to do something (or somethings) well. A character is a grown concept that is limited to the environment it is in, sure rogue/ranger (an example that stems from this thread) multi-classing looks good, and granted there is tons of synergy... and someone the mechanics are ignored (they could be re-fluffed). A build uses meta-game knowledge which states, yes Ranger after 5 offers nothing , so you should go rogue to get x,y, and z. A lot of build threads say take so many levels of this for access to this feature. A character has to have a story, and an opportunity to make that change, a build goes for it and tacks on some fluff. Does he even know a rogue, a mentor, or anything that may help persuade him to change his ideas of being a protector of the wilds, to the veritable smorgasbord board of what a rogue is/can be?

Assassin gets tossed around a lot for the ranger...but you are usually only looking at sneak attack, expertise, cunning action, and assassinate level 3 archetype bonuses... and then saying I'm a good doesn't have to be nice, super sneaky sniper. Which is great... except the ranger is already great at stealth... sure rogue and shadow monk (and maybe even a bard that really wants to) can out sneak you. I don't see a ranger having any qualms about shooting someone in the back (due to alignment YMMV) or aiming for maximum damage, if they were an obvious enemy, so that part of the feature seems alright. Assassinate just says you are a dealer of death... I can even acknowledge that that part of it is legit, but there is some extra mechanical stuff... that just doesn't sit right... proficiency with thieves tools, disguise kit, thieves cant and the overall urbaness of the class. Sure you can ignore what you don't really care about (those aren't why you took rogue), but the build glosses it over for the super sneaky sniper by taking what they want from each class, to maximize damage. Both classes are great sneaky snipers by themselves, just in different ways.

Now many of you probably think I am down on the build idea, and I am a bit... it's easy... you don't move your character with the story, you have a definitive list of what abilities come online at what time and how useful they are for certain levels... A character grows into what they become, the shared adventure creates them, as does their personal conflict and outlooks. Maybe their background traits change... their alignment may change, they may even give up on their original class... they will see things in their lives. They may come back from their adventures a shining beacon of hope, or they may come back scarred and broken. Maybe they were evil and found repentance and changed their ways... maybe they were good and fell... becoming the very thing they originally stood against...point is that is the character, the build doesn't take the journey into consideration...

Anyways...I've rambled enough here... as always the above is MY opinion. Have your fun anyway you wish, because at the end of the day...that's what we are all in this for. Keep gaming.

[smcmike]

Does he even know a rogue, a mentor, or anything that may help persuade him to change his ideas of being a protector of the wilds, to the veritable smorgasbord board of what a rogue is/can be?

Adding a class does not mean anything in terms of changing one's ideals. A Ranger can hunt down innocents for money, and a Rogue can be a protector of the wilds, both without much work.


but there is some extra mechanical stuff... that just doesn't sit right... proficiency with thieves tools, disguise kit, thieves cant and the overall urbaness of the class. Sure you can ignore what you don't really care about (those aren't why you took rogue)


This is a more valid concern, but I think you've got your answer right there. This can come up with a single class build too, though - a single class rogue may not really have a place for Cant or Disguise in tye character concept. You can either just ignore these, or talk to your DM about trading them for an equivalently minor ability.

[Fighting_Ferret]

OK, so why would I want to stop being a ranger after 5 levels of it? Mechanical reasons? or Character reasons?

[smcmike]

OK, so why would I want to stop being a ranger after 5 levels of it? Mechanical reasons? or Character reasons?

You don't "stop being a ranger." You add class levels from another class.

Why do you add a sixth level of ranger? Mechanical reasons or character reasons?

Mechanically, adding a level of rogue lets your ranger do some ranger things more effectively, so there really aren't any problems to be solved in terms of character development. If you added a level of warlock, you'd need some character explanation.

[JellyPooga]

OK, so why would I want to stop being a ranger after 5 levels of it? Mechanical reasons? or Character reasons?

5th level Ranger is a good stop-off point if you want to take your character down a non-martial, non-spellcaster route; basically Rogue or Warlock. You get 2nd level spells and Extra Attack. Sweet sweet Extra Attack and 2nd level spells.

If you're multiclassing to another Martial Class or a (true) Spellcaster, then 4th is probably the most you want to take, for the ASI and for the +1 level to multiclass spellcasting (Ranger adds half-level to multiclass spell slot considerations). Spellcasters don't really want to hinder their spellcasting any more than that and other martials will be able to pick up Extra Attack themselves.

The Ranger Class Features after 5th level are...lacklustre;
- Half-progression spellcasting is nothing to shout about and though the Ranger has some interesting unique spells, there's nothing really special there until Swift Quiver, which if you're interested in it, a Ranger 5/Bard 10 gets earlier access to than a single-class Ranger (go figure).
- More Favoured Enemies and Natural Explorer terrains are not worth shouting about. You picked up the ones you really wanted for fluff reasons before hitting 5th level. Nothing interesting to see here.
- Land's Stride is highly situational and can even be ignored entirely by archer builds. It's also replicable by other features/feats/spells.
- HiPS is even more situational. You can't use it in a hurry and is good for passing yourself off as a tree. Woo. It wears off after a single use too, requiring a further minute to recreate the camouflage. Not exactly the most stellar 10th level ability.
- Vanish is worse than the level 2 Rogue ability Cunning Action.
- Feral Senses is great! Shame it comes online at level 18 after having to suffer through 17 levels of dull and uninspiring Ranger levels.
- Foe Slayer...ah, Foe Slayer. The ability Rangers should have at level 1 (or, like, level 6 at the latest), gained as a level 20 capstone.

As for the Archetypes, let's take a look;
- Beastmaster. Let's sum it up; sacrifice your ability to do anything on a turn to allow a CR:1/4 beast (with slightly better combat stats) to act instead. Pass.
- Hunter. Hunters Prey is a great 3rd level ability; +1d8 damage or an extra attack. Sweet! Defensive Tactics at 7th...everyone else with, or who wanted those abilities got them several levels ago. Multiattack; hmm, some half-decent AoE if you're an archer. If you're a melee-er, not so great. Superior Hunters Defence...like it's 7th level counterpart, anyone who wanted those abilities got them much earlier than you did.

So to sum up; the Ranger up to 5th is great; you can rock a whole bunch of attacks; 2 from Extra Attack +1 from Horde Breaker +1 from Crossbow Expert...that's comparable to a 20th level Fighter! After that, though, almost any feature you really want out of the Class, you can get it quicker by multiclassing.

[Sigreid]

You don't "stop being a ranger." You add class levels from another class.

Why do you add a sixth level of ranger? Mechanical reasons or character reasons?

Mechanically, adding a level of rogue lets your ranger do some ranger things more effectively, so there really aren't any problems to be solved in terms of character development. If you added a level of warlock, you'd need some character explanation.

A ranger becoming a feylock after an encounter deep in the woods takes no fluff gymnastics at all. Pointless if you haven't already been investing in charisma though.

[smcmike]

Oh, I don't mean to say adding warlock is a difficult or unseemly thing to do, only that I would expect to see some sort of story around it, whereas I wouldn't necessarily expect any narrative difference at all between a ranger6 and a ranger5/rogue1

[Fighting_Ferret]

I would continue on to Ranger level 6 because my experience as a ranger has granted me further insight into my chosen path as a ranger. I am exercising my training as a ranger through my actions and decisions, which in turn earn me the experience to progress.

If I wanted to take a level of rogue(or anything else) instead of level 6 ranger, then I would probably make that change based on something happening to my character in the story.

I'm playing a game right now where I am playing as a 7th level ranger who is a scout for my small tribe, who was sent on a quest by his mentor, a druidic shaman. My spell casting as a ranger is described as my time spent studying with this shaman and my other abilities coming from other members of my tribe. I even allocated my stats based around the concept and took the main feat that made sense at level 4 (sharpshooter) and my level 2 fighting style as archery, as my tribe is very hunter gatherer like. Now given that as part of my characters story,I spent time studying magic with this shaman, I could theoretically get in touch with my magical heritage and multi-class into druid. I have the stats to multi-class into several other classes, but other than fighter... none of them really work with the history/current circumstances of the CHARACTER.

This character hasn't even been in a village, much less a city... his people have little care for material possessions or wealth in general, as the forest where they make their home provides everything they need. They have little to no interactions with civilized peoples and their cities, but spend scouting groups out to gather general knowledge of the region. Gnolls and orcs are common enemies in our home territory, and not to far away are the gravesites of a very large battle that took place a long time ago(several types of undead can be found here), and my favored enemies are those enemies. That is all DM generated information, that my character has been shaped around. Sure I could have chosen anything I wanted... but there is already created story and ongoing story, as to why I am a ranger...and continue on as a ranger, not until I have all the cool ranger stuff... but until my character discovers it. He is soon to be introduced to a town... who knows maybe something there will catch his attention

Now that is just an instance of my character and a little about his circumstance, to serve as an example, but let's say I was really dead set on my character playing a ranger/rogue multiclass... splitting after ranger level 5... why level 5 and not say 1 level, or 15, but exactly 5. Now we started at level 7, so I could have built whatever I wanted to and told the DM, and he wouldn't have asked are likely cared. And that is great. But to me I am not playing a ranger5/rogue2, who is the sneakiest elf in his tribe or the best student of nature, or the best tracker. I'll admit cunning action by itself would be awesome... not to mention sneak attack bonus damage, but I am not looking for the best at what I do... I am just a member of a dwindling tribe of wood elves. I stick by what I know, what my people have passed down for millennia.

I'll agree that you could fluff rogue into ranger (and many other multi-class choices) fairly easily and vise-versa, but that isn't really my rant. My point is that level 5 in ranger gets you to the "good" point and then you might as well abandon it for better stuff. Not because of in character reasons, but meta-game mechanical manipulation to be better.

[smcmike]

There is nothing in that story that is incompatible with ranger5/rogue2. I'm not saying you are wrong to continue on with ranger - that's perfectly fine, of course. But I could even build a rogue 7 with almost exactly the same story.

I guess I'm saying that I'm a bit confused about your specific objection to ranger5/rogue2. Rangers like stealth, they like shooting things, and mobility certainly fits with the theme...

Edit -

Yes, leaving ranger after five would be to get mechanical abilities that you are interested in. Is there something wrong with that? This is a game, after all.

[JellyPooga]

There is nothing in that story that is incompatible with ranger5/rogue2. I'm not saying you are wrong to continue on with ranger - that's perfectly fine, of course. But I could even build a rogue 7 with almost exactly the same story.

The same could be said of many single-class or multiclass builds; Barbarian, Nature Cleric, Druid, Fighter (with appropriate Background/Feats), Rogue, Ancients Paladin and Fey Pact Warlock would all be easy shoe-ins.

Unless (and it's a big one) you only perceive Paladins as the "knight in shining armour" archetype, the Rogue as the "city-slicker Thief" and so on and so forth. If you buy in to the stereotypes of the Classes, then multiclassing many characters is probably very hard to justify from a roleplaying perspective. If you see the Class abilities as independent of the stereotype (as I do), then all that matters is the abilities.

Rogue 1 gives you Expertise and Sneak Attack; that doesn't mean you have to have had experience with cities or thieves or picking pockets. It just means you're better at two skills than pretty much anyone else and you have a precision-based fighting style. Yes, you also get Thieves Cant and proficiency with Thieves Tools as a Rogue, but they can very easily be substituted for a different language (I like the idea of "Ranger Signs" for wilderness types; a secret language used to leave trail markers and such) and any tool proficiency you care to mention; herbalist kit, perhaps.

[Fighting_Ferret]

smcmike... I don't tell anyone their fun is wrong... you are correct that you could thematically build a rogue7 who was very similar to my ranger character. And again ranger5/rogue2 is fine and could be an even better ranger than the ranger.

I'm just trying to stand up for the other side to optimization... characterization. Calculated mechanical builds vs. Organic growth and development. Let the shared narrative drive your character. Be the character. I'm sure you remember when you were a child and people would ask you what you wanted to be when you grew up...are you still that child? Are you what you said you wanted to be? How about graduating from high school... what did you want to study...what did you end up studying... does it apply to what you do now as an adult? If you do have skills/interests do you continually develop them? People grow organically, usually based on our decisions and reactions to things happening that we have no say in. And some circumstances challenge the very core of what we think/know.

I'm thinking that you have changed a lot from the days when you were a child, but the whole of who/what is you... your family, friends, experiences, and decisions have made you who/what you are today... just as the future may presents relationships/opportunities for further growth. There will always be some of that child in you, as well as passed relatives, friends from long ago, ex-lovers, your children, both as children themselves and as what they are as they grow up. So where do you see yourself in 5 years?

Growth vs Built.

[smcmike]

I don't mean to sound dismissive, because all of what you write sounds very nice, but it kinda misses the point. From my point of view there simply is not a conflict between characterization and optimization, at least in the very mild examples we are currently working with. It's not like you are adding a level of necromancer while in the middle of a dungeon, with no previous mention of any arcane study at all. And it's not like you are uninterested in optimization - you wouldn't play this game at all if all your were interested in was characters, because the entire leveling and class mechanic puts enormous straightjackets on characters, if you are interested in any sort of verisimilitude

[Fighting_Ferret]

Well at least we are civil....

Our examples have been mild... and again you can play any way you like... I don't want to change your opinion. Maybe I'm talking myself in circles, who knows. I think you best summed it up when you said..." From my point of view...". JellyPooga sees characters as the sum of their abilities, others see characters as the tropes the classes are built on, and yet others see them as yet another thing entirely. No one is wrong, no one is right... there is only our own interpretations, or points of view.

I also realize that many on this forum are indeed fans of optimization. Now you said no one would play the game at all if they weren't interested in optimization... and that holds a certain truth... characters can be anyone... I should be just as interested being a beggar, farmer, a guard, or the local lord, but instead I am portraying a more heroic character... mainly because all of the others are heroic characters... the story being told is not that of the day to day lives of the every-man...but of the mechanizations of the powerful organizations...and even gods in some cases. I'm not trying to "win" the game... I am merely trying to experience that world through the eyes of the character I am playing... and like most good characters, their creators give them a little push to get started..then sit back and watch what happens.

My point of view says to imagine a concept, then release that concept and see what is does, where it goes on it's own... not guide it towards an end goal. And yes I have some care about numbers...but they aren't a be all end all, they are part of the rule system that keeps the story coherent. How do you see the NPCs the DM creates... as characters with feelings/concerns/goals or as informational signs with certain skill challenges attached, somewhere in between perhaps? Sure the PC paladin says he'll get your kidnapped daughter back, but are they truly willing to lay down the ultimate sacrifice to do so? There is a good test of that PCs mettle right there and a possible understanding of the strength of a vow, or a question of faith.

We can both get what we want from the game... that's the beauty! Again MY opinion, and I'm not telling anyone else their way is wrong. Just a different point of view.

[smcmike]

I also realize that many on this forum are indeed fans of optimization. Now you said no one would play the game at all if they weren't interested in optimization... and that holds a certain truth... characters can be anyone... I should be just as interested being a beggar, farmer, a guard, or the local lord, but instead I am portraying a more heroic character... mainly because all of the others are heroic characters... the story being told is not that of the day to day lives of the every-man...but of the mechanizations of the powerful organizations...and even gods in some cases.

Ok, but let's be real. This is not a game about farming or begging. There is almost no support for either activity in the rules. If you are interested in a game about farming, I've got a very good one for you, but this game is about playing a heroic character of some sort. Building a character to do heroic things is part of the fun. Fortunately, in 5e, this is easy enough that you really don't have to worry about optimization at all if you don't want to. But there is nothing about messing around with mixing classes that goes against characterization.

[JellyPooga]

Ok, but let's be real. This is not a game about farming or begging.

I've got a Cha-focused Rogue with Expertise in Deception and Persuasion that begs to differ... :smalltongue:

[Fighting_Ferret]

Re-read my last post... I didn't say anything about actually playing a peasant... and I didn't even say anything negative about mixing classes.. I merely stated my opinion, the character should develop in response to the story as it happens in a believable way. Not be railroaded to fit what I (referring to myself, not others) want.

[smcmike]

I've got a Cha-focused Rogue with Expertise in Deception and Persuasion that begs to differ... :smalltongue:

Heh. Yeah, but for some reason he's also really good at killing things, I'm guessing.


Re-read my last post... I didn't say anything about actually playing a peasant... and I didn't even say anything negative about mixing classes.. I merely stated my opinion, the character should develop in response to the story as it happens in a believable way. Not be railroaded to fit what I (referring to myself, not others) want.

I'm just trying to clarify the terms of our apparent disagreement, that's all.

I don't find anything about leveling up in any class in the course of a normal D&D campaign to be particularly "believable." Oh, man, killing that Orc gave me the secrets of attacking twice as fast as I did yesterday!

More to the point, though, I still don't understand what is unbelievable about the specific example we are discussing, since, like I said, I don't see any STORY difference whatsoever between a Ranger7 and a Ranger5/Rogue2 (unless you want a difference).

Also, I find your philosophy to be unusually passive - the story defines the character, without active input by the player?

[MBControl]

Re-read my last post... I didn't say anything about actually playing a peasant... and I didn't even say anything negative about mixing classes.. I merely stated my opinion, the character should develop in response to the story as it happens in a believable way. Not be railroaded to fit what I (referring to myself, not others) want.

I agree completely. The whole point is creating an interactive story. There are no "winners" so focusing on the story, for me is the point. Good stories need great characters. I rarely believe multi classing enhances a character.

[smcmike]

I agree completely. The whole point is creating an interactive story. There are no "winners" so focusing on the story, for me is the point. Good stories need great characters. I rarely believe multi classing enhances a character.

See, I don't know what that means. In what way does multiclassing take away from telling your story?

[JellyPooga]

I rarely believe multi classing enhances a character.

I'm of the opposite opinion myself. I think multiclassing, as a rule, allows you to tailor your character exactly the way you want it, rather than the proscribed path that any single Class describes. If I want to play, for instance, a stealth-focused wilderness type; Rogue/Ranger might fit the idea of my character better than either straight Ranger or straight Rogue does. Yes, either single Class could do it, but the multiclass does it better; not necessarily always in a mechanical sense (though in this case it would, I think), but most often from an in-character perspective.

As an example of what I mean by this, if I'm playing a character that identifies as an Oracle; either Cleric or Wizard would do, but a Knowledge Cleric/Divination Wizard fits the bill perfectly. Mechanically, I lose out on the whole; I get some nice Class Features that fit the character, sure, but my spellcasting suffers dramatically. I'd still take the multiclass to play that character, though, despite the drawbacks.

[djreynolds]

Ranger/war cleric is actually pretty good.

Archers doing right, have tanks and casters. But what you lack is a good use of your bonus action. War cleric gives you a bonus attack. That is big. Some DMs may rule it is melee only, but it can be used with archery. So a maxed wisdom will give you 5 extra attacks per long rest.

So a ranger could shoot twice and get one more shot off 5 times a day. Spamming bless for +1d4 and archery style gives you at least +3 to hit and a good spell selection. Also at 8th level you would gain an additional 1d8 piercing damage once a turn.

Try ranger/ war cleric. I like ranger 12/ war cleric 8. Volley can be used with sharpshooter and bless and archery style should help land the majority of them.

This also is easily done, just max out dex and wis and grab sharpshooter. Any cleric is fine actually.

[Fighting_Ferret]

There is bending the narrative to fit the character you wish to play. This is the build concept... I am going to be this with a smattering of this and possibly this.
Even that falls into a few camps. Optimizing vs Interesting. An optimal character is trying to be the best they can be. An interesting character is trying to be something not already wholly defined be the standard classes. Both are planned characters.

The opinion I am supporting, says that you as the player comes up with the starting level 1 character (or whatever level your game starts out at, becasue we all have to start from something...) and then lets how that character would make decisions guide their character development from that point forward. Of course you as the player are actually making the decisions, but this is the Role in role playing game, you should be making decisions not on what you as the player thinks/knows/feels, but from the perspective of your character.

The leveling up mechanic is a bit clunky, but there are ways to mitigate that. It is one of the limits of the d20 system. A grittier more realistic system would have fans, but it would be a much harder game for a lot of people. Simple rules makes for fast and easy fun, and more importantly... it's easy to get new players. $$$

Again, neither way is wrong. I am stating MY opinion.

[smcmike]

Ok, but my character has no opinion about whether he should add a level of rogue or a level of ranger, because he has never heard of a rogue or a ranger or a level. He does know that he's getting pretty darn good at sneaking, though, and it's increasingly easy to do a lot of damage when he gets the drop on something (I guess - actually translating damage into narrative is pretty tricky).

Or, to use another example, I'm using a barbarian who will add rogue levels. The character concept is simply a tough guy action hero, someone who can climb and sneak and pick up bad guys by their throats and take a severe beating but keep going. The mechanical abilities of each class help me accomplish this idea of a character. He doesn't think of himself as a rogue or a barbarian - he's a sailor turned adventurer who is struggling with his anger problem and whether his Orc blood has cursed him to a bloody destiny.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Right so a lot of that sounds like a background... you have a concept of what the character is when creating them... and you are wanting that character to follow the entire concept... so here goes.

Let's take your half-orc barbarian/rogue concept an examine it from first level...
warning... lot's of text...


Why did you select the chassis of barbarian. Half-orcs on their own are fairly brutish and tie in well with the tough guy image mechanical wise, but you felt the need to go barbarian. I see you included something about him having an anger issue, which means that you are perusing the rage mechanic from barbarian. Now you wanted him to be able to climb and sneak and be strong and resistant to damage. So let's see what we can come up with...

Half orc grants us +2 to strength and +1 to con, menacing (proficiency in intimidation), relentless endurance (ability to stave off unconciousness 1/day), and savage attacks (bonus damage on critical hits).

Barbarian grants us a d12 hit die, access to all weapons, medium armor and shields, saving throw proficiencies to stength and constitution, our choice of 2 from some nice skills, and the all powerful rage (advantage on strength checks and saving throws, bonus damage on hits on strength based attacks, and resistance to piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage). For skills I went ahead and selected Athletics and Perception... athletics because you said you wanted to climb and perception because as a sailor animal handling and nature didn't seem all that important, you already had intimidation from half-orc, and survival is mainly for tracking and finding food and fresh water (2/3 of which I find implausible at sea), so perception it is.

So far we have only dealt wit the mechanics of a chararacter, but we are getting into reason behind some of those mechanics.

Sailor grants us Athletics and Perception, which we already have, so lucky us we can follow our characters early days and find out what skills and how we earned our proficiencies. So you were a sailor... what made you choose that background... no not you as the playrer... what was the character's motivation to do so... are they following a family career? Running from something? Wanting to see the world? How did you become a sailor... did you sign up with a ship? Were you picked up half dead on a shore and are paying off a debt? Did you kill a crew member in an honest fight and got to take their place? Are you a soldier in a navy?
Ok, so after those two question are answered... sailor background teaches you athletics and perception (which we built into our classes skills) so what else did you learn from your time as a sailor?

You want to be a "good" character and 5e tends to dissuade players from evil besides lawful evil, so let's say you choose chaotic neutral. That would mean that you are more concerned with your self then anything else, so would make a good smuggler or pirate. So we currently have a character who is running from something. You make it to a port town, where you are pursued by someone looking for you. They find you and demand you return... in a rage you get into a fight and kill that person. As you calm down you become aware of what you have done, the lifeless body near your feet... the blood on your hands... a gentleman comes up and offers you condolences, trying to ease your mind, passing a drink into your trembling hand. He asks about you and you tell him, he offers you a way out of the prison term that you are facing for committing murder in the city, complete with a paying job, food and shelter. Your mind is furiously trying to keep up with his words, but all you can think of is what you have just done... but you know that whatever happens, a prison cell and a noose isn't what you want. You take him up on his offer and find out you are now the crew member of [ship name]. We now have our reason for becoming a sailor and it ties to our chosen class. It evens opens up multiple thread hook for further development and growth later.

Now that we have a sailor... what did we learn on our voyages. Let's look at the skills...we were hired for our raw strength... not our charm or intelligence. That means that we have low scores in those 2 stats. We are fairly hardy and exceptionally strong, making those 2 stats our priorities (they also line up with the race and class bonuses and proficiencies). That leaves us dexterity and wisdom...to round out our stats... and what we learned up to this point should reflect in those scores. So far we have our ability to climb(athletics), awareness of our environment(perception), and our preferred method for dealing with social situations(intimidation). Now you mentioned sneaky. But why would a brute need to be sneaky. Wait... we work for a smuggler, right. Even though we are a brute, we still primarily try to avoid notice, so we have learned to hide things and to work under the cover of darkness, where a noise could alert the authorities to our location. We have learned stealth as a smuggler. So add that as a new skill, covered easily by our background and experiences... now other applicable skills to learn as a sailor include [Insight, Deception, Persuasion, Medicine, Investigation, and Acrobatics], now given that we have already determined that our intelligence and charm aren't anything to write home about... we'll look at Insight, Medicine, and Acrobatics... so that leaves Wisdom and Dexterity... both have mechanical benefits, but I believe that dexterity has the most tie in to our chosen background story, as we have chosen to be a sailor... metal armors at sea are a sever hindrance in the swimming department, so we have become quicker to more effectively dodge opponents attacks and avoid tripping on the rolling deck of a ship. I'd choose acrobatics as the last skill as a natural extension of our choice to become a sailor.

So we have a standard point array of 15,14,13,12,10,8. Half-Orc, Barbarian, Sailor.
Strength:17
Dexterity:13
Constitution:15
Intelligence:8
Wisdom:12
Charisma:10

Our proficiencies are in Athletics, Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, and Stealth and each is covered by our chosen occupation.

Our class is barbarian without actually being called barbarian, right now we have a bloodlust that takes hold of us that we can give into, or try to fight it.
That fight is a tool for the DM to weave into their story, and for you as a player to use as a mechanic... do you choose to give in to the taint of your mixed heritage, or do you you fight it... rolling a will save every time you enter combat/take damage to avoid losing control of your own mind. The fight is also reflected in the characters alignment... you didn't choose chaotic neutral... you actions and choices have resulted in that... and it is a guide for you as the player to see through the eyes of the character... you obviously don't care about law (you ran away from the scene of a murder and the justice for that crime, and you didn't mention any particular code of ethics (smuggler/pirate). You aren't fighting for the good of everyone else, but you aren't trying to destroy the world either... your focus is on yourself and your fight for control. Before doing anything as the player you ask as the character... does it benefit me, and my goal.

This is all happening before you enter the game, but is part of the enfolding story that the DM and the players are creating together. Now you mentioned taking levels in rogue, even though all of the required character traits are handled by the combination of half-orc, barbarian, and sailor. If that is still part of your character creation(starting in a higher level campaign), then you as a player could create that part of the story as well. If not then you are now a part of the larger story... and what happens is a shared experience. But skills can be handled by the skillful feats...or by ability score increases. Feats can add other interesting things your character picks up through their experience. The multi-class aspect is available as well... but what would make the character interested in something from another background, other than the mechanical stuff, that they, as a character, have no knowledge of. Is there a rogue in your group that the character wants to be like? Do they find a god that can help with their rage issue and pledge their devotion to? I don't have that answer, because like I said earlier... the narrative is shared... the DM provides the story and your character interacts with the world via their decisions, which they make based on how they see the world and their past experiences...

Multiclassing is still perfectly viable, but in my mind should reflect a change in the character... in this instance lets say the DM had you ran into a contact in the city, who used to be a smuggling partner while your group is resting at an inn... he knows that you are looking for work and can recommend you to some friends of his, who just so happen to be the local thieves guild... you accept and in your off time training to do what they do... you still don't need to multi-class... you are still an excellent enforcer and brute with just the right skills for them, but maybe you want to do a little more. Or maybe you don't want to be a criminal anymore... or never were and you thank them for the offer, but you aren't sure, you still don't want to accidentally hurt anyone in your rage. You leave the inn and outside is a monk, extolling the virtues of their faith/order. He promises inner peace and you ask him about his philosophy. Interested you take time off from your travels to study this philosophy. Or maybe you walk past him... turning down both offers to travel on as before. Neither one states that you will multi-class, but the DM has offered you hooks and options, and the character has turned them down, and might continue to offer multi-class.

Now both of those scenarios could be player suggested or DM presented... and be a tacked on multi-class or just a hook to offer to do so, but they key to them both is did the character found either option feasible and accept it on their terms... the lure of a lucrative job as a part of the criminal underbelly, or the offer of what the character is seeking (control of their rage and a way to sidestep the fate of their lineage). A player interested in multi-classing says yes, barbarian/rogue would make a great set of skills, or yes x/y is better than just z alone because of 'maths'. The character sees an offer, and they have to decide if it is worth it or not, not knowing what will happen when they make their choice and THAT drives their growth.

Sorry I know this has been long... just trying to get a good explanation down.

[smcmike]

Our class is barbarian without actually being called barbarian, right now we have a bloodlust that takes hold of us that we can give into, or try to fight it.
That fight is a tool for the DM to weave into their story, and for you as a player to use as a mechanic... do you choose to give in to the taint of your mixed heritage, or do you you fight it... rolling a will save every time you enter combat/take damage to avoid losing control of your own mind. The fight is also reflected in the characters alignment... you didn't choose chaotic neutral... you actions and choices have resulted in that...

This is fairly accurate, but why would I give up control over my rages to the DM? I'm perfectly capable of telling the story of this internal conflict.



Multiclassing is still perfectly viable, but in my mind should reflect a change in the character...


Why? This is the core and entirety of our disagreement.

What about my sailor background doesn't work with "rogue?" He's naturally very athletic after working for years on a whaler, with great perception too (I also went with acrobatics and survival to start, both of which make some sense for a sailor). He's learned how to move quietly in the occasional smuggling jobs he's been involved in. His viciousness with a blade (sneak attack) surprises even him, similar to his rages - all part of the innate bloodthirstiness he hasn't quite come to terms with yet (his story is essentially that he isn't really formally trained with weapons at all, but violence seems to come quite naturally).

Leveling to 3 in barbarian actually presents a far greater roleplaying problem, assuming I use the totem ritual spells.

[Fighting_Ferret]

First off... thanks for reading all of that... I should give you a cookie or something...

We don't have a disagreement per se, but rather a different approach to our play styles.

I have agreed that rogue could in theory replace barbarian as a single class build for what you are looking for... minus the rage mechanic... but the rogue multi-class isn't adding anything that the barbarian class doesn't already have covered, as far as character is concerned... you as the player might want more damage via sneak attack, expertise in two chosen skills, and cunning action, but the character already has the skills desired, the desired fluff/background, and a compelling story.

In my (long) example I envisioned the character's path of rage would eventually carry him towards the path of the berzerker, if they didn't take themselves off of that path.

I imagine the character you envision welcomes his rage... he may be surprised by it... but he otherwise wields it according to his whim. My character views his rage as a curse (and I'd even force myself as a player to roll a d20 every round in an encounter to actively NOT rage, possibly even rolling to determine targets after the initial target was downed, meaning targeting party members could happen...DM approval would be needed for the last part). He either fights it and fears succumbing to it, finds a way to control or contain it, or gives into it wholly. Two paths keep him on the path of the single classed barbarian... in one he rolls to avoid raging in combat (actively trying not to let it overcome his will) the other he willingly accepts the inevitability of fate and succumbs to his rage... letting it grant him its dark power. The middle option is to contain or control his rage... I see this as a multi-class aspect, or possibly a retraining from berzerker to totem (both require some help from the DM...the first for a proper set up, the latter for permission.) The story aspect is very strong in all 3 and the second option isn't guaranteed to work, even if it is made available. Now as the player... I could make all this happen (mostly) any time I wanted... but as a a character there are triggers introduced by the DM and narrative... losing a loved one may drive them to vengeance... when they have the culprit in hand do they kill them or release them... knowing there is blood on their hands as well? That decision has an impact... it directly affects the character... it can't just be a I'll do x and continue on my way... there is serious decision that has been made... it may solely change your background, or be the event that determines the character's path to one of the above options. It is the weight of the character's choices that guides them though advancement.

Why would you continue down the barbarian class if you weren't actively using the rage mechanic? It still comes into play, just involuntarily so. The berzerker path would fit it nicely... as frenzied reckless attacks would totally fit an involuntary bloodlust, even the negative exhaustion of frenzy makes sense. The character doesn't want to fly into a rage... it is in point of fact... their greatest fear. It grows stronger as the character becomes stronger. The fight heightening the characters abilities. If the bloodlust wins and the character succumbs... then they would gladly welcome the power of their "gift", with no need to look for other sources of power. Only the middle path allows for a possible change. The levels in barbarian represent... well a barbarian (which has it's own definition within D&D)... to stop the rage, any class would offer a welcome respite from it... but to what extent... some would be better than others. Thus a multi-class, for a solution to a character problem, not as as mechanical advantage, but it isn't guaranteed by the story being told.

Did I just re-write the hulk? Hmm...

[Edgerunner]

Being a Ranged kind of player makes Rogue a good class dip but if you ever find yourself in melee.... I like Swashbuckler as well. Great benefits while still being Roguish.

[smcmike]

Oh, my character very much feels cursed. I didn't give you the whole backstory, but cursed is the single word that best sums it up, and the propensity towards violence is the manifestation of that curse. I just see my role as the player as being the coauthor of his narrative - I control when he flies into his rage, even if it's out of his concious control.

Adding rogue allows me to better model the claimant's athleticism, which is his defining physical characteristic, and also to make him particularly deadly with lighter weapons, fitting with his relatively civilian background. It also gives me some fun things to do in combat.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Well I think I have written enough stuff... I hope you enjoy your character... and have lots of fun playing as them. You've given me a solid platform to create an interesting character from...so thanks.

[MBControl]

See, I don't know what that means. In what way does multiclassing take away from telling your story?

You're right, it doesn't have to, in fact done correctly it can add to a good character arch. I find that most often, mc'ing is used to simply min/max, and has nothing to do with the character's story.

I think multi-classing should be used sparingly, or as a late game method of continuing to advance your character, when the course of the story changes your "path". Planning ahead to multi-class is weird to me. If events in the game encourage your fighter to become dedicated to a god, and become a paladin or cleric, that makes sense, but just mapping out a levelling plan ahead of time would take me out of the story, and have me making decisions on what I want my character to be, instead of having the events of the world steering me in a specific direction.

There isn't a right or wrong way, the point is to enjoy playing the game, and everybody has a preference.

[napoleon_in_rag]

I don't mean to sound dismissive, because all of what you write sounds very nice, but it kinda misses the point. From my point of view there simply is not a conflict between characterization and optimization, at least in the very mild examples we are currently working with. It's not like you are adding a level of necromancer while in the middle of a dungeon, with no previous mention of any arcane study at all. And it's not like you are uninterested in optimization - you wouldn't play this game at all if all your were interested in was characters, because the entire leveling and class mechanic puts enormous straightjackets on characters, if you are interested in any sort of verisimilitude

It sounds like you would be happier play a point based system like GURPS rather than a class/system like D&D.

[smcmike]

It sounds like you would be happier play a point based system like GURPS rather than a class/system like D&D.

Why? I don't have any problem with D&D. Mix a couple of classes together and you can do all sorts of fun stuff 😀

[napoleon_in_rag]

Why? I don't have any problem with D&D. Mix a couple of classes together and you can do all sorts of fun stuff 😀

Well going back to the original post:


Now, the DM will also let me pick up proficiency with Thieve's Tools in less than 250 days if I can find a trainer, but if I just multiclass to Rogue, I can just pick up the proficiency that way.

You wrote something like "straight jacket of class and level". This is one of the problems that comes from that straight jacket. You either A) roleplay studying thieves tools for half a year or B) multiclass rogue and immediately get that skill but temporarily abandon any progression as a Ranger.

In GURPS, you just spend the points you get from experience and add the skill on. Spend more points and get that much better with the skill. It avoids this whole problem.

There are problems with point based systems like GURPS, but you are able to more easily mix optimization with character development.

[smcmike]

Well going back to the original post:



You wrote something like "straight jacket of class and level". This is one of the problems that comes from that straight jacket. You either A) roleplay studying thieves tools for half a year or B) multiclass rogue and immediately get that skill but temporarily abandon any progression as a Ranger.

In GURPS, you just spend the points you get from experience and add the skill on. Spend more points and get that much better with the skill. It avoids this whole problem.

There are problems with point based systems like GURPS, but you are able to more easily mix optimization with character development.

My comment about the straightjacket of class and level really was about the fact that D&D is only really designed for one sort of narrative - the hero increasing in power over the course of a (violent) adventure. Increasing in power at all over the course of an adventure is a narrative straightjacket. Which is fine - it's a game, too, not just a story.

[Arkhios]

One thing to note is how does your DM handle the process of leveling up?
Our DM uses training (which includes a certain amount of gold for the training) which takes time. Essentially, even if people did prefer playing the game non-stop, we should consider the fact that when we roleplay a game like D&D our characters are people like us, no matter how imaginary. Learning anything new takes time. Sure, as a player you can just play the game MMO-style and say "Ding, I just got a level and whole bunch of new features" but from the character's perspective that's really not the case. Training takes time. Whether it is for a new class or a new set of skills or tools.

[Knaight]

One thing to note is how does your DM handle the process of leveling up?
Our DM uses training (which includes a certain amount of gold for the training) which takes time. Essentially, even if people did prefer playing the game non-stop, we should consider the fact that when we roleplay a game like D&D our characters are people like us, no matter how imaginary. Learning anything new takes time. Sure, as a player you can just play the game MMO-style and say "Ding, I just got a level and whole bunch of new features" but from the character's perspective that's really not the case. Training takes time. Whether it is for a new class or a new set of skills or tools.

On the other hand, that level generally comes over an extended period of time spent doing fairly extreme things.

[Arkhios]

On the other hand, that level generally comes over an extended period of time spent doing fairly extreme things.

It's the experience which comes over an extended period of time spent doing whatever it is you do for adventuring. Once you have attained enough experience to advance in level, you most likely recap all things you've learned "between levels". Whatever it is you need to do to recap is, at least in my books, pretty tedious thing, something you're definitely not doing when you decapitate a dragon or whatnot. I mean, in-character, you're not making notes on what you just did, are you? ;)

However you choose to interpret and play all this is up to you and your DM (if you're not the DM). What I introduced earlier can be found in DMG. It's not a self made house rule.

[Knaight]

It's the experience which comes over an extended period of time spent doing whatever it is you do for adventuring. Once you have attained enough experience to advance in level, you most likely recap all things you've learned "between levels". Whatever it is you need to do to recap is, at least in my books, pretty tedious thing, something you're definitely not doing when you decapitate a dragon or whatnot. I mean, in-character, you're not making notes on what you just did, are you? ;)

Making actual notes, no. Making mental notes and generally observing, almost certainly.

With that said, the leveling system in general (in which characters advance mechanically via fairly big packets of abilities) is pretty odd from a simulationist standpoint, particularly when you're used to the incremental gains typical of direct experience spending systems or the like.

[Serket]

If I multiclass to Rogue, how many levels of Rogue should I take?

Take two levels, then see how you feel. Cunning action is really nice.

[rrwoods]

This is a 3.5 example but it's relevant to the discussion.

So there's this class called a swordsage which gets access to martial maneuvers from different schools. One of the schools is Shadow Hand which has a cool mystical sneaky feel; another is Diamond Mind which seems to be all about focus and concentration. There are others but they aren't relevant to my point.

I have a character I'm running right now that I plan to be a swordsage all the way to 20. He's focused on Shadow Hand hard right now, especially having just picked up Assassin's Stance which grants 2d6 sneak attack. Cool stuff.

Only the later SH maneuvers kind of suck, and the DM ones start to be really awesome, mechanically. Now to me, changing your focus like that isn't any easier to justify than changing classes. So am I making some unjustifiable choice in terms of role play picking up DM maneuvers all of a sudden when my character was this back handed sneak for 7-8 levels? Am I a dirty optimizer because I want to be able to roll d20+12 for damage instead of taking the crappy high level SH maneuvers?

No; my character will realize that mistrust and lack of discipline are hurting him, and that training his focus and learning these DM maneuvers are the only way to continue surviving. The fact that I've planned that character development ahead of time is totally okay.

If you run games where you prefer your players to let the game dictate their advancement, and your players are having fun, great. I find it's more fun for me as a player when I have the opportunity to plan out those choices, and that in practice no combination of classes (bags of abilities) that is effective can't be turned into an interesting character.

In fact if the combination of classes is effective, a personality very often emerges naturally!

On another point made here: My character doesn't even know what a "swordsage" is. He doesn't know what a "fighter" is either, and if I wanted a level of fighter for the bonus feat, all that represents in game is my character becoming more effective in a particular way, not "diverging from the path of a swordsage" (he doesn't know what that means). In a similar fashion, the OPs character doesn't know what a "ranger" is; the next level of ranger isn't any more special or default just because it has the same name as his other five levels. Characters are unaware of classes.

[Goodberry]

So I've recently hit 5 on my Ranger, and now I'm at a loss as it what I should do next.

I'd suggest therapy. You obviously hate yourself.


Should I continue straight Ranger or should I multiclass? And if I multiclass, into what and how far?

Our group composition so far is an Eldritch Knight, a Life Cleric, a Draconic Sorceress, and me, the Hunter Ranger. At one point we had a Rogue NPC, but uh... he kind of caught a sudden case of the dead, and then he got reanimated, and then I had to put him down by way of a scimitar to the face. It was a sad time. Anyway, locked doors and chests continue to confound our party now, and while the DM lets the EK use Acid Splash to slowly eat through things, it's loud, and slow. Other times we can break through stuff, but again, loud.

Now, the DM will also let me pick up proficiency with Thieve's Tools in less than 250 days if I can find a trainer, but if I just multiclass to Rogue, I can just pick up the proficiency that way. Which takes me to my current ponderings. If I multiclass to Rogue, how many levels of Rogue should I take? We are going to be going as far as 20, and the Ranger capstone I find is... eh, take it or leave it. Should I just get trained in the tools and go straight 20? 17 / 3? 14 / 6? 12 / 8? Or maybe Just go 5 / 15 and never look back?

My current stats are: 11 STR, 18 DEX, 14 CON, 12 INT, 16 WIS, 7 CHA. Got an emphasis on shooting things with a longbow going on.

Seriously though, Rangers suck. Assuming you took Giant Killer, multi-classing to Swashbuckler wouldn't be quite as terrible as any other option, but still far behind just about any combo without Ranger levels in it.

[Fighting_Ferret]

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective... characters are indeed ignorant of classes and levels, but levels are earned through experience characters gained through using the abilities of their chosen class, which originally comes from time spent learning their level 1 abilities. A ranger isn't just a stealthy person who is good with a bow... heck any class can be stealthy and shoot a bow. A ranger is defined by the natural explorer and favored enemies, their ability to survive in the wild indefinitely... you can call them whatever you want... but the ranger is the only class to get those abilities... even if you consider them worthless. Their shtick is specialized reconnaissance, tracking, and survival... with the ability to fight and be a little more varied in skills than some other classes. Maybe someone else can do it better if they frankenstein together a mixture of 5 fighter, 9 druid, and 6 rogue... but then you are merely trying to out perform the mechanics of being a ranger, just accept that the ranger is a tool, and while it might not be the right tool for every job, or in your opinion for any job, it has it's place.

[rrwoods]

What it comes down to is this: as a player I want to be able to execute on a specific concept (possibly "ranger") as effectively as possible. If the best tool for the job is a mix of classes rather than a single class (like Ranger) then I'm going to pick the mix of classes. If I can't, I'll find another game.

People arguing against what I'm saying here seem to always have this generic "this is how it is" position and don't ever seem to mention how this positively impacts the fun everyone is having at the table.

[Arkhios]

Class differences are not there just so we had to compare them to each other balance-wise, it's not an arms race between classes about whom is the most effective damage dealer or whatever. The classes are NOT meant to be balanced with each other. Each character class is designed to have their own place in the world. It's true that you can emulate being a ranger by making an aforementioned fighter/druid/rogue (which, by the way, used to be Bard in it's first iteration), but it doesn't make a full-fledged Ranger redundant as a class; remember, multi-classing is an optional rule. It's the players who only care for the maximum possible potential over flavor who make ranger feel redundant, or even obsolete. The problem with ranger is not within the class itself, it's between our players' ears. It's almost like some people can't find a tree from a forest.

[rrwoods]

remember, multi-classing is an optional rule
Are games without multiclassing more fun than games with?

If it's not coming down to what's more fun for your players, I'm comfortable saying "you're doing it wrong".

[Arkhios]

Are games without multiclassing more fun than games with?

Hands down, I'm comfortable saying that it's equally fun. Having fun in a game (any game!) is in your hands; it's up to you to make it fun with what you have, instead of asking for something you don't have. Or can't have.

After all, even your life is what you make of it with what you have.