Level 3 Out of the Abyss Character

[Khrysaes]

Hello,

So I made previous posts about making a multiclass character combining Fighter, revised Ranger, and Rogue. Dex based with Archery.

Well, now my DM has said that we will be doing the rage of demons adventure, and starting at level 3.

This is causing me some slight semblance of headache, as I am not sure what my leveling order should be.

I planned on being a Tabaxi, which comes with 60ft darkvision.

Start at fighter level 1.

and I previously thought of taking fighter from 2-5, which means early level I won't be behind at all. with the 20 level plan being 8 fighter, 8 rogue, 4 ranger. 6 ASI, and Ranger was probably going to be Hunter, for the consistent damage.

Now I am thinking that taking Ranger levels 2-5 may be better. My ASI is only 1 level behind, if I take spell less ranger, I get almost the same benefit as Battle Master, sans 1 maneuver. AND most importantly, I get the opportunity to take Deep Stalker, although only at level 4. The 30ft increase in darkvision, and ability to hide from beings with darkvision would work well in an underdark setting. If I follow up with fighter 2-5, My 2nd ASI is still level 8, I get more maneuvers at level 7(like a battle master would). The only downside is the delaying of the extra attack until 9th level. After level 9, I would take rogue, sprinkle in fighter 6(maybe 15 or 16?)somewhere, finish off Rogue 8 at level 18, and take fighter 7-8 for levels 19-20.

So, would early deepstalker be better? or should i just stick with fighter and pick up hunter later? A downside would be the rear heavy ASI, with 4 planned after level 10

[Theodoxus]

Hello,

So I made previous posts about making a multiclass character combining Fighter, revised Ranger, and Rogue. Dex based with Archery.

Well, now my DM has said that we will be doing the rage of demons adventure, and starting at level 3.

This is causing me some slight semblance of headache, as I am not sure what my leveling order should be.

I planned on being a Tabaxi, which comes with 60ft darkvision.

Start at fighter level 1.

and I previously thought of taking fighter from 2-5, which means early level I won't be behind at all. with the 20 level plan being 8 fighter, 8 rogue, 4 ranger. 6 ASI, and Ranger was probably going to be Hunter, for the consistent damage.

Now I am thinking that taking Ranger levels 2-5 may be better. My ASI is only 1 level behind, if I take spell less ranger, I get almost the same benefit as Battle Master, sans 1 maneuver. AND most importantly, I get the opportunity to take Deep Stalker, although only at level 4. The 30ft increase in darkvision, and ability to hide from beings with darkvision would work well in an underdark setting. If I follow up with fighter 2-5, My 2nd ASI is still level 8, I get more maneuvers at level 7(like a battle master would). The only downside is the delaying of the extra attack until 9th level. After level 9, I would take rogue, sprinkle in fighter 6(maybe 15 or 16?)somewhere, finish off Rogue 8 at level 18, and take fighter 7-8 for levels 19-20.

So, would early deepstalker be better? or should i just stick with fighter and pick up hunter later?

In an OotA game I'm playing in, we have a deepstalker drow ranger/rogue (5/4, currently). He's a beast. Because the underdark is 99.9% dim or dark lighting, he can hide anywhere. He took Skulker to offset the sight penalties and can basically Hide in Plain Sight with no issues. His typical sequence is to open a volley of arrows on round 1 (dealing massive damage with his Assassin traits), then scurry for cover and bonus action hide. Every round after, it's snipe, hide, snipe, hide... 2 shots, at advantage, every round for 2d8+4d6+7 (he has a +2 bow) at something ridiculous like +12 to hit... he wrecks everything. I'm a cleric, so I don't mind too much (plus I have a sunblade, so I ruin his day most of the time anyway :smallbiggrin:)

[Khrysaes]

In an OotA game I'm playing in, we have a deepstalker drow ranger/rogue (5/4, currently). He's a beast. Because the underdark is 99.9% dim or dark lighting, he can hide anywhere. He took Skulker to offset the sight penalties and can basically Hide in Plain Sight with no issues. His typical sequence is to open a volley of arrows on round 1 (dealing massive damage with his Assassin traits), then scurry for cover and bonus action hide. Every round after, it's snipe, hide, snipe, hide... 2 shots, at advantage, every round for 2d8+4d6+7 (he has a +2 bow) at something ridiculous like +12 to hit... he wrecks everything. I'm a cleric, so I don't mind too much (plus I have a sunblade, so I ruin his day most of the time anyway :smallbiggrin:)

I am not going to be a drow. but that 150ft dark vision must be a beast. (Other ways include deep gnomes and warlock 2(which is also better))

Part of my problem is that I dont want to use ranger for my extra attack. In fact, I would rather have more fighter levels.

This also imposes the problem, of if I should go rogue or fighter early, since obviously the rogue would have some serious advantageous capabilities like that.

[joaber]

I would go straight as revised ranger 5 (in OotA definitely Deep Stalker), and than rogue at least 2.
Ranger 5 give you spells lvl 2, AkA pass without trace. So ranger 5/fighter 4 add way more than fighter 5/ranger 4

[Khrysaes]

I would go straight as revised ranger 5 (in OotA definitely Deep Stalker), and than rogue at least 2.
Ranger 5 give you spells lvl 2, AkA pass without trace. So ranger 5/fighter 4 add way more than fighter 5/ranger 4

I didn't really want spells; 1: i don't really like spell casters; 2: It doesn't fit my character image; 3: I would rather be a focused archer fighter than a hodgepodge that is more levels of Ranger w/ spells. Especially since so many of them compete for concentration. Hence why I considered a 6 fighter/2 Spell-less Revised Ranger > 8 Fighter or 8 Ranger

I like rangers, don't get me wrong. But I think the class falls behind after 5th level. And since Fighter gets the same level 4 and level 5 benefits, I do see a point in more than 4 levels of ranger, which makes the spell casting even more lackluster than it already is.

I would only want to take a spell casting ranger if there wasn't a druid or other ranger in the party, which there may not be.

The rogue cunning action would be amazing though. hmm..

But deep stalker does seem the best.... I guess I will see what we have in our party before deciding level order.

[Corran]

So, would early deepstalker be better?
Yeah, deep stalker is very strong, I think it is better.


with the 20 level plan being 8 fighter, 8 rogue, 4 ranger
So, would early deepstalker be better?
I really dont see the logic with these break points. If you are going as high as 8 levels in figter, why not take 3 more for a 3rd attack?

Imo you should have a look at ranger and fighter. and decide which of the two you prefer the most. Personally I prefer the stalker ranger, so it were me, I would do this
Ranger 1 -> Ranger 5 -> Ranger 5/ Rogue 2 -> Ranger 7/ Rogue 2, then either go for ranger 11 for stalker's flurry first and then more take 3 fighter levels for battlemaster maneuvres, or first grab 3 levels in fighter for action surge and maneuvres and then proceed to ranger 11 for stalker's flurry.

The sure thing is, that I would not advance ranger beyond the 13th level, as I would not want to have additional overlap between the revised ranger's features with the rogue's cunning action. So ranger (stalker)11/ rogue 2/ fighter (battlemaster) 3, is what I would do for my first 16 levels of play probably.

Now, if I were going for fighter with the main class, I would probably avoid ranger completely, or I would take 3-4 levels in ranger at the most (for an archtype, a couple of 1st level spells -dont really know if there is anything that useful in there/ absorb elements is a good pick I think) and perhaps even for an ASI. I would still take the 2 rogue levels for cunning action, and the way I woud do it, would be like this: Fighter 1 -> Fighter 5 -> Fighter 5/ Rogue 2 -> Fighter 11/ rogue 2 -> .... not really sure from then on.
Just keep in mind that if you are going archer, and with fighter being your main class, EK is another decent option, besides battlemaster (though if I was going with EK, I would probably not bother with ranger at all).

[joaber]

I didn't really want spells; 1: i don't really like spell casters; 2: It doesn't fit my character image; 3: I would rather be a focused archer fighter than a hodgepodge that is more levels of Ranger w/ spells. Especially since so many of them compete for concentration. Hence why I considered a 6 fighter/2 Spell-less Revised Ranger > 8 Fighter or 8 Ranger

I like rangers, don't get me wrong. But I think the class falls behind after 5th level. And since Fighter gets the same level 4 and level 5 benefits, I do see a point in more than 4 levels of ranger, which makes the spell casting even more lackluster than it already is.

I would only want to take a spell casting ranger if there wasn't a druid or other ranger in the party, which there may not be.

The rogue cunning action would be amazing though. hmm..

But deep stalker does seem the best.... I guess I will see what we have in our party before deciding level order.

Hmm, I didn't knew spellless revised ranger was a thing. I was thinkg that spell less ranfer and revised one are two completly different things.

Since you don't like spells, fighter will be a your way to go. Others good multiclass for archers will have spells too.
Same way, go straight until lvl 5 and than start to think if multiclass worth it. Just keep your wis at 13 to let you multiclass at the future.

[Alejandro]

Hello,

So I made previous posts about making a multiclass character combining Fighter, revised Ranger, and Rogue. Dex based with Archery.

Well, now my DM has said that we will be doing the rage of demons adventure, and starting at level 3.

This is causing me some slight semblance of headache, as I am not sure what my leveling order should be.

I planned on being a Tabaxi, which comes with 60ft darkvision.

Start at fighter level 1.

and I previously thought of taking fighter from 2-5, which means early level I won't be behind at all. with the 20 level plan being 8 fighter, 8 rogue, 4 ranger. 6 ASI, and Ranger was probably going to be Hunter, for the consistent damage.

Now I am thinking that taking Ranger levels 2-5 may be better. My ASI is only 1 level behind, if I take spell less ranger, I get almost the same benefit as Battle Master, sans 1 maneuver. AND most importantly, I get the opportunity to take Deep Stalker, although only at level 4. The 30ft increase in darkvision, and ability to hide from beings with darkvision would work well in an underdark setting. If I follow up with fighter 2-5, My 2nd ASI is still level 8, I get more maneuvers at level 7(like a battle master would). The only downside is the delaying of the extra attack until 9th level. After level 9, I would take rogue, sprinkle in fighter 6(maybe 15 or 16?)somewhere, finish off Rogue 8 at level 18, and take fighter 7-8 for levels 19-20.

So, would early deepstalker be better? or should i just stick with fighter and pick up hunter later? A downside would be the rear heavy ASI, with 4 planned after level 10

This is of course dependent on your GM and group, but: Our group is also playing Out of the Abyss, and it probably will matter less than you think. Just play something that sounds fun. There are many things you'll encounter that you really, really shouldn't try to resolve with combat, anyway.

[Khrysaes]

TL:DR:
I was really just curious if I should take ranger levels early for natural explorer, and the improvement to dark vision. But it sounds like just having those abilities will change the experience of the game, from more of a survival in wonderland, to something else...

I'll have to talk to my DM and team about it. I do plan on taking the ranger levels, I am just not sure when.

Thanks for the feedback.


Yeah, deep stalker is very strong, I think it is better.

I really dont see the logic with these break points. If you are going as high as 8 levels in figter, why not take 3 more for a 3rd attack?

The logic was developed based on comparing the final 20 levels, to the Ranger and Fighter, at least in terms of class features.

I also considered 11 or 12 fighter, but decided that I wanted the extra fighting style, natural explorer, some extra superiority dice and maneuvers, and a slight damage buff with Spell-less revised ranger, and the defensive options of a rogue, more than I wanted 1 extra attack, and indomitable for one use.
if you go fighter 1-5 > ranger 1-2 > fighter 6, you are in my opinion slightly higher than a fighter 8. you don't gain Know thy enemy, and an ASI, but you get a skill, Natural explorer, favored enemy, fighting style, and 2 more superiority dice than a fighter 8.
if you then take rogue 1-4, you get expertise, the archetype, cunning action, sneak attack, and a skill, all while still having your ASI equal to anything that isn't a fighter or a rogue, comparing to a fighter's extra attack, indomitable, and 1d10 superiority dice.
By taking ranger 3-4 then rogue 5-8, you get your rogue defense(uncanny dodge) at the same level as a ranger, and evasion, which a ranger wouldn't get, in addition to the extra sneak attack and expertise. The last 2 levels could be either 2 rogue or 2 fighter, as both net a last ASI, for a total of 6. I chose 2 fighter, because 2 more superiority dice interested me more than 1d6 sneak attack, and either assassin's impersonate, or Arcane Trickster's magical ambush, since I wasn't planning on taking any offensive spells. Also, the Arcane trickster doesn't gain any new spells in those levels.

Of course, if I change the order, the class features at comparable levels change too..
This also nets Close quarters shooter & archery fighting styles, giving a +3 to hit, while negating the disadvantage in melee without the need for a feat. It allows a shorter range ignoring of cover until sharpshooter is taken.


Hmm, I didn't knew spellless revised ranger was a thing. I was thinking that spell less ranger and revised one are two completely different things.

Strictly speaking, it wasn't intended to be a thing I am sure. But the only class feature Spell-Less changes is the spell casting ability. Which is the exact same in PHB and Revised Ranger. so by the transitive property... Also the DM is okay with it. I am sad about no hunter's mark or pass without a trace though.

I don't necessarily want to be super powerful, nor do I care particularly about optimizing for the underdark, or I would make a Deep gnome Ranger 5+, fighter 2+, rogue 4+(don't know for the last 9 levels...), for the 150ft dark vision, advantage in stealth in rocky terrain(almost always in the underdark), Dual handcrossbow wielding, 7 attack in the first round making, hiding as a bonus action, etc. 13 ranger grants greater invisibility too. or more rogue for more sneak attack