Why Was WotC So Terrified Of The Monk?

[Amechra]

OK, so the title isn't 100% serious, but it feels like WotC actively went out of their way to make the Monk really bad at multiclassing. And I'm not even talking about MAD or ki dependency here — I'm talking about how you can't use Divine Smite or Sneak Attack with an unarmed strike, or how it's unnecessarily annoying to combine Martial Arts with other classes' combat schticks (your Moon Druid wildshapes into a Brown Bear and multiattacks someone? No Martial Arts bonus action attack for you!)

I really hope that that WotC cleans this kind of stuff up in 5.5e, and that they don't horribly mangle the Monk in the process.

[P. G. Macer]

I think Hanlon’s Razor and its corollaries apply here: “Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to ignorance, etc.” From what I understand, multiclassing was tacked on very late in the 5e design process, with little playtesting, as an appeasement to 3.5 fan playtesters who wanted multiclassing. So the designers simply didn’t have much time to iron out the kinks in the process, which is how we got the first version of the infamous Coffeelock as well.

I think the Razor also applies to the un-interactiveness of the Monk’s unarmed strikes with other features, as the most nitpicking-y technical of RAW snafus pop up when one tries to combine it with things like Divine Smite, and since that happens to match up with RAI (sort of, since they probably didn’t consider the interaction when designing to begin with), that’s what Crawford gives as Sage Advice.

[Dork_Forge]

You can Divine Smite an unarmed strike, RAW it's only Improved Divine Smite that doesn't work. (In double checking myself I saw JC said that it doesn't work in 2019, both my pre-2019 PHB and up to date D&D Beyond disagree with him).

As for it being bad at MCing, I think it's more of a 'design in a vacuum' problem. MCing is meant to be an optional rule, so if they believed that whilst designing it makes sense the Monk has little-to-no consideration for it.

That said, it MCs pretty nicely with Fighter and Rogue as standard, and there's a decent amount to be said about dipping Druid or Cleric on them as is.

[Xervous]

Point out an edition they could have taken inspiration from where the monk was good. A D&D edition specifically. It’s always been clunky.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From what I understand, multiclassing was tacked on very late in the 5e design process, with little playtesting, as an appeasement to 3.5 fan playtesters who wanted multiclassing.

This. Multiclassing in 5e is an utter hack, tacked on so as not to endanger any herds of respected bovines. It was basically untested and is the source of most (although not all) of the weird interactions and broken things. Which tracks--it was a major source (although a lesser one due to just the sheer amount of sources of brokenness) of brokennes in 3e as well.

<unpopular opinion warning>
Basically, level-by-level multiclassing is, was, and always will be a bad idea in a class/level game. And the same variety can be built in other, much more sane ways. They'd have been better leaving it out entirely and (if absolutely necessary) adding it in a separate book that could do it properly.
</>

[Dante]

OK, so the title isn't 100% serious, but it feels like WotC actively went out of their way to make the Monk really bad at multiclassing. And I'm not even talking about MAD or ki dependency here — I'm talking about how you can't use Divine Smite or Sneak Attack with an unarmed strike, or how it's unnecessarily annoying to combine Martial Arts with other classes' combat schticks (your Moon Druid wildshapes into a Brown Bear and multiattacks someone? No Martial Arts bonus action attack for you!)

Opportunity cost aside, there are some really fun Monk multiclasses. Consider for example Monk/Druid. A Sun Soul Monk 5/Moon Druid 4 is bad, yet surprisingly good: imagine an AC 15 Giant Octopus with double normal movement (20', or 30' if Longstridered in advance) who grapples you from 15' away with two Tentacle Attacks for 2d6+3 each (potentially with Stunning Strike) and then either Dodges with Patient Defense, or long-jumps 34' (or 12' up), or starts shooting lasers.

Is that way worse than a Shepherd Druid with a bazillion goats? Yes.

Is that worse than a Barbarian 9 or a Swashbuckler 9? ... Not necessarily, especially after you consider all the free HP from wildshape. I've never tried it but honestly it sounds hilarious, would play it in a one-shot for sure. (And we haven't even added in things like Sentinel and Great Weapon Master bonus attacks yet, or Spike Growth before wildshaping, or Skulker + Nimble Escape + Pass Without Trace. Stealth Octopus grabs you unexpectedly and runs away at high speed!)

Don't get too disappointed by the things like Brown Bear that don't work. There are a surprising number of things that do.

[Telonius]

Point out an edition they could have taken inspiration from where the monk was good. A D&D edition specifically. It’s always been clunky.

Coming from a 3.5 perspective, a Monk that isn't horribly mangled is a break from tradition. The Monk class was one of those that looked like it could do extra-cool stuff, really wanted to do extra-cool stuff, but never managed to pull it off.

[Millstone85]

You can Divine Smite an unarmed strike, RAW it's only Improved Divine Smite that doesn't work. (In double checking myself I saw JC said that it doesn't work in 2019, both my pre-2019 PHB and up to date D&D Beyond disagree with him).

The 2021 Sage Advice Compendium says that it doesn't work because...
[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?

No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes.

Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon.

However, it also claims that...
If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.

[Lord Torath]

Point out an edition they could have taken inspiration from where the monk was good. A D&D edition specifically. It’s always been clunky.I rather enjoyed the Mystic from the RulesCyclopedia (aka BECMI D&D). Whether or not I'm displaying my ignorance with that statement is a open question.

[Slipjig]

Assuming it was a deliberate design decision, I would assume that they probably thought Monk was a class that people would play vanilla all the way through, like full casters (or, in 3e terms, only taking PrC's that give full spell progression).

But I agree: sneak attack not applying to Martial Arts is utter BS, and every DM I've played with has house-ruled it in.

[Dork_Forge]

The 2021 Sage Advice Compendium says that it doesn't work because...

However, it also claims that...

Why on earth wouldn't they just errata the text to reflect that, then rely on a questionable wording?

This feels like 'damn, this melee weapon attack definition we made up is really confusing, but this is the hill we're dying on, point to that piece' 'but it doesn't actually matter' 'then also say it doesn't matter but we can't be seen as fallible!'

That is just a really frustrating bit of SA.

[Sorinth]

Just because your a monk doesn't mean all your attacks need to be unarmed strikes. There's nothing wrong with using a weapon for your main attacks and just using unarmed strikes in your bonus action. In fact it's what you should be doing most of the time. So Monk/Rogue very much works as a multiclass combo, and a Shadow Monk / Rogue is quite good.

And even though Monk doesn't doesn't work with a Brown Bear it works fine with a Dire Wolf which once you get Extra Attack is the better form anyways.

[animorte]

From what I understand, multiclassing was tacked on very late in the 5e design process, with little playtesting, as an appeasement to 3.5 fan playtesters who wanted multiclassing.
From what I gathered, this exactly.

Also, I've learned that multiclassing is generally best when you're focusing on the same stats, you know, SAD. I've had some pretty good luck with Monk/Druid and Monk/Cleric and Monk/Ranger in the past. This is the reason for such prominence with CHA multiclassing. The only purpose I see for going MAD multiclassing is flavor, which can be really fun in itself, and typically a lot less optimal.


Just because your a monk doesn't mean all your attacks need to be unarmed strikes. There's nothing wrong with using a weapon for your main attacks and just using unarmed strikes in your bonus action. In fact it's what you should be doing most of the time..
Also this. Very rarely do monks not use weapons.

[strangebloke]

Most of the things you list are casualties of the attack/melee attack/melee weapon attack/attack with a weapon/special grapple attack/unarmed strike debacle, which is easily the most overcomplicated thing in 5e particularly when you consider how little purpose it all actually serves. People blame multiclass rules but this isn't it at all.

Monks problem is the same problem it's had in every edition. All the martial support assumes armor and martial weapons, and monks until recently didn't use armor and didn't use martial weapons. That's really it. All the hysterical screaming about monks being bad at damage can all be reduced to "they can't use gwm and people think they can't use ss".

So it's harder to find a fighting style that supports your play style if you take a feat, it's harder to find a multiclass that puts you over the top, and so on.

WotC always seems to forget that printing lots of rules that interact with each other will always open up synergy and therefore power. Spellcasters are so good in part because of how many spellcasters there are. Loads of spell lists to steal from, loads of classes to multiclass with.


This. Multiclassing in 5e is an utter hack, tacked on so as not to endanger any herds of respected bovines. It was basically untested and is the source of most (although not all) of the weird interactions and broken things. Which tracks--it was a major source (although a lesser one due to just the sheer amount of sources of brokenness) of brokennes in 3e as well.

<unpopular opinion warning>
Basically, level-by-level multiclassing is, was, and always will be a bad idea in a class/level game. And the same variety can be built in other, much more sane ways. They'd have been better leaving it out entirely and (if absolutely necessary) adding it in a separate book that could do it properly.
</>

Disagree hard.

Most multiclass builds are either a weak class like monk taking a level of cleric to shore up weaknesses, or a powerful class like wizard choosing to give up peak power potential for flavor or shoring up weaknesses. The strongest builds in the game are almost universally single class, and the actual problem MCs purely come down to excessively front loaded subclasses like hexblade.

The system adds a lot of customization potential to what would otherwise be a sterile experience, and actively benefits weaker character concepts.

[Xervous]

I rather enjoyed the Mystic from the RulesCyclopedia (aka BECMI D&D). Whether or not I'm displaying my ignorance with that statement is a open question.

While it’s been some time since I delved certain old editions I distinctly remember (some 2e) the unarmed combat rules being a sick joke for anyone foolish to suffer through them.

A bit of research on the BECMI Mystic places it as a late bloomer martial which feels rather weird for TSR D&D. I’d be wary of rolling one in a party at low level, but it’s a no brainier to grab if you start later. Ironically this would also be a terrible pattern for 5e because most people go 1-10 and wouldn’t really see a Mystic inspired Monk actually take off.

[Psyren]

Point out an edition they could have taken inspiration from where the monk was good. A D&D edition specifically. It’s always been clunky.

Yeah I don't think WotC have ever gotten it right. Paizo came VERY close to greatness with the Unchained Monk. WotC have always been way too cautious with monk.



Disagree hard.

Most multiclass builds are either a weak class like monk taking a level of cleric to shore up weaknesses, or a powerful class like wizard choosing to give up peak power potential for flavor or shoring up weaknesses. The strongest builds in the game are almost universally single class, and the actual problem MCs purely come down to excessively front loaded subclasses like hexblade.

The system adds a lot of customization potential to what would otherwise be a sterile experience, and actively benefits weaker character concepts.

Yeah this. Multiclassing isn't perfect by any means, but 5e would have been paper-thin without it. I wouldn't mind them iterating on it some more in 5.5e, but not having it would have been a huge mistake.

[Snails]

<unpopular opinion warning>
Basically, level-by-level multiclassing is, was, and always will be a bad idea in a class/level game. And the same variety can be built in other, much more sane ways. They'd have been better leaving it out entirely and (if absolutely necessary) adding it in a separate book that could do it properly.
</>

No, it is not that it is an intrinsically bad idea. The underlying issue is there is a clash between what is often preferred in a single-class only campaign and a heavy-multiclassing game. Specifically, without any multiclassing, there is no compelling reason to not strongly frontload every class -- many players like playing a "Real X" from level 1. In a heavy multi-classing campaign, it probably makes more sense to push out some of these key class features, (e.g. Action Surge at level 3 or 4 or 5).

The designers made a reasonable compromise, albeit a very imperfect one, where a class completes its main features at level 2 or level 3 (rather than after just 1 or 2 levels like in 3e, where cherry-picking frontloaded classes was too easy).

[Dante]

Also this. Very rarely do monks not use weapons.

Aside: action heroes on the other hand often punch or kick their enemies instead of using their weapons.

Fighter = The Punisher
Monk = Captain America, Spider Man

[Rynjin]

Point out an edition they could have taken inspiration from where the monk was good. A D&D edition specifically. It’s always been clunky.

Assuming Pathfinder counts, the Unchained Monk is very good actually. The Core Monk isn't half bad either with a thousand splatbooks backing it up, but we're not really talking about "optimized level of power" (which is merely good, not broken), and UnMonk is out of the box stronger and harder to build poorly.

...Actually on a check, 5e came out before that. *shrug*

Still, it does prove that making a good Monk is not impossible, the team just sucks at doing it.

[Xervous]

Assuming Pathfinder counts, the Unchained Monk is very good actually. The Core Monk isn't half bad either with a thousand splatbooks backing it up, but we're not really talking about "optimized level of power" (which is merely good, not broken), and UnMonk is out of the box stronger and harder to build poorly.

...Actually on a check, 5e came out before that. *shrug*

Still, it does prove that making a good Monk is not impossible, the team just sucks at doing it.

Pathfinder doesn’t count. And after crushing Tippy’s Terrible Trial I know all too well that a pile of splatbooks can indeed save something vaguely monk like.

I would say part of the problem is that they can’t let the monk be a better Striker than the fighter. With 5e assuming everyone gets to play in combat and no boosts to keep the fighter anywhere near its TSR pedestal, monk got stuck with so-so combat and all the conservative clunk they could toss together.

PF at least realized fighter could be the LOL+STATS class and put in large enough bennies for it to stand out.

[strangebloke]

5e monk is good at a baseline, its just not well-supported in supplemental "optional" material.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

OK, so the title isn't 100% serious, but it feels like WotC actively went out of their way to make the Monk really bad at multiclassing. And I'm not even talking about MAD or ki dependency here — I'm talking about how you can't use Divine Smite or Sneak Attack with an unarmed strike, or how it's unnecessarily annoying to combine Martial Arts with other classes' combat schticks (your Moon Druid wildshapes into a Brown Bear and multiattacks someone? No Martial Arts bonus action attack for you!)

Divine Smite and Sneak Attack work fine with Short Swords or Daggers which Monks are explicitly allowed to use. The Wildshape issue is an overall game design. Multi Attack and Regular Attack/Extra attack are two different things, nothing stops you from being a brown bear and taking a single attack along with flurry if you want. Monk MCing is pretty solid, just like all non-spell casters, not seeing any real examples here



Disagree hard.

Most multiclass builds are either a weak class like monk taking a level of cleric to shore up weaknesses, or a powerful class like wizard choosing to give up peak power potential for flavor or shoring up weaknesses. The strongest builds in the game are almost universally single class, and the actual problem MCs purely come down to excessively front loaded subclasses like hexblade.

The system adds a lot of customization potential to what would otherwise be a sterile experience, and actively benefits weaker character concepts.

i am in agreement with you (that MCing isn't bad or ill thought). But did want to point out that that's the case for full Casters. On the Martial side it's usually a wash between straight Classing or mixing things around.

To throw one example I've played with.

Level 20 Crown Paladin is very solid. You have an average of 124 HP before Con, Extra Attack, 5th level casting, 30' Auras, 5 Feats/ASIs and an ability for 1 hour to be heavily resistant to damage and death for you and your allies. You are somewhat MAD with Str and Cha.

Contrast Level 8 Crown Paladin, Level 3 Fighter, Level 9 Hexblade. You have an average of 115 HP before Con, Extra Attack, 5th level SR recharge Casting, 10' Auras, 4 Feats/ASIs, 2 Additional sets of Subclass Features and are SAD Cha.

I'd argue neither is that much more powerful than the other, both are perfectly playable and I couldn't say either side is wrong in choosing their path.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder doesn’t count.

Which is sad because it's both freely available and quite prominent. WotC could have easily learned from it.


Just because your a monk doesn't mean all your attacks need to be unarmed strikes. There's nothing wrong with using a weapon for your main attacks and just using unarmed strikes in your bonus action. In fact it's what you should be doing most of the time. So Monk/Rogue very much works as a multiclass combo, and a Shadow Monk / Rogue is quite good.

No one has a problem with monks using weapons. Rather, the issue is that (a) 5e is the first edition in a long time where monks can only flurry with punches* for whatever reason, (b) some of the cool stuff monks could do before like tumble and teleport have either been taken away completely or made much more vague within the ruleset, and (c) monks get weaker relative to other martial classes (and weaker relative to the monsters from 11+) as they go up in levels which is the opposite of how the power curve should work. So it just feels kind of hollow and disappointing as a class.

*Kensei aside

[Waazraath]

5e monk is good at a baseline, its just not well-supported in supplemental "optional" material.

This. No stellar damage feats like GWM CBE or (bar kensai) SS, little room for feats at all cause you need dex and wis and some con as well, no obvious multi class combo's and lack of synergy (what this thread is about). The alternative class features rules in Tasha's help them a bit though.

[Sorinth]

Which is sad because it's both freely available and quite prominent. WotC could have easily learned from it.



No one has a problem with monks using weapons. Rather, the issue is that (a) 5e is the first edition in a long time where monks can only flurry with punches* for whatever reason, (b) some of the cool stuff monks could do before like tumble and teleport have either been taken away completely or made much more vague within the ruleset, and (c) monks get weaker relative to other martial classes (and weaker relative to the monsters from 11+) as they go up in levels which is the opposite of how the power curve should work. So it just feels kind of hollow and disappointing as a class.

*Kensei aside

The OP's post is about how MC with monk is bad because they can't use things like Divine Smite or Sneak Attack. It's completely mistaken because Monks can use those features because they can and should be using a weapon when taking the attack action. A Monk/Rogue multiclass will get sneak attack off just as often as a Fighter/Rogue, a Monk/Paladin will be able to Divine Smite the same number of times a round that a straight Paladin could. The premise of this thread is mistaken.

[Jervis]

Disagree hard.

Most multiclass builds are either a weak class like monk taking a level of cleric to shore up weaknesses, or a powerful class like wizard choosing to give up peak power potential for flavor or shoring up weaknesses. The strongest builds in the game are almost universally single class, and the actual problem MCs purely come down to excessively front loaded subclasses like hexblade.

The system adds a lot of customization potential to what would otherwise be a sterile experience, and actively benefits weaker character concepts.

Snnnnnnnfff God said he’d teach me karate! Now hold my beer while I make 16 spell slots

[PhoenixPhyre]

You could get the same benefit to character concepts[1] without all the jank. And I'll note that the Sorcadin was a thing well before the hexblade came along. As well as the armored wizard (a level of cleric for medium/heavy armor and shields has been around since day 1).

There's a tension between front-loading classes (which is good, because it allows you to feel like you're actually functional during the levels people actually play) and allowing arbitrary dips (which in my mind is entirely bad because it violates the whole premise of a class/level system). So the answer (again, in my mind) is simple--find a different way to enable those concepts that you (as designers) want to enable.

[1] unfettered character building is not a strong suit of class/level systems and never has been. If you want build-a-bear, point-buy systems will work way better for that. Implementing point-buy via level-by-level multiclassing just means you get something that's neither fish nor fowl, a misshapen monster that eats the system alive.

[strangebloke]

This. No stellar damage feats like GWM CBE or (bar kensai) SS, little room for feats at all cause you need dex and wis and some con as well, no obvious multi class combo's and lack of synergy (what this thread is about). The alternative class features rules in Tasha's help them a bit though.

Note that with Tasha's, all monks can use SS effectively.

Monks are proficient with all simple weapons. Shortbows are simple weapons and thus monks are proficient with them, but can't use them with MA. Dedicated weapon allows you to turn any non-heavy weapon you're proficient with into a monk weapon. Ergo, every monk can turn a shortbow into a monk weapon and use it with Focused Aim and KFA for the exact combo that enables Kensei to be an effective archer. ALL you lose is Sharpen the Blade at eleven, and Kensei's shot. Prior to level 10 you end up just a few points behind the Kensei, which is an optimized archer build, and if you pick up longbow proficiency somehow the DPR is real close.

The fact that build this way ends up being the best damage option available to the monk is very illustrative regarding how much GWM and Sharpshooter warp the game.

But if you ban both of them, the casters still have options for massive single target damage and balance is arguably even further out of whack. It's one of the reasons I don't really care for the "baseline" optimization youtubers use of EB+Hex+AB. Warlocks are very good at damage in a featless game! Even though warlocks can push their damage way higher, that's not a reasonable baseline!

IMO, every martial should get a feature at 4th level that lets them power attack with any attack they make, and GWM should boost damage more in a different way... and sharpshooter should still be banned, it sucks.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

There's a tension between front-loading classes (which is good, because it allows you to feel like you're actually functional during the levels people actually play) and allowing arbitrary dips (which in my mind is entirely bad because it violates the whole premise of a class/level system). So the answer (again, in my mind) is simple--find a different way to enable those concepts that you (as designers) want to enable.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider arbitrary dips? No trickery here, but I imagine the line is different for different people.

IE for my games, the only weird MCing is if it's hard to justify it directly, specially since we know 5e encourages changing fluff at will so long as mechanics don't move.

So for one person's game, maybe taking that Hexblade dip on the Paladin is Arbitrary. But in another game it's just a continuation of the Paladin's oath, but it has attracted a specific spirit that admires said Oath and decides to aid the knight.

One person's game, maybe taking a Cleric Dip is Arbitrary, specially if the character is not religious. But in another game, maybe said Deity sees value in the person and decides they get help rather they believe or not.

About the only class I see as being hard to justify without ingame prep is Wizard or Artificer.

[Doug Lampert]

Point out an edition they could have taken inspiration from where the monk was good. A D&D edition specifically. It’s always been clunky.

4th. The monk was fine, its powers mostly gave BOTH an attack and a movement option. The movement options were pretty good, the attack powers reasonably strong.

Even people who (stupidly) fuss that giving martial attacks names is somehow Wuxia should have no problem with the MONK having named powers with cool effects.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Out of curiosity, what would you consider arbitrary dips? No trickery here, but I imagine the line is different for different people.

IE for my games, the only weird MCing is if it's hard to justify it directly, specially since we know 5e encourages changing fluff at will so long as mechanics don't move.

So for one person's game, maybe taking that Hexblade dip on the Paladin is Arbitrary. But in another game it's just a continuation of the Paladin's oath, but it has attracted a specific spirit that admires said Oath and decides to aid the knight.

One person's game, maybe taking a Cleric Dip is Arbitrary, specially if the character is not religious. But in another game, maybe said Deity sees value in the person and decides they get help rather they believe or not.

About the only class I see as being hard to justify without ingame prep is Wizard or Artificer.

I'm not even talking about thematics here. Just mechanics--if there are meaningful, frontloaded features at levels 1-2, then allowing people to jump in and replace a "dead" (ish) level with a "strong" level causes issues. Because a first level of Cleric is not equal to an Xth level Fighter, Wizard, etc. Effectively, the chance for breakage goes up quadratically. Or faster. You get cherry-picking. Where Paladin 2/Sorcerer X is better at smiting and just about as good at fighting in general as a Paladin X+2, because smites are fueled by spell slots and by taking that first level in Paladin you get all the proficiencies.

Personally, I'd prefer a combination of a few routes to grow horizontally (not all of these are supposed to happen together, but some combination):
* things that would be dips for thematic features (Sneak Attack, Divine Smite, etc) are now feats that give a non-scaling version.
* A system where you can "dual-class" for cases where you want a roughly-even split of features. But you're locked in from level 1.
* A bunch more "multiclass" sub-classes and base classes. So if you want a "gish" wizard, you'd take the <gish> subclass. Etc.
* An alternate route so at certain levels you can pick up "Emulation" features, letting you pick (carefully selected) thematic features from other classes in ways that scale appropriately without giving up your class level. With specific support for simply specializing further in your current class, which would be the "most power, most simply" option; the others would give you mostly horizontal growth.

Or, alternately, a way of making sure that there is no vertical growth with multiclassing. So that every possible combination means you give up power in exchange for versatility. Because right now, you often get cases where you get straight up benefits by multiclassing.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm not even talking about thematics here. Just mechanics--if there are meaningful, frontloaded features at levels 1-2, then allowing people to jump in and replace a "dead" (ish) level with a "strong" level causes issues. Because a first level of Cleric is not equal to an Xth level Fighter, Wizard, etc. Effectively, the chance for breakage goes up quadratically. Or faster. You get cherry-picking. Where Paladin 2/Sorcerer X is better at smiting and just about as good at fighting in general as a Paladin X+2, because smites are fueled by spell slots and by taking that first level in Paladin you get all the proficiencies.

Personally, I'd prefer a combination of a few routes to grow horizontally (not all of these are supposed to happen together, but some combination):
* things that would be dips for thematic features (Sneak Attack, Divine Smite, etc) are now feats that give a non-scaling version.
* A system where you can "dual-class" for cases where you want a roughly-even split of features. But you're locked in from level 1.
* A bunch more "multiclass" sub-classes and base classes. So if you want a "gish" wizard, you'd take the <gish> subclass. Etc.
* An alternate route so at certain levels you can pick up "Emulation" features, letting you pick (carefully selected) thematic features from other classes in ways that scale appropriately without giving up your class level. With specific support for simply specializing further in your current class, which would be the "most power, most simply" option; the others would give you mostly horizontal growth.

Or, alternately, a way of making sure that there is no vertical growth with multiclassing. So that every possible combination means you give up power in exchange for versatility. Because right now, you often get cases where you get straight up benefits by multiclassing.


I feel like your method would create a lot more bloat, both in feats and subclasses. Consider that the Cleric has 14 Subclasses, 13 of which players will generally have access to since Death is usually reserved for NPCs, while the Wizard has 13 Subclasses. Now, I may be doing my math wrong, because I'm not great when it comes to permutation and combination, but provided I'm right, there should be around 351 unique Subclass combinations from that list. And while some combinations will play similarly, others will not. For example, a Bladesinger Wizard/Tempest Cleric will play very differently from a Scribes Wizard/Tempest Cleric. One is going to be in close combat using Wrath of the Storm and Thunderous Strike with Bladesong the Bladesinger's unique Extra Attack, while the other is going to make heavy use of Destructive Wrath and Awakened Spellbook to drop Thunder/Lightning nukes.

And that's just two of the classes. You're far better off leaving Multiclassing in because it exponentially increases what's available for players without having to make hundreds of feats or subclasses.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like your method would create a lot more bloat, both in feats and subclasses. Consider that the Cleric has 14 Subclasses, 13 of which players will generally have access to since Death is usually reserved for NPCs, while the Wizard has 13 Subclasses. Now, I may be doing my math wrong, because I'm not great when it comes to permutation and combination, but provided I'm right, there should be around 351 unique Subclass combinations from that list. And while some combinations will play similarly, others will not. For example, a Bladesinger Wizard/Tempest Cleric will play very differently from a Scribes Wizard/Tempest Cleric. One is going to be in close combat using Wrath of the Storm and Thunderous Strike with Bladesong the Bladesinger's unique Extra Attack, while the other is going to make heavy use of Destructive Wrath and Awakened Spellbook to drop Thunder/Lightning nukes.

And that's just two of the classes. You're far better off leaving Multiclassing in because it exponentially increases what's available for players without having to make hundreds of feats or subclasses.

The goal is to not get subclasses on secondaries at all. You get base class features. Subclasses are for specialists, not dilletantes.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Point out an edition they could have taken inspiration from where the monk was good. A D&D edition specifically. It’s always been clunky.

4e.

The answer is 4e.

Everything was good in 4e.

Monks were REALLY good in 4e. They had a couple of power/stances when used together that was pretty damn powerful.

So the answer is 4e.

They were also Psionic which was a pretty good choice as well.

[Willie the Duck]

OK, so the title isn't 100% serious, but it feels like WotC actively went out of their way to make the Monk really bad at multiclassing. And I'm not even talking about MAD or ki dependency here — I'm talking about how you can't use Divine Smite or Sneak Attack with an unarmed strike, or how it's unnecessarily annoying to combine Martial Arts with other classes' combat schticks (your Moon Druid wildshapes into a Brown Bear and multiattacks someone? No Martial Arts bonus action attack for you!)

I really hope that that WotC cleans this kind of stuff up in 5.5e, and that they don't horribly mangle the Monk in the process.

I think Hanlon’s Razor and its corollaries apply here: “Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to ignorance, etc.” From what I understand, multiclassing was tacked on very late in the 5e design process, with little playtesting, as an appeasement to 3.5 fan playtesters who wanted multiclassing. So the designers simply didn’t have much time to iron out the kinks in the process, which is how we got the first version of the infamous Coffeelock as well.

I think the Razor also applies to the un-interactiveness of the Monk’s unarmed strikes with other features, as the most nitpicking-y technical of RAW snafus pop up when one tries to combine it with things like Divine Smite, and since that happens to match up with RAI (sort of, since they probably didn’t consider the interaction when designing to begin with), that’s what Crawford gives as Sage Advice.

Pre-caveat: this is all an 'IMO' take on how this came to be, based on my feeling about the basic ideas of what 5e was 'about' in the early days of the edition.
As others have pointed out, MC was not the assumed playstyle, and I think more importantly the designers (IMO) thought that, given that MC was optional, they were not as bound to make sure that there weren't winners and losers, strictly-better-option choices, and the like. Perhaps moreso, I think they thought that people weren't going to be as beholden to 'RAW' as previous editions (they sure did go all-in on the 'rulings over rules' credo, as one point of evidence), and any DM who allowed MC would also be making decisions like 'do I think that there would be a problem with this paladin-monk smiting with their fists?' and deciding one way or another without regards to specifically parsed rules texts (Mind you, The devs tweeting specific rulings to all these questions instead of 'do what you think makes sense' to all but the most glaring kinda interfered with this from the start). That being said (and a little counter-intuitively), that so many things default to no working -- unarmed and/or natural weapons not working with specific abilities, spells, or effects, Sneak Attack not working with Str-based weapons (even though rogues have, for instance, longsword proficiency; and a ruffian hitting someone over the head with a club is a tried and true trope), and so forth -- I think these are as they are because the devs feared that there would be some crazy OP combo somewhere in amongst the ruleset that they didn't see coming that made (as an example) playing a smiting monk-paladin a better expression of a monk or (or worse, and) a better expression of a paladin than a single class in either. I don't think they wanted their fingerprints on a game-breaker*, yet at the same time wanted to de-emphasize how important their fingerprints were (so that DMs could take on the task of ruling in/out combos). I think they were, at best, partially successful on all counts.
*excluding Simulacrum-Wish, which I think was absolutely deliberate, just to get the near-infinite-wish-loop of this edition out of the way.


Point out an edition they could have taken inspiration from where the monk was good. A D&D edition specifically. It’s always been clunky.
Thread topic is mostly the MC interactions, but this is certainly an issue. Other than the original Supplement II version (which had no specific purpose other than to let someone play Kwai Chang Cane/Remo Williams), the monk/mystic has been a character class in search of a definition, purpose, and un-clunky implementation. Agree with Doug that the 4e implementation comes closest (but IMO insufficient to regularly play one even there). The RPG issue with making mobility a benefit unto itself, especially since most games work by the 'each character takes turns when their initiative comes up and mostly freeze when others are acting,' is non-trivial and I don't envy the devs the challenge. That and, like psionics, no two gamers have the same conception about what the monk class ought to be (often incompatibly so).



There's a tension between front-loading classes (which is good, because it allows you to feel like you're actually functional during the levels people actually play) and allowing arbitrary dips (which in my mind is entirely bad because it violates the whole premise of a class/level system). So the answer (again, in my mind) is simple--find a different way to enable those concepts that you (as designers) want to enable.

[1] unfettered character building is not a strong suit of class/level systems and never has been. If you want build-a-bear, point-buy systems will work way better for that. Implementing point-buy via level-by-level multiclassing just means you get something that's neither fish nor fowl, a misshapen monster that eats the system alive.

There's certainly something to be said for the two AD&D multiple-class systems (either advance as both with a lag, or advance as one and then have to permanently abandon it to follow another career). Also for MC through feats/ASIs (The feats we have, plus I could see something akin to Magic Initiate, but with level requirements and higher payouts). Or, yes, relegating getting exactly what you want to point-buy games and make D&D all about fulfilling one of a few (not really that few, when race, background, and subclasses are included) specific archetypal character concepts. Multiclassing, as done in 3e/5e, has some pretty obvious consequences (it could have been done better than it was, but I think there are almost inherently going to be winner and loser options), and I guess they decided they needed to live with those consequences if they wanted to please everyone at least partially. Personally, I think they could have made one change that would have helped things: put the MC rules in the DMG.

[MrStabby]

I think the role of magic items is similar to multiclassing and feats. All optional rules and not assumed, and magic items being in the game does weaken the monk.

All those enemies resistant to non magical BPS become specialist victims of the monk. Monk mobility shines when other martial classes can't just pick up fey touched or mobility or grab some boots of flying. Lack of good feat support for monk certainly hurts, but adding +X weapons to the game offsets the penalties. Unarmoured defence is sweet, but if the DM starts dropping +1 armour, then it kind of sucks for the monk.

The monk is frankly awesome, but becomes.just a bit less awesome with every feature added to the game that let's other classes steal their thunder.

[stoutstien]

It's funny because I view any class that has obvious jump off or in points when multi-classing is available is a sign that they're not well designed. The only real lit down level of the monk is the capstone

[Amechra]

Ah, the perils of a thread posted in the wee hours of the morning. I'd like to clarify my complaint because a bunch of people are saying mean things to me :smallwink:.

To pick a specific example...

The primary thing that most Monks want to do in a fight is use Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows to make a bunch of unarmed attacks to supplement their Attack action.
The primary thing that most Rogues want to do in a fight is get one solid hit in with Sneak Attack every turn.

Ideally, a Monk/Rogue multiclass should combine the two fighting styles, much like how a Barbarian/Rogue gets to combine Reckless Attack and Sneak Attack. However, purely because of the decision to not let Rogues use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes, you can't really pull this off. The thing is that, as far as Rogues are concerned, the Martial Arts bonus action attack is worse than just using a shortsword in your off hand, since using that shortsword gives you an extra chance to get off a Sneak Attack if you miss with your first attack (Flurry of Blows is better... but if you're a Rogue dipping into Monk, you're only going to be able to do it a couple times per short rest).

And, again, this is entirely arbitrary — there's no particular reason why they couldn't have just thrown in a note in the Multiclassing chapter that Martial Arts lets you Sneak Attack with monk weapons and unarmed strikes — it's not like that chapter doesn't call out other specific interactions, after all.

(You can make a similar argument regarding a Monk/Paladin multiclass, but I feel like the lack of interaction between the Monk and the Rogue is a particular sticking point.)

Also, the annoying issue with the Druid/Monk is that Martial Arts explicitly requires you to "use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn" — so no, a Dire Wolf doesn't work any better than a Brown Bear on the "I want to use Martial Arts" front, except insofar as it works better with Extra Attack. Again, this isn't entirely unworkable (there are definitely forms where your unarmed strikes are going to be better than your natural weapons), but it's still unnecessarily clunky. Granted, this is less annoying than the Rogue thing (because the main reason I want to use Martial Arts in non-human forms is so that I can play Nature of Nature's Art (http://natureofnaturesart.com) because it's funny), but it still bothers me.

...

Now, here's the thing — all of these multiclasses arguably still work. Your Monk might be dipping into Rogue to pick up some extra skills and a ki-free version of Step of the Wind, while your Rogue might want a few levels in Monk because they want the Unarmored Defense and the improved mobility. They're just clunkier than they need to be, and that bothers me. At least the Barbarian warns you that it doesn't mix well with most spellcasters (and even then, it's perfectly happy to mix with Druids and Paladins).

[Jervis]

I'm not even talking about thematics here. Just mechanics--if there are meaningful, frontloaded features at levels 1-2, then allowing people to jump in and replace a "dead" (ish) level with a "strong" level causes issues. Because a first level of Cleric is not equal to an Xth level Fighter, Wizard, etc. Effectively, the chance for breakage goes up quadratically. Or faster. You get cherry-picking. Where Paladin 2/Sorcerer X is better at smiting and just about as good at fighting in general as a Paladin X+2, because smites are fueled by spell slots and by taking that first level in Paladin you get all the proficiencies.

Personally, I'd prefer a combination of a few routes to grow horizontally (not all of these are supposed to happen together, but some combination):
* things that would be dips for thematic features (Sneak Attack, Divine Smite, etc) are now feats that give a non-scaling version.
* A system where you can "dual-class" for cases where you want a roughly-even split of features. But you're locked in from level 1.
* A bunch more "multiclass" sub-classes and base classes. So if you want a "gish" wizard, you'd take the <gish> subclass. Etc.
* An alternate route so at certain levels you can pick up "Emulation" features, letting you pick (carefully selected) thematic features from other classes in ways that scale appropriately without giving up your class level. With specific support for simply specializing further in your current class, which would be the "most power, most simply" option; the others would give you mostly horizontal growth.

Or, alternately, a way of making sure that there is no vertical growth with multiclassing. So that every possible combination means you give up power in exchange for versatility. Because right now, you often get cases where you get straight up benefits by multiclassing.


For what it’s worth Gestalt with a XP penalty works decently. It’s broken at low levels though. Levels 1-3 are especially problematic. Something like halved XP gains with gestalt rules works decently from 5-10 where you’ll be in the same tier but slightly weaker in each class.

As for my option I think just having a ton of subclasses (IIRC 130ish) that cover multiclass options works pretty well.

[sithlordnergal]

The goal is to not get subclasses on secondaries at all. You get base class features. Subclasses are for specialists, not dilletantes.

I mean, even if you're just looking at class combinations and not subclasses, you have a lot of combinations. Again, calculating total combinations is not my strong suit, but even if you go for limiting your multiclass to only two classes you should have 78 unique combinations with the 13 classes. If you're looking at builds with three classes, that's 286. Its just not possible to make feats and subclasses to cover all of those combinations. And like it or not, you're never going to be able to make a subclass that perfectly characterizes an idea that uses a multiclass. So once again, multiclassing brings in a lot more depth in a way that just replacing it with Feats and Subclasses can't possibly accomplish.

[Dante]

The primary thing that most Monks want to do in a fight is use Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows to make a bunch of unarmed attacks to supplement their Attack action.
The primary thing that most Rogues want to do in a fight is get one solid hit in with Sneak Attack every turn.

Ideally, a Monk/Rogue multiclass should combine the two fighting styles, much like how a Barbarian/Rogue gets to combine Reckless Attack and Sneak Attack. However, purely because of the decision to not let Rogues use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes, you can't really pull this off. The thing is that, as far as Rogues are concerned, the Martial Arts bonus action attack is worse than just using a shortsword in your off hand, since using that shortsword gives you an extra chance to get off a Sneak Attack if you miss with your first attack (Flurry of Blows is better... but if you're a Rogue dipping into Monk, you're only going to be able to do it a couple times per short rest).

I'm having trouble with this example because monks do have Extra Attack, which means a Monk/Rogue using an offhand weapon can get *three* chances at sneak attack damage if he wants to. Or he can just attack twice with a main hand weapon and then Flurry (if he wants more hits for more Stunning Strike changes), which is the same number of chances a dual-wielding Rogue would have: two.

I see where you're coming from overall: you recognize that synergies exist but wish there were more of them, especially for Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows which you consider iconic. That's not wrong. But I think this example is off base.

Actually this thread has me wanting to play a Long Death Monk/Moon Druid as kind of an alt-Conan. Lots of swagger, minimal respect for danger or propriety, seeking death or glory. Maybe make him a goblin and then play on the irony of a tiny 3' tall goblin glaring up like someone who thinks of himself as 7' tall glaring down, because when he gets in a fight, he is.

[strangebloke]

I think the role of magic items is similar to multiclassing and feats. All optional rules and not assumed, and magic items being in the game does weaken the monk.

All those enemies resistant to non magical BPS become specialist victims of the monk. Monk mobility shines when other martial classes can't just pick up fey touched or mobility or grab some boots of flying. Lack of good feat support for monk certainly hurts, but adding +X weapons to the game offsets the penalties. Unarmoured defence is sweet, but if the DM starts dropping +1 armour, then it kind of sucks for the monk.

The monk is frankly awesome, but becomes.just a bit less awesome with every feature added to the game that let's other classes steal their thunder.
I moderately disagree here.

It's arguable that magic weapons benefit monk, at least currently. Longswords are common magic items and monks excel with them, getting three accurate attacks a round potentially. Something like a flametongue in the party's possession makes monk look a lot better compared to a pam barbarian.

It's funny because I view any class that has obvious jump off or in points when multi-classing is available is a sign that they're not well designed. The only real lit down level of the monk is the capstone
Agreed. Playing jumping off a class is a sign the class is boring them. The solution in such a case is not to chain them to the boring class

Ah, the perils of a thread posted in the wee hours of the morning. I'd like to clarify my complaint because a bunch of people are saying mean things to me :smallwink:.

To pick a specific example...

The primary thing that most Monks want to do in a fight is use Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows to make a bunch of unarmed attacks to supplement their Attack action.
The primary thing that most Rogues want to do in a fight is get one solid hit in with Sneak Attack every turn.

Ideally, a Monk/Rogue multiclass should combine the two fighting styles, much like how a Barbarian/Rogue gets to combine Reckless Attack and Sneak Attack. However, purely because of the decision to not let Rogues use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes, you can't really pull this off. The thing is that, as far as Rogues are concerned, the Martial Arts bonus action attack is worse than just using a shortsword in your off hand, since using that shortsword gives you an extra chance to get off a Sneak Attack if you miss with your first attack (Flurry of Blows is better... but if you're a Rogue dipping into Monk, you're only going to be able to do it a couple times per short rest).

And, again, this is entirely arbitrary — there's no particular reason why they couldn't have just thrown in a note in the Multiclassing chapter that Martial Arts lets you Sneak Attack with monk weapons and unarmed strikes — it's not like that chapter doesn't call out other specific interactions, after all.

(You can make a similar argument regarding a Monk/Paladin multiclass, but I feel like the lack of interaction between the Monk and the Rogue is a particular sticking point.)

Also, the annoying issue with the Druid/Monk is that Martial Arts explicitly requires you to "use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn" — so no, a Dire Wolf doesn't work any better than a Brown Bear on the "I want to use Martial Arts" front, except insofar as it works better with Extra Attack. Again, this isn't entirely unworkable (there are definitely forms where your unarmed strikes are going to be better than your natural weapons), but it's still unnecessarily clunky. Granted, this is less annoying than the Rogue thing (because the main reason I want to use Martial Arts in non-human forms is so that I can play Nature of Nature's Art (http://natureofnaturesart.com) because it's funny), but it still bothers me.

...

Now, here's the thing — all of these multiclasses arguably still work. Your Monk might be dipping into Rogue to pick up some extra skills and a ki-free version of Step of the Wind, while your Rogue might want a few levels in Monk because they want the Unarmored Defense and the improved mobility. They're just clunkier than they need to be, and that bothers me. At least the Barbarian warns you that it doesn't mix well with most spellcasters (and even then, it's perfectly happy to mix with Druids and Paladins).

I agree with pretty much all this. The distinctions between unarmed strikes and monk weapons and attacks with a weapon and such seem mostly to be solutions in search of problems.

I just also think they're mostly accidental

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, even if you're just looking at class combinations and not subclasses, you have a lot of combinations. Again, calculating total combinations is not my strong suit, but even if you go for limiting your multiclass to only two classes you should have 78 unique combinations with the 13 classes. If you're looking at builds with three classes, that's 286. Its just not possible to make feats and subclasses to cover all of those combinations. And like it or not, you're never going to be able to make a subclass that perfectly characterizes an idea that uses a multiclass. So once again, multiclassing brings in a lot more depth in a way that just replacing it with Feats and Subclasses can't possibly accomplish.

Right. But most of that depth is, in my mind, counterproductive or illusionary. Just like 90% of the feats and classes in 3e went utterly unused or were traps.

I'm of the school that says that class/level systems are best when they focus on fewer, more well-developed concepts. Say "here are the play-styles and concepts we're willing to support" and make those good. Multiclassing means you end up with the whole spectrum of mostly unusable stuff (mostly to the "ewww bad" side) with a few things broken in the other direction and a tiny fraction that are actually meaningfully supported. Sure, if you shatter a bunch of windows you can make a stained glass masterpiece. But you mostly just make a mess and reduce the actual design space. It means you can't give classes cool things at low levels...because they'll just get snapped up by other, more powerful classes.

And designers still have to worry about all those combinations, except even more of them (because you can jump in or out at any level). Instead of being able to roll them out iteratively, they have to consider all possible N-way combinations of <new class> and <every existing class>, leading to combinatorial explosion.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Personally I think the major problem facing Monk design is that most players want to play them like frontline fighters when their chassis is designed to be able to fight on the outside and tie-down skirmishers and artillery pieces. It's a fundamental player expectation dissonance that you really don't want to have when designing a game.

Added, to properly dm a monk, requires a level of competence from a DM that I think is unrealistic to expect from casual play groups. And even most "experienced" play groups and DM's aren't necessarily going to have this specific aspect of combat design down either.

Having enemies that break under morale, using skirmishers that are high damage but low hp with ranged weapons, having enemies actually waste their turns doing proper roleplaying as a enemy as the Monk darts in and out of cover heading towards them. All sorts of things that the Monk does really well but requires a DM to use terrain, distance, stealth, and design properly to enable the Monks kit to feel good in a way other characters can't.

Multiple encounters as well becomes an issue for Monks as if you aren't following a resource draining long day, then it all becomes superfluous compared to the might of a refreshed caster at every combat.

-------------------------
I want to be clear. I like the Monk. I think it's a pretty good class, especially with the new releases and items that have come about. Long Death and Shadow are by far my favorite. (SHORT REST PASS WITHOUT TRACE OMG). But I think there are some serious oversights with the design already mentioned by others in the thread that are un-synergistic and would more than likely be patched out by the advances in powercreep.

Like

Dash and Disengage requiring ki points
Martial Arts dice needed to be one dice higher
Using Wisdom in place of Strength for Athletics with Ki


So even if I'm a monk Stan I think the design issues are a bit weird.

[Psyren]

I moderately disagree here.

It's arguable that magic weapons benefit monk, at least currently. Longswords are common magic items and monks excel with them, getting three accurate attacks a round potentially. Something like a flametongue in the party's possession makes monk look a lot better compared to a pam barbarian.

1) Isn't the three attacks just Kensei? Any other monk with Dedicated Weapon gets two longsword attacks and a punch, or two sword attacks and two punches if you spend ki.
2) Can't the "PAM Barbarian" use that Flametongue too with rage+reckless and do comparable DPR? Two attacks also, but each attack gets advantage and each hit gets a damage bonus, and that's before their subclass.

[Sorinth]

Ah, the perils of a thread posted in the wee hours of the morning. I'd like to clarify my complaint because a bunch of people are saying mean things to me :smallwink:.

To pick a specific example...

The primary thing that most Monks want to do in a fight is use Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows to make a bunch of unarmed attacks to supplement their Attack action.
The primary thing that most Rogues want to do in a fight is get one solid hit in with Sneak Attack every turn.

Ideally, a Monk/Rogue multiclass should combine the two fighting styles, much like how a Barbarian/Rogue gets to combine Reckless Attack and Sneak Attack. However, purely because of the decision to not let Rogues use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes, you can't really pull this off. The thing is that, as far as Rogues are concerned, the Martial Arts bonus action attack is worse than just using a shortsword in your off hand, since using that shortsword gives you an extra chance to get off a Sneak Attack if you miss with your first attack (Flurry of Blows is better... but if you're a Rogue dipping into Monk, you're only going to be able to do it a couple times per short rest).

And, again, this is entirely arbitrary — there's no particular reason why they couldn't have just thrown in a note in the Multiclassing chapter that Martial Arts lets you Sneak Attack with monk weapons and unarmed strikes — it's not like that chapter doesn't call out other specific interactions, after all.

(You can make a similar argument regarding a Monk/Paladin multiclass, but I feel like the lack of interaction between the Monk and the Rogue is a particular sticking point.)

Also, the annoying issue with the Druid/Monk is that Martial Arts explicitly requires you to "use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn" — so no, a Dire Wolf doesn't work any better than a Brown Bear on the "I want to use Martial Arts" front, except insofar as it works better with Extra Attack. Again, this isn't entirely unworkable (there are definitely forms where your unarmed strikes are going to be better than your natural weapons), but it's still unnecessarily clunky. Granted, this is less annoying than the Rogue thing (because the main reason I want to use Martial Arts in non-human forms is so that I can play Nature of Nature's Art (http://natureofnaturesart.com) because it's funny), but it still bothers me.

...

Now, here's the thing — all of these multiclasses arguably still work. Your Monk might be dipping into Rogue to pick up some extra skills and a ki-free version of Step of the Wind, while your Rogue might want a few levels in Monk because they want the Unarmored Defense and the improved mobility. They're just clunkier than they need to be, and that bothers me. At least the Barbarian warns you that it doesn't mix well with most spellcasters (and even then, it's perfectly happy to mix with Druids and Paladins).

Monks get extra attack and focused aim, so chances are you will trigger SA in your attack action where you are using a weapon. And in those rare cases where you miss with both attacks, can't turn a miss into a hit, you can still spend 1 ki and make a Ki-Fueled Attack to try to land that SA with a 3rd attack. So saying Sneak Attack doesn't synergize with Monk seems like a very odd take, look at the whole class rather then specific abilities. A Monk/Rogue multiclass is going to land SA way more often then a straight Rogue.

I'd also mention that Deflect Missile will sometimes allow off turn SAs as well but probably not often enough to matter.

For the Dire Wolf, Dedicated Weapon lasts until you use the feature again, so Wildshape into a Dire Wolf, take a Short Rest and make your Bite your Dedicated Weapon. Now your Dire Wolf bite counts as a monk weapon for all future wildshaping. In situations where you can't prep the form, you can still Attack with the Bite, Extra Attack with an Unarmed Strike and then use Martial Arts/Flurry for your BA attacks.

[Dork_Forge]

1) Isn't the three attacks just Kensei? Any other monk with Dedicated Weapon gets two longsword attacks and a punch, or two sword attacks and two punches if you spend ki.
2) Can't the "PAM Barbarian" use that Flametongue too with rage+reckless and do comparable DPR? Two attacks also, but each attack gets advantage and each hit gets a damage bonus, and that's before their subclass.

1) is referring to Ki-fueled strike and the accuracy bump I think, the Kensei doesn't really make a difference there besides making the proficiency easier to get.

[Sorinth]

1) Isn't the three attacks just Kensei? Any other monk with Dedicated Weapon gets two longsword attacks and a punch, or two sword attacks and two punches if you spend ki.
2) Can't the "PAM Barbarian" use that Flametongue too with rage+reckless and do comparable DPR? Two attacks also, but each attack gets advantage and each hit gets a damage bonus, and that's before their subclass.

I assume Focused Aim is being used to trigger Ki-Fueled Attacks.

But doesn't the Barbarian doing comparable DPR with a Flametongue prove that Monks gain just as much benefits from magic weapons as other?

[Dante]

Personally I think the major problem facing Monk design is that most players want to play them like frontline fighters when their chassis is designed to be able to fight on the outside and tie-down skirmishers and artillery pieces. It's a fundamental player expectation dissonance that you really don't want to have when designing a game.

Even tanking isn't so much an issue--Patient Defense is a reasonably tanky feature if your AC is already 16+. It's only an issue if the player is addicted to Martial Arts and
Flurry of Blows, which as the OP points out, don't necessarily work well with multiclassing. That sounds like a synergy opportunity...

Back to the Monk/Moon Druid temptation: a Wis 16ish Monk 2/Moon Druid 2 as an AC 15 Deinonychus doing 3d8+6 (19.5, spread across three attacks), with 2 ki points for bonus action Dodge on the first couple rounds of a tough fight, isn't bad! "Only" 26 HP per wildshape, but then again a straight 4th level monk would only have 23 + 4*CON HP anyway, call it about 31 HP.

If you go for Brown Bear because you've never seen a Deinonychus you get similar levels of damage but lower AC (and slightly higher HP).

[strangebloke]

1) Isn't the three attacks just Kensei? Any other monk with Dedicated Weapon gets two longsword attacks and a punch, or two sword attacks and two punches if you spend ki.
2) Can't the "PAM Barbarian" use that Flametongue too with rage+reckless and do comparable DPR? Two attacks also, but each attack gets advantage and each hit gets a damage bonus, and that's before their subclass.
No, kfa works with any monk weapon, and via dedicated weapon, you can turn any non heavy weapon or longbow you're proficient in, into a monk weapon. This has nothing to do with kensei at all. Mountain dwarf monk of any subclass after Tashas can wield a 1d10 battle axe, have 18 ac by level 4, and use precision attack to get three battle-axe attacks by level five.

Kensei has an entirely separate feature that predates Tashas and was power crept by it. Main thing it does now is give you proficiency in those martial weapons for free where normally you'd need to multiclass or pick a race judiciously. Kensei is really good for other reasons, thankfully, but it sorta lacks identity.




But doesn't the Barbarian doing comparable DPR with a Flametongue prove that Monks gain just as much benefits from magic weapons as other?

The point is that in a game without magic items, the barbarian would utterly destroy the monk in damage, but in a game with magic items it's more ambiguous and depends on how the items are generated. Optimization heads tend to assume that glaives are good weapons because of pam and gwm but depending on how magic items are generated glaives may be hard to find.

Barbarians look a lot worse in pure dpr if they're built for sword and board.

[Dork_Forge]

No, kfa works with any monk weapon, and via dedicated weapon, you can turn any non heavy weapon or longbow you're proficient in, into a monk weapon. This has nothing to do with kensei at all. Mountain dwarf monk of any subclass after Tashas can wield a 1d10 battle axe, have 18 ac by level 4, and use precision attack to get three battle-axe attacks by level five.

nit-pick here, the longbow exception is only the kensei, you're stuck with shortbows for Dedicated Weapon.


Kensei has an entirely separate feature that predates Tashas and was power crept by it. Main thing it does now is give you proficiency in those martial weapons for free where normally you'd need to multiclass or pick a race judiciously. Kensei is really good for other reasons, thankfully, but it sorta lacks identity.


It had identity, then they largely stepped on it, but it's still the best weapon using Monk.

[Amechra]

For the Dire Wolf, Dedicated Weapon lasts until you use the feature again, so Wildshape into a Dire Wolf, take a Short Rest and make your Bite your Dedicated Weapon. Now your Dire Wolf bite counts as a monk weapon for all future wildshaping. In situations where you can't prep the form, you can still Attack with the Bite, Extra Attack with an Unarmed Strike and then use Martial Arts/Flurry for your BA attacks.

This doesn't work. Dedicated Weapon works on a simple or martial weapon, and a Bite is neither.

[Jervis]

This doesn't work. Dedicated Weapon works on a simple or martial weapon, and a Bite is neither.

For what it’s worth after MotM it looks like most mentions of natural weapons are being changed to refer to them as unarmed strikes. So that’s likely too work in the next PHB update assuming Wildshape survives.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why Was WotC So Terrified Of The Monk?
The didn't want to have their butts kicked? (https://i.gifer.com/embedded/download/1HDU.gif)

[Kane0]

Ideally, a Monk/Rogue multiclass should combine the two fighting styles, much like how a Barbarian/Rogue gets to combine Reckless Attack and Sneak Attack. However, purely because of the decision to not let Rogues use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes, you can't really pull this off.

(You can make a similar argument regarding a Monk/Paladin multiclass, but I feel like the lack of interaction between the Monk and the Rogue is a particular sticking point.)

Now, here's the thing — all of these multiclasses arguably still work. They're just clunkier than they need to be, and that bothers me.

Yeah that's pretty wonky, I houseruled those ages ago. I think the dev's just didn't really go over those interactions as thoroughly as we have had the chance to (multiclassing being thrown into the 'optional' bin being an indicator).

[strangebloke]

It had identity, then they largely stepped on it, but it's still the best weapon using Monk.
Yeah. I just wish we had the UA Kensei which could use any weapon. Dex GWM monk! Dex GWM monk! But nah, that was decided to be too OP... which is why the hexblade got to do the same thing in the same stinking book.

:sigh:



For what it’s worth after MotM it looks like most mentions of natural weapons are being changed to refer to them as unarmed strikes. So that’s likely too work in the next PHB update assuming Wildshape survives.
Oh I doubt that. I foresee JC deciding that Moon Druid "had too much variance depending on the beast form selected" and now wildshape and combat wildshape will work like summon beast, with a couple fixed templates.

Which IMO is not the direction I want to see. Whacky, wild abilities with loads of good-but-not-quite-broken-except-in-edge cases options is good. Its fun.

[Jervis]

Yeah. I just wish we had the UA Kensei which could use any weapon. Dex GWM monk! Dex GWM monk! But nah, that was decided to be too OP... which is why the hexblade got to do the same thing in the same stinking book.

:sigh:



Oh I doubt that. I foresee JC deciding that Moon Druid "had too much variance depending on the beast form selected" and now wildshape and combat wildshape will work like summon beast, with a couple fixed templates.

Which IMO is not the direction I want to see. Whacky, wild abilities with loads of good-but-not-quite-broken-except-in-edge cases options is good. Its fun.

To be honest my issue with Wildshape, moon Druid wild shape specifically, is the broken scaling. Not broken as in powerful, broken as in dysfunctional. It starts out wacky until 5 where you get extra attack before everyone else, goes to decently powerful, and ends up bad until you get elemental shapes. Problem is that CR doesn’t work that well in player hands because of how things scale.

I’m very much a fan of broken janky weirdness and I think the game is way too concerned with balance in some places. But for things like Wildshape and creature summoning has the problem of making the feature itself unintentionally more powerful as new monster stats are printed. So despite the fact I love weird jank I actually like the idea of having statblocks you can tweak for things like summoned monsters and Wildshape.

[strangebloke]

To be honest my issue with Wildshape, moon Druid wild shape specifically, is the broken scaling. Not broken as in powerful, broken as in dysfunctional. It starts out wacky until 5 where you get extra attack before everyone else, goes to decently powerful, and ends up bad until you get elemental shapes. Problem is that CR doesn’t work that well in player hands because of how things scale.

I’m very much a fan of broken janky weirdness and I think the game is way too concerned with balance in some places. But for things like Wildshape and creature summoning has the problem of making the feature itself unintentionally more powerful as new monster stats are printed. So despite the fact I love weird jank I actually like the idea of having statblocks you can tweak for things like summoned monsters and Wildshape.

Eh, I disagree. My only real complaint is that not all classes get powercrept by new releases, just casters and things like moon druid.

Moon Druid's been whack since release, but this because CR is all over the place. You look at a Deinonychus, with 23 HP and 4d8+8 damage. You look at a giant swan, which has 24 hp and 2d6+6 damage. You realize these are both CR 1. Like I mean yeah, flight speed, but one does twice as much damage and knocks you prone!

[Witty Username]

<unpopular opinion warning>
Basically, level-by-level multiclassing is, was, and always will be a bad idea in a class/level game. And the same variety can be built in other, much more sane ways. They'd have been better leaving it out entirely and (if absolutely necessary) adding it in a separate book that could do it properly.
</>

I don't agree that it is a bad idea inherently. I do prefer at creation multiclassing like AD&D did, and dual-classing grokked better for me for the most part. Level by level does the job, I guess.
--
All the classes have weird silo features, I think the idea was to be specific on themes. I personally don't like it as it makes the classes less flexible, I think monk is the worst hit by it because unarmed fighting is against type for everyone else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't agree that it is a bad idea inherently. I do prefer at creation multiclassing like AD&D did, and dual-classing grokked better for me for the most part. Level by level does the job, I guess.

As does using a shoe for a hammer. Or a pitchfork for a salad fork.

[Witty Username]

As does using a shoe for a hammer. Or a pitchfork for a salad fork.

Messy, but gets the point across.

[kazaryu]

Disagree hard.

Most multiclass builds are either a weak class like monk taking a level of cleric to shore up weaknesses, or a powerful class like wizard choosing to give up peak power potential for flavor or shoring up weaknesses. The strongest builds in the game are almost universally single class, and the actual problem MCs purely come down to excessively front loaded subclasses like hexblade.

The system adds a lot of customization potential to what would otherwise be a sterile experience, and actively benefits weaker character concepts.
the bolded line is all but objectively untrue. even the strongest pure class in the game (wizard) is made stronger by taking 2 levels in fighter instead of going up to 20, the same is true for most full casters. and thats because of how powerful action surge is and how weak most capstones are.

the one exception to this is druid, who are strongly incentivized to not multiclass, because, hey..infinite HP at lvl 20 is awesome.

on the other side, Martials are notorious for having lack luster high tier features. fighters are probably the most incentivized to go to 20 because 4th attack and a second action surge. But those options are in hard competition with the nova potential of dipping gloomstalker. or grabbing some paladin levels for extra damage when you nova. Or the defensive strength (and slight damage buff) of a barbarian.

Now if you look at lower tier builds (say, lvl 5) then you're right. pure classes tend to be better. martials get extra attack and casters get 3rd level spells. those are tough to compete with.

in general, what a good multiclass does is put you in a power trough, temporarily, but after some number of levels you end up ahead of where you'd have been otherwise.


(i do agree with you that most of the time multclassing isn't done for optimization purposes, although thats because i don't believe that most players are all that devoted to optimizing. )

[Psyren]

That Wizard 18/Fighter 2 build is stronger than Wizard 20 in theory. In practice, that only happens if you start the game at 20; when you don't, you're lagging a full spell level behind the straight-classed wizard for most of your career, and delaying all your subclass features and ASIs besides.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That Wizard 18/Fighter 2 build is stronger than Wizard 20 in theory. In practice, that only happens if you start the game at 20; when you don't, you're lagging a full spell level behind the straight-classed wizard for most of your career, and delaying all your subclass features and ASIs besides.

(Blue but mobile) and we all know wizards have the best subclass features and are in dire need of ASIs(/blue)

[Psyren]

(Blue but mobile) and we all know wizards have the best subclass features and are in dire need of ASIs(/blue)

Some are impactful; I wouldn't want to delay Arcane Abeyance or Greater Portent for example.

My main point though was the spell level. The fighter dip catches up eventually, but not in most campaigns and not for most of their career.

[kazaryu]

That Wizard 18/Fighter 2 build is stronger than Wizard 20 in theory. In practice, that only happens if you start the game at 20; when you don't, you're lagging a full spell level behind the straight-classed wizard for most of your career, and delaying all your subclass features and ASIs besides. this is why i specified at level 20. And i mentioned that other break points see more of a mix.

But in general the higher level the build is, the more valuable it tends to be to be multiclassed.

Oh, and ironically, at lower levels, druids also tend to want to multiclass if they know theyre not getting to lvl 20. Bearbarian druid is a common enough example

[Yakk]

Why on earth wouldn't they just errata the text to reflect that, then rely on a questionable wording?

This feels like 'damn, this melee weapon attack definition we made up is really confusing, but this is the hill we're dying on, point to that piece' 'but it doesn't actually matter' 'then also say it doesn't matter but we can't be seen as fallible!'

That is just a really frustrating bit of SA.
If you can Divine Smite on punches, then a level 5 Paladin punches harder than a level 5 Monk.

That is it. That is the entire thing.

[Kane0]

If you can Divine Smite on punches, then a level 5 Paladin punches harder than a level 5 Monk.

That is it. That is the entire thing.

I dont have a problem with that, between the number of punches and difference of resources and difference of role within a party and difference between subclasses (one or more of which might improve punch damage)

[strangebloke]

the bolded line is all but objectively untrue. even the strongest pure class in the game (wizard) is made stronger by taking 2 levels in fighter instead of going up to 20, the same is true for most full casters. and thats because of how powerful action surge is and how weak most capstones are.

the one exception to this is druid, who are strongly incentivized to not multiclass, because, hey..infinite HP at lvl 20 is awesome.

on the other side, Martials are notorious for having lack luster high tier features. fighters are probably the most incentivized to go to 20 because 4th attack and a second action surge. But those options are in hard competition with the nova potential of dipping gloomstalker. or grabbing some paladin levels for extra damage when you nova. Or the defensive strength (and slight damage buff) of a barbarian.

Now if you look at lower tier builds (say, lvl 5) then you're right. pure classes tend to be better. martials get extra attack and casters get 3rd level spells. those are tough to compete with.

in general, what a good multiclass does is put you in a power trough, temporarily, but after some number of levels you end up ahead of where you'd have been otherwise.


(i do agree with you that most of the time multclassing isn't done for optimization purposes, although thats because i don't believe that most players are all that devoted to optimizing. )

I should have specified: the strongest builds in the game at most levels. There's exceptions here like wizard 18 fighter 2, or moon druid 2 barbarian 2, which are among the strongest abilities at their level, but generally the strongest build at any given level is "a druid/wizard/cleric of that level"

[Saelethil]

If you can Divine Smite on punches, then a level 5 Paladin punches harder than a level 5 Monk.

That is it. That is the entire thing.


I dont have a problem with that, between the number of punches and difference of resources and difference of role within a party and difference between subclasses (one or more of which might improve punch damage)

They also could have kept the distinction between unarmed strikes and weapon attacks but simply stated that monks unarmed strikes are considered light weapons with the finesse property. It keeps things simple while allowing feat/multi-class synergies. IMO it makes sense that you can’t inherently do “weapon things” without weapons unless you have trained for your body to become a weapon which is exactly what the monk does.

[Dork_Forge]

If you can Divine Smite on punches, then a level 5 Paladin punches harder than a level 5 Monk.

That is it. That is the entire thing.

That doesn't explain why they didn't just errata the wording, and that's a terrible reason to make the ruling at all.

[strangebloke]

The idea that only monks can punch is honestly what holds the class back. I've mentioned the lack of support monk has, and this is a direct result of nobody caring about unarmed strikes. Fighters getting unarmed style gave the monk something they could use to optimize. If druids also had a spell that boosted their unarmed strikes, or if beast forms has better unarmed strikes (say, if large beasts had doubled damage dice) things would be way better.

[KorvinStarmast]

Monks don't just punch, they stun. (Once level 5 arrives).

Monday night an invisible stalker got the drop on the party sorcerer, smacking him around for quite a bit of damage. Monk attacked at disadvantage (can't see but estimated where it was and so punched away) and hit on the second blow. Stun attempt succeeded. That allowed barbarian et al to attack it normally until fairie fire was cast upon it, and that about ended it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Back to the Monk/Moon Druid temptation: a Wis 16ish Monk 2/Moon Druid 2 as an AC 15 Deinonychus doing 3d8+6 (19.5, spread across three attacks), with 2 ki points for bonus action Dodge on the first couple rounds of a tough fight, isn't bad! "Only" 26 HP per wildshape, but then again a straight 4th level monk would only have 23 + 4*CON HP anyway, call it about 31 HP.

If you go for Brown Bear because you've never seen a Deinonychus you get similar levels of damage but lower AC (and slightly higher HP).

Did we have a conversation on your Discord server regarding Monk/Druid Multiclassing?

Perhaps, it feels like we did, as I as well, agree that Druid/Monk synergies are oft overlooked. A Wildshaped Shadow Monk/Druid can use Shadow Arts, for example.

Beware of the Squirrel, it brings Silence and Darkness…don’t touch it’s nuts!🃏

Beast speeds often are higher than 30’, and Monk class speed boosts would apply when using Wildshape. Even something as simple as Wildshaping into a Beast Form with a higher Strength score, to ensure a leap can be made, has it’s benefits.

A two level Moon Druid dip, nets someone more Short Rest resources via Wildshape, and access to 1st level Ritual spells on the Druid list, such as Detect Magic, and great spells, such as Goodberry, Absorb Elements, and Longstrider.

A Path of the Beast Barbarian/ Monk combination is novel as the Beast Barbs animalistic transformations count as Simple Weapons.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Personally I'm a Ranger 3/ Shadowmonk x fan TBH.

The whole doubling down on Wisdom and dexterity, with range options is chef's kiss. Hunter's Mark takes advantage of Flurry of Blows, the mobility, the stealth synergies, the extra ways to cast Pass Without Trace.

Everything just sorta flows into each other.

Big fan of the Monk Multi-Class.

[Amechra]

I'm having trouble with this example because monks do have Extra Attack, which means a Monk/Rogue using an offhand weapon can get *three* chances at sneak attack damage if he wants to. Or he can just attack twice with a main hand weapon and then Flurry (if he wants more hits for more Stunning Strike changes), which is the same number of chances a dual-wielding Rogue would have: two.

The thing is that there are, like, eight other classes that the Rogue could multiclass into if they wanted Extra Attack (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger, alongside specific Artificer, Bard, Warlock, and Wizard subclasses). The Monk is the only one of those nine classes that arbitrarily can't combine its distinctive approach to combat with Sneak Attack.

[Dante]

The thing is that there are, like, eight other classes that the Rogue could multiclass into if they wanted Extra Attack (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger, alongside specific Artificer, Bard, Warlock, and Wizard subclasses). The Monk is the only one of those nine classes that arbitrarily can't combine its distinctive approach to combat with Sneak Attack.

I see what you're arguing, but I don't share the concern. Barbarians also cannot Sneak Attack while doing typical barbarian things (GWM+PAM), Paladins don't really have a "distinctive approach to combat" unless you count smiting (which antisynergizes with Rogue dips because you lose slots, and which is also usually a bad idea compared to spellcasting), and a Warlock/Wizard/Bard's "distinctive approach to combat" besides Extra Attack is primarily spellcasting, which also doesn't usually interact with Sneak Attack.

I agree that Ranger + Rogue is a pretty tasty combination, but it looks to me like Paladin/Rogue, Artificer/Rogue and Bard/Rogue are worse than Monk/Rogue especially when you consider MADness, and Wizard/Rogue, Barbarian/Rogue, and Warlock/Rogue are comparable to Monk/Rogue. Only Ranger/Rogue stands out as a more natural pairing than straight Ranger.

[sambojin]

I'll second that (Moon) druid and monk multiclass fine. Druids really want bonus action options in a lot of forms, and even 2-3 levels of monk gives them that. Bonus action dodge, dash, disengage, etc. It's not a lot, but it will be helpful. The extra AC and movement is nice too.

Monks want more short-rest resources and whacky stuff to do in and out of combat. 2-3 levels of druid gives them that. Wildshape, familiars, a bit of magic, a skill cantrip, etc.

If you're not focusing on the martial arts, it's not a bad package for either as a 2-3lvl dip. I'm not saying it's as powerful as a single-classed character of either, but it's not like there's nothing there or that they don't synergize at all. It's only the punchy stuff that is janky, the rest works fine.

[Skrum]

Monk is frustrating power-wise for sure, but at the end of the day, some class has to be worst one. And frankly monk has competition.

I'm far more annoyed by the fact that monks can't climb, jump, or grapple effectively. This has nothing to do with how their class interacts with other classes and everything to do with the designers not considering the implications of having low str.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm far more annoyed by the fact that monks can't climb, jump, or grapple effectively. This has nothing to do with how their class interacts with other classes and everything to do with the designers not considering the implications of having low str.

We just expanded Martial Arts to basically say Dex can replace Strength for anything except saves, not just weapon attack.

[strangebloke]

I see what you're arguing, but I don't share the concern. Barbarians also cannot Sneak Attack while doing typical barbarian things (GWM+PAM), Paladins don't really have a "distinctive approach to combat" unless you count smiting (which antisynergizes with Rogue dips because you lose slots, and which is also usually a bad idea compared to spellcasting), and a Warlock/Wizard/Bard's "distinctive approach to combat" besides Extra Attack is primarily spellcasting, which also doesn't usually interact with Sneak Attack.

I agree that Ranger + Rogue is a pretty tasty combination, but it looks to me like Paladin/Rogue, Artificer/Rogue and Bard/Rogue are worse than Monk/Rogue especially when you consider MADness, and Wizard/Rogue, Barbarian/Rogue, and Warlock/Rogue are comparable to Monk/Rogue. Only Ranger/Rogue stands out as a more natural pairing than straight Ranger.

GWM and PAM aren't distinctive to barbarian. Rage and reckless are, and they work with sneak attack.

[Hael]

I should have specified: the strongest builds in the game at most levels. There's exceptions here like wizard 18 fighter 2, or moon druid 2 barbarian 2, which are among the strongest abilities at their level, but generally the strongest build at any given level is "a druid/wizard/cleric of that level"

I would say its almost always some multiclass horror show at any given level (with a few exceptions, see Tashas clerics). For instance if the goal is to produce the best X at lvl 6, then it tends to be a multiclass build.

The exceptions really tend to be at lvl 5, lvl 9, lvl 13 and lvl17 b/c those correspond with significant spell power jumps.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I agree that Ranger + Rogue is a pretty tasty combination, but it looks to me like Paladin/Rogue, Artificer/Rogue and Bard/Rogue are worse than Monk/Rogue especially when you consider MADness, and Wizard/Rogue, Barbarian/Rogue, and Warlock/Rogue are comparable to Monk/Rogue. Only Ranger/Rogue stands out as a more natural pairing than straight Ranger.

Haven't analyzed Paladin/Rogue but what are you using to dismiss Artificer/Rogue and Bard/Rogue?

Infiltrator Armorer plus Rogue means near perfect Stealth and a very nifty ranged weapon that works with Sneak Attack. Plus tools that are customizable to what you need.

Bard/Rogue is the ultimate skill monkey, potentially 8 Expertise, Spellcasting, Inspiration.

[Skrum]

We just expanded Martial Arts to basically say Dex can replace Strength for anything except saves, not just weapon attack.

A very logical move to make. Unfortunately the group I play with is very anti-rules changes

Even if I convinced the group to make that change though....like I shouldn't have to lol. That should've been the RAW. How did this get through play testing.

[strangebloke]

I would say its almost always some multiclass horror show at any given level (with a few exceptions, see Tashas clerics). For instance if the goal is to produce the best X at lvl 6, then it tends to be a multiclass build.

The exceptions really tend to be at lvl 5, lvl 9, lvl 13 and lvl17 b/c those correspond with significant spell power jumps.

Eh, MC builds usually add AC and a small amount of defensive/utility magic that you can usually get via some other means anyway if you know what you're doing. MCing mostly feels good for otherwise bad classes.

[Dante]

Haven't analyzed Paladin/Rogue but what are you using to dismiss Artificer/Rogue and Bard/Rogue?

Infiltrator Armorer plus Rogue means near perfect Stealth and a very nifty ranged weapon that works with Sneak Attack. Plus tools that are customizable to what you need.

Bard/Rogue is the ultimate skill monkey, potentially 8 Expertise, Spellcasting, Inspiration.

Mainly because I can think of good reasons to play the others, but couldn't think of any good reasons to play those three, aside from the challenge or just because you feel like it. E.g. I think I know how to take a Barbarian 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it pay off to be better than a Barbarian 10; but I don't think I know how to take a Bard 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it better than a Bard 10.

[animorte]

Mainly because I can think of good reasons to play the others, but couldn't think of any good reasons to play those three, aside from the challenge or just because you feel like it. E.g. I think I know how to take a Barbarian 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it pay off to be better than a Barbarian 10; but I don't think I know how to take a Bard 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it better than a Bard 10.

I think the precise numbers you would need for various different classes involved in multiclassing would change depending on where subclass features come into play. As opposed to a strict 5/5.

[Dante]

I think the precise numbers you would need for various different classes involved in multiclassing would change depending on where subclass features come into play. As opposed to a strict 5/5.

Yep, agreed, that was just an illustration. My point was that for those particular combos, I can't think of any numbers off the top of my head where it works out favorably.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Mainly because I can think of good reasons to play the others, but couldn't think of any good reasons to play those three, aside from the challenge or just because you feel like it. E.g. I think I know how to take a Barbarian 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it pay off to be better than a Barbarian 10; but I don't think I know how to take a Bard 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it better than a Bard 10.

I understand if you're saying the idea doesn't appeal, that's all preference, but you can't think of a way the multi would be as good or better than a straight? Arcane Trickster 10 vs Arcane Trickster 7/Armorer 3

You're trading essentially trading
Rogue 10: 2 ASI/Feats, 1 Cantrip, 2 Spells Known and Magical Ambush
Rogue7/Artificer 3: 2 Magic Items, Magical Tinkering, Con Saves, 1 point of AC on average (Assuming pure Rogue goes for 20 Dex and MC only goes for 14), 5' Speed, Advantage on All Stealth

Sneak attack is a wash, Rogue 7 has 4d6 vs Rogue 10 having 5d6. But Lightning Launcher gives an extra 1d6 on 1 attack per turn

Seems a significant shift for me.

As for the Bard/Rogue, probably wouldn't see the split as better than a Bard 10, but a Rogue 10? Let's say Pure Inquisitive vs Inquisitive/Lore

Rogue 10: 1 ASI, Evasion, Steady Eye, 2d6 SA
Rogue 6/Bard 4: 2 additional Expertise Skills, Bardic Inspiration, Jack of All Trades, Song of Rest, 4 additional Skills, Cutting Words, 3 Cantrips, 7 spells known Spellslots: 4/3

One is definitely more set to be a skill monkey and party face than the other.

[animorte]

-get snipped yo-
I was going to give some similar examples. Such as a Swashbuckler Rogue 3 adding onto whatever darn Bard you wish just for Rakish Audacity and adding Charisma to initiative.

[Kane0]

Well there is that theory where humans evolved as distance hunters, and monks are quite fast all day long. Does that qualify as terrifying?

[Xervous]

Well there is that theory where humans evolved as distance hunters, and monks are quite fast all day long. Does that qualify as terrifying?

If only for the minstrels that accompany Brave Sir Robin.

[Dante]

I understand if you're saying the idea doesn't appeal, that's all preference, but you can't think of a way the multi would be as good or better than a straight? Arcane Trickster 10 vs Arcane Trickster 7/Armorer 3

You're trading essentially trading
Rogue 10: 2 ASI/Feats, 1 Cantrip, 2 Spells Known and Magical Ambush
Rogue7/Artificer 3: 2 Magic Items, Magical Tinkering, Con Saves, 1 point of AC on average (Assuming pure Rogue goes for 20 Dex and MC only goes for 14), 5' Speed, Advantage on All Stealth

Sneak attack is a wash, Rogue 7 has 4d6 vs Rogue 10 having 5d6. But Lightning Launcher gives an extra 1d6 on 1 attack per turn

Seems a significant shift for me.

Just checking that we're communicating here:

Rogue with a short bow is 1d6+5d6+DEX.

Lightning launcher is 1d6+4d6+DEX+1d6.

Same damage. Agree or disagree?

BTW correcting an omission: your Artificer is losing Dex saves to gain Con saves. Con is generally better for spellcasters but for a Rogue it's harder to say--presumably there's a reason you wanted to play a Rogue and it might have something to do with Evasion and being unscathed by dragon breath and Fireballs.

Also don't forget that the Artificer also gains some spells.

Anyway, with that corrected, those lists seem comparable to me. For example, I could spend one of those ASIs on Mobile and the other on Skulker, which would give me more movement and better overall stealth than the +5' and advantage, and make stuff like Booming Blade Sneak Attack + Dash Away viable in combat. I'd be losing out on a couple of low-level magic items, but gaining Magical Ambush and more 2nd+ level spells known. Maybe it's just my preference but honestly that package seems better to me than the Artificer.


As for the Bard/Rogue, probably wouldn't see the split as better than a Bard 10, but a Rogue 10?

MADness aside, you might be right. Rogue 10 isn't that appealing in the first place. *shrug* I still probably wouldn't play one though because as you said, a Bard 10 is still better.

[Finieous]

wrong thread...

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I see what you're arguing, but I don't share the concern. Barbarians also cannot Sneak Attack while doing typical barbarian things (GWM+PAM), Paladins don't really have a "distinctive approach to combat" unless you count smiting (which antisynergizes with Rogue dips because you lose slots, and which is also usually a bad idea compared to spellcasting), and a Warlock/Wizard/Bard's "distinctive approach to combat" besides Extra Attack is primarily spellcasting, which also doesn't usually interact with Sneak Attack.

I agree that Ranger + Rogue is a pretty tasty combination, but it looks to me like Paladin/Rogue, Artificer/Rogue and Bard/Rogue are worse than Monk/Rogue especially when you consider MADness, and Wizard/Rogue, Barbarian/Rogue, and Warlock/Rogue are comparable to Monk/Rogue. Only Ranger/Rogue stands out as a more natural pairing than straight Ranger.

I've played both Paladin/ Rogue and Barbarian/ Rogue and found them both good. The Paladin was probably the nastiest character I've ever played, as he'd finish or get way ahead in fights before foes even started. Rogue 1-3 has a lot for martials, and yes, you might lose a bit of DPR, but the sneak attack dice tend to compensate. Expertise in things like stealth and athletics are really good for martials as a start.

On the larger topic, no, Monks don't interact that well with almost all other classes (and subclasses). It'd be nice if there were more viable builds, but I'm inclined to agree with the point made way upthread regarding Hanlon's Razor. And honestly 5e is a better game for the fact that single class builds are generally stronger and the designers leaned towards not opening up many combos that are better than single class.

[x3n0n]

I've played both Paladin/ Rogue and Barbarian/ Rogue and found them both good. The Paladin was probably the nastiest character I've ever played, as he'd finish or get way ahead in fights before foes even started.

I've found it difficult to multiclass an effective Dex-first Paladin (due to the 13 Str requirement forcing compromises in the key Dex/Con/Cha). How did you end up getting around that?
(I've found Dex-first straight-class Paladin to be a lot of fun. The only real compromise was starting equipment, which basically assumes the "knight in shining heavy armor" trope.)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I've found it difficult to multiclass an effective Dex-first Paladin (due to the 13 Str requirement forcing compromises in the key Dex/Con/Cha). How did you end up getting around that?
(I've found Dex-first straight-class Paladin to be a lot of fun. The only real compromise was starting equipment, which basically assumes the "knight in shining heavy armor" trope.)

Hmm, It's been a while, but 1/2 (drow) elf helped with the numbers. We also use starting money instead of equipment. The other thing I remember was that the +1 from 13 strength isn't much of a benefit, but hook that to Shield Master with Expertise Athletics that's scaling twice as fast as it's supposed to is still reliable. Between that, surprise, Bless, and other characters' spells I was generally hitting first and with bonuses and/or advantage, so a more modest Dex stat wasn't the end of the world in terms of hitting. Damage? Well you're compensating for the odd lost +1 or +2 from the attack stat with Sneak Attack and a fair chunk of Paladin's damage comes from smites anyway.

I know from reading multiple threads that this character would be somewhat table dependent in how a group plays stealth and surprise. Ours tends to be fairly generous in that regard from what I read, so that would impact things a bit.

I really liked this character; sneaking around administering justice. Sort of has a Batman feel.

[Psyren]

We just expanded Martial Arts to basically say Dex can replace Strength for anything except saves, not just weapon attack.

Our DM allowed this too. Note that the DM is also free to call for "Dexterity (Athletics)" checks too without modifying the class feature.


Just checking that we're communicating here:

Rogue with a short bow is 1d6+5d6+DEX.

Lightning launcher is 1d6+4d6+DEX+1d6.

Same damage. Agree or disagree?

BTW correcting an omission: your Artificer is losing Dex saves to gain Con saves. Con is generally better for spellcasters but for a Rogue it's harder to say--presumably there's a reason you wanted to play a Rogue and it might have something to do with Evasion and being unscathed by dragon breath and Fireballs.

Also don't forget that the Artificer also gains some spells.

Anyway, with that corrected, those lists seem comparable to me. For example, I could spend one of those ASIs on Mobile and the other on Skulker, which would give me more movement and better overall stealth than the +5' and advantage, and make stuff like Booming Blade Sneak Attack + Dash Away viable in combat. I'd be losing out on a couple of low-level magic items, but gaining Magical Ambush and more 2nd+ level spells known. Maybe it's just my preference but honestly that package seems better to me than the Artificer.


With the damage being more or less the same I thought it might be a fun exercise to continue your comparison of the other things.

First the spellcasting - AT 10 and AT7/Art3 end up having the same number of slots (4 1st, 3 2nd.) However, the former will have 4 cantrips and 7 spells known (three of which can be 2nd level), and all but one of which except the cantrips must be illusion or enchantment. The latter meanwhile has 5 cantrips (3 AT, 2 Art) + 5 spells known from AT, the entire list of Artificer 1st-level spells to choose from with no school restriction, and two bonus preparations (magic missile and thunderwave). The multiclass build however only gets to learn one 2nd-level spell. In both cases, one of the AT cantrips must be mage hand and both builds get Legerdemain with it. The multiclass build also gets ritual casting of its artificer spells as long as they are prepared; I consider ritual casting to be roughly worth a feat personally.

Rogue 10 gets two additional ASIs as you mentioned, which is great, mitigating your MAD or letting you grab feats like Mobile. They also get Magical Ambush so their saving throw spells can pack more of a punch if the AT is able to hide.

Rogue 7 Artificer 3 gets 2 infusions out of 4 known and the ability to pull tools out of thin air. Any item you infuse becomes a spellcasting focus for you also, which means you can cast spells with both hands occupied. This is important since you can also wear a shield for added AC. You also have permanent advantage on stealth checks, so you don't have to blow your infusions on any of the elvenkind items.

As for those infusions - if you don't have good Con saves (i.e. started with rogue), Mind Sharpener is a good option here. Goggles of Night could also be a good fit here if you don't have darkvision from your race, and a bag of holding for your ill-gotten gains. Enhanced Weapon for additional damage and Enhanced Armor for more AC are useful too, and Sending Stones are great if your DM encourages scouting ahead, which you'll be exceptional at.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Just checking that we're communicating here:

Rogue with a short bow is 1d6+5d6+DEX.

Lightning launcher is 1d6+4d6+DEX+1d6.

Same damage. Agree or disagree?

My apologies if I somehow implied others. Only reasons I avoided weapon damage was due to the fact that the pure Rogue will shift.


[Size=1]BTW correcting an omission: your Artificer is losing Dex saves to gain Con saves. Con is generally better for spellcasters but for a Rogue it's harder to say--presumably there's a reason you wanted to play a Rogue and it might have something to do with Evasion and being unscathed by dragon breath and Fireballs.

So take Rogue 1/Artificer 3/Rogue 6, or whatever path you want. I'd pick Rogue 1 for 4 skills to start vs 2 and then 1 more later. Then you keep the Dex/Int saves. Honestly it's all up to preference of the player. You can have 4 Skills+Background and Race and Dex saves or you can have 3 Skills+BG & Race and Con Saves.


Anyway, with that corrected, those lists seem comparable to me. For example, I could spend one of those ASIs on Mobile and the other on Skulker, which would give me more movement and better overall stealth than the +5' and advantage, and make stuff like Booming Blade Sneak Attack + Dash Away viable in combat. I'd be losing out on a couple of low-level magic items, but gaining Magical Ambush and more 2nd+ level spells known. Maybe it's just my preference but honestly that package seems better to me than the Artificer.

Those Feats would help for that. But honestly it's a 5' speed difference between the Infiltrator Armor and Mobility. You can already BA Disengage if you want to play hit and run with Booming Blade. For the other, yep, you do get those things, but you're not only weighing it against what you said but against a much higher AC. Avoiding Magic Items a 20 Dex means you are looking at 17 (Studded Leather+Dex). The Multiclass is looking at 18 base (Breastplate, +2 Dex, Shield). And could always take Medium Armor Master to put AC at 20. (Half Plate, +3 Dex, Shield).


MADness aside, you might be right. Rogue 10 isn't that appealing in the first place. *shrug* I still probably wouldn't play one though because as you said, a Bard 10 is still better.

Is it MAD? Bard's already want Charisma and Dex, and as someone else already pointed out there's subclass options that synergize that more. In either event, for both examples you can always get a focus on spells that don't force saves or attack rolls and leave the casting stat low.

[Dante]

So take Rogue 1/Artificer 3/Rogue 6, or whatever path you want. I'd pick Rogue 1 for 4 skills to start vs 2 and then 1 more later. Then you keep the Dex/Int saves. Honestly it's all up to preference of the player. You can have 4 Skills+Background and Race and Dex saves or you can have 3 Skills+BG & Race and Con Saves.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that if you put "Con saves" under one entry you have to put "Dex saves" under the other, and then adding a little bit of my own commentary to say I'm not sure which one is better in this context.


Those Feats would help for that. But honestly it's a 5' speed difference between the Infiltrator Armor and Mobility. You can already BA Disengage if you want to play hit and run with Booming Blade.

But if you BA Disengage, you can't BA Dash, which means you're limited to only your base 35' movement, which means you can't feasibly pingpong into and out of melee every round without getting caught, unless the monster has only 15' movement. Mobile lets you Booming Blade pretty much anything with less than 40' movement (as well as ignoring difficult terrain, etc.). It makes a difference.


For the other, yep, you do get those things, but you're not only weighing it against what you said but against a much higher AC. Avoiding Magic Items a 20 Dex means you are looking at 17 (Studded Leather+Dex). The Multiclass is looking at 18 base (Breastplate, +2 Dex, Shield). And could always take Medium Armor Master to put AC at 20. (Half Plate, +3 Dex, Shield).

+1 to AC is nice but not huge. I agree that shields are nice to have, should be listed as a benefit to the Artificer side. (Or the Rogue could spend one of his two extra feats on Moderately Armored for +1 Dex and AC 19--although IME Skulker and Mobile are likely better. But if your DM never has areas of darkness** then maybe you'd go Moderately Armored + Mobile instead.)

** I have no idea really how this is possible, because it implies that nothing happens at night and players take no initiative to make things happen at night. But I hear that games where Skulker is bad actually do happen.


Is it MAD? Bard's already want Charisma and Dex, and as someone else already pointed out there's subclass options that synergize that more. In either event, for both examples you can always get a focus on spells that don't force saves or attack rolls and leave the casting stat low.

Bards already want Con, Charisma, and a bit of Dex and Wis, but I think we already established that a Bard 10 doesn't want to become a Rogue 5/Bard 5. A Rogue 10 wants Dex and Con and a bit of Wis. Adding Cha on top of that is, yes, more MAD.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Agreed. I was just pointing out that if you put "Con saves" under one entry you have to put "Dex saves" under the other, and then adding a little bit of my own commentary to say I'm not sure which one is better in this context.

Absolutely fair, I misread. My apologies.


But if you BA Disengage, you can't BA Dash, which means you're limited to only your base 35' movement, which means you can't feasibly pingpong into and out of melee every round without getting caught, unless the monster has only 15' movement. Mobile lets you Booming Blade pretty much anything with less than 40' movement (as well as ignoring difficult terrain, etc.). It makes a difference.

It absolutely works better for that, just saying you can do it either way. Honestly, an Infiltrator is going to be trying to stay at range.


+1 to AC is nice but not huge. I agree that shields are nice to have, should be listed as a benefit to the Artificer side. (Or the Rogue could spend one of his two extra feats on Moderately Armored for +1 Dex and AC 19--although IME Skulker and Mobile are likely better. But if your DM never has areas of darkness** then maybe you'd go Moderately Armored + Mobile instead.)

+1 AC is if you want the absolute biggest bang for your buck to Stealth (Breastplate so you keep Advantage) If you want to go Halfplate then it's 2 AC, both +1 and +2 are very significant.


** I have no idea really how this is possible, because it implies that nothing happens at night and players take no initiative to make things happen at night. But I hear that games where Skulker is bad actually do happen.

It's a good Feat but it's also a matter of degrees. In a Game with lots of nighttime activity or caves and dungeons, Skulker is always useful. In a Political Game with courts and noble manors and well lit venues not so much.


Bards already want Con, Charisma, and a bit of Dex and Wis, but I think we already established that a Bard 10 doesn't want to become a Rogue 5/Bard 5. A Rogue 10 wants Dex and Con and a bit of Wis. Adding Cha on top of that is, yes, more MAD.

Con is a cop out, everyone wants Con. Bards want Cha. If they're Blades or Skalds or otherwise melee aimed they're going to want Dex or Str as well. Rogues want Dex and whatever their subclass wants. If it's Swashbuckler, they'll want Cha.

But, either way, all your arguments do is point out the very legitimate trade off between one build and another. Which I don't think anyone ever denied. Just that the idea that there wasn't a scenario where the MC was as strong or interesting. It's also a matter of what you're building. If you Start Bard and Envision a bard, MC is hard because you're weighing it against spell casting progression. But if you're not planning to be a spellcaster then it's just a matter of "What do I want?" The only thing that ever really keeps me SC with a Rogue is if I think we'll hit 11 for Reliable Talent. Otherwise a lot of my "Rogue" builds tend to involve level 1 for Expertise and Skills, usually ignore the SA or treat it as a nice extra and then focus on other things.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I've played both Paladin/ Rogue and Barbarian/ Rogue and found them both good. The Paladin was probably the nastiest character I've ever played, as he'd finish or get way ahead in fights before foes even started. Rogue 1-3 has a lot for martials, and yes, you might lose a bit of DPR, but the sneak attack dice tend to compensate. Expertise in things like stealth and athletics are really good for martials as a start.

On the larger topic, no, Monks don't interact that well with almost all other classes (and subclasses). It'd be nice if there were more viable builds, but I'm inclined to agree with the point made way upthread regarding Hanlon's Razor. And honestly 5e is a better game for the fact that single class builds are generally stronger and the designers leaned towards not opening up many combos that are better than single class.

Bro what???

Monk Rogues and especially Monk Rangers are pretty damn solid MC. I could also see with high stats a Monk/Fighter being pretty strong depending on the Subclass and when you decide to dip in and out.

Shadow Monk especially adds a lot for Rogues and just about any Monk / Ranger works really well.

[Dante]

It absolutely works better for that, just saying you can do it either way. Honestly, an Infiltrator is going to be trying to stay at range.

If so, then the Armorer/AT is doing 6d6+Dex (26ish) and the pure AT is doing 2d8+5d6+Dex +2d8 more if the target moves (40ish).

Again, I'm not saying you can't play Armorer/Rogue, but I don't see the appeal and that's why it didn't make my list of competitors to Monk/Rogue. Do with that knowledge what you will.


It's a good Feat but it's also a matter of degrees. In a Game with lots of nighttime activity or caves and dungeons, Skulker is always useful. In a Political Game with courts and noble manors and well lit venues not so much.

Is nighttime intrigue not a thing in your ideal political game? I would have so much fun with Skulker in a political-oriented game based on e.g. Game of Thrones (low magic, high treachery).

But I agree with your overall point. It does indeed depend on campaign style.


But, either way, all your arguments do is point out the very legitimate trade off between one build and another. Which I don't think anyone ever denied.

Note: they're not "arguments", they're just answers to someone asking a question about my opinions and why I didn't value certain combinations more highly. I don't really care if you like those combinations better than I do; more power to you. That wasn't the point I was was making.

[Dork_Forge]

Just a note on Rogue/Infiltrator:

Artificers can prepare Longstrider, giving them a +15 movement boost when they deem it necessary, whilst ATs could use that, they likely aren't due to their restrictions and limited progression.

There's also a lot to be said for creating your own +1 weapon and other magic item, the former affecting the damage formulas previously posted and aiding in use of SS*.

*Which Rogues wouldn't normally want, but given the accuracy boost and easy potential for Extra Attack, is significantly more tempting on this multiclass than the single class.

On Monk MCing in general:

It's really not bad at all as long as you understand the trade offs and avoid the pitfalls.

- You don't have single classed Monk Ki, so don't act like it

- Try and lean into non MAD MCs, which covers five different classes

- Understand why you're multiclassing and make the most of it.

Then you can come up with interesting combos, like making a Super Saiyan with Sun Soul and Stars Druid.

[Dante]

There's also a lot to be said for creating your own +1 weapon and other magic item, the former affecting the damage formulas previously posted and aiding in use of SS*.

I agree, which is one of the reasons Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are very nice subclasses. Magic Weapon comes online at 7th level and is a large force multiplier in certain situations.


*Which Rogues wouldn't normally want, but given the accuracy boost and easy potential for Extra Attack, is significantly more tempting on this multiclass than the single class.

Hmm, you're right, maybe that's a way to make Artificer 5/Rogue 5 pay off. I guess I'm taking Art 5/Rogue 5(/Fighter 1-2?) off my "ick" list and moving it to my "competes with Kensei X/Fighter" 1 list.

[Dork_Forge]

I agree, which is one of the reasons Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are very nice subclasses. Magic Weapon comes online at 7th level and is a large force multiplier in certain situations.

Magic Weapon is nice, I'd personally rather go for a single dip in Forge Cleric or something though if the campaign didn't look like such a magic item was on the horizon. Opens up concentration and spell slots, whilst not eating your Bonus action, the importance of which will vary for the Fighter but always be important to the Rogue.


Hmm, you're right, maybe that's a way to make Artificer 5/Rogue 5 pay off. I guess I'm taking Art 5/Rogue 5(/Fighter 1-2?) off my "ick" list and moving it to my "competes with Kensei X/Fighter" 1 list.

If Fighter 1 I'd just grab the fighting style feat instead, preserve Sneak Attack progression as much as possible, whilst getting Archery earlier if you want.

[Witty Username]

I do agree some multiclass combinations are over hyped. Hexblade just about anything for example.

All the martial classes (including Rogue) though run into an issue that lackluster high level features makes for a lot of them benefiting from mixes.

Monk might be the only exception because its effective multi-class combinations tend towards the non-intuitive

[Rukelnikov]

Mainly because I can think of good reasons to play the others, but couldn't think of any good reasons to play those three, aside from the challenge or just because you feel like it. E.g. I think I know how to take a Barbarian 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it pay off to be better than a Barbarian 10; but I don't think I know how to take a Bard 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it better than a Bard 10.

Define better.

[Yakk]

Mainly because I can think of good reasons to play the others, but couldn't think of any good reasons to play those three, aside from the challenge or just because you feel like it. E.g. I think I know how to take a Barbarian 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it pay off to be better than a Barbarian 10; but I don't think I know how to take a Bard 5 and add Rogue 5 and make it better than a Bard 10.
Bard 9 Rogue 11 is interesting. Reliable talent with jack of all trades and counterspell.

Your min roll on any 20 attribute check is 18, 21 if you have proficiency. Including counterspell, dispell magic, and initiative.

OTOH, Bard 20 can have glibness and foresight.

[Dante]

Bard 9 Rogue 11 is interesting. Reliable talent with jack of all trades and counterspell.

Your min roll on any 20 attribute check is 18, 21 if you have proficiency. Including counterspell, dispell magic, and initiative.

OTOH, Bard 20 can have glibness and foresight.

Exactly. Bard 20 also has Enhanced Ability (Cha) which is cheaper and in practice almost as good as Glibness. And Peerless Skill (Lore Bards) adds an extra d12 as well. At that point you make don't even bother to upcast Counterspell even against a 9th level spell, unless you're trying to counterplay Counter-Counterspells.

[Yakk]

Exactly. Bard 20 also has Enhanced Ability (Cha) which is cheaper and in practice almost as good as Glibness. And Peerless Skill (Lore Bards) adds an extra d12 as well. At that point you make don't even bother to upcast Counterspell even against a 9th level spell, unless you're trying to counterplay Counter-Counterspells.
Concentration is never cheaper. I mean, I suppose if you don't mind failing sometimes and don't have anything else better to do with concentration.

Also, foresight is so good you might have it up, and it makes EA obsolete.

But yes, the Peerless Skill is a good backup. With +8 to the check, advantage, and a backup d12, odds you'll need the d12 are 25% (roll 10 or under with both dice). But you still have upwards of 5% chance of failing a counterspell I think.

[Dante]

Concentration is never cheaper. I mean, I suppose if you don't mind failing sometimes and don't have anything else better to do with concentration.

Yep, that's exactly the scenario I had in mind. Sometimes you *don't* have any urgent need for a powerful spell, and don't mind a small chance of failure.

Enhance Ability (Cha) also synergizes nicely with other things you might be doing in these not-intensely-violent-yet scenarios.

Imagine for example that you're with Dorothy, sneaking into the Wicked Witch of the West's castle. You suspect you might need your concentration for Conjure Animals or Telekinesis or Aura of Vitality or True Polymorph at some point, but you're not sure when or in what order, and someone else already has Invisibility covered, so you Enhance Ability (Cha) just in case you need to Dispel Magic or Counterspell or bluff some guards. Because a 2nd level spell is cheap you won't regret it if you have to drop concentration in order to cast something else.

Edit: depending on how your DM reads the upcasting clause, you may also be Enhancing the other PCs' Dex (for Stealth) at the same time.

[Yakk]

Yep, that's exactly the scenario I had in mind. Sometimes you *don't* have any urgent need for a powerful spell, and don't mind a small chance of failure.

Enhance Ability (Cha) also synergizes nicely with other things you might be doing in these not-intensely-violent-yet scenarios.

Imagine for example that you're with Dorothy, sneaking into the Wicked Witch of the West's castle. You suspect you might need your concentration for Conjure Animals or Telekinesis or Aura of Vitality or True Polymorph at some point, but you're not sure when or in what order, and someone else already has Invisibility covered, so you Enhance Ability (Cha) just in case you need to Dispel Magic or Counterspell or bluff some guards. Because a 2nd level spell is cheap you won't regret it if you have to drop concentration in order to cast something else.

Edit: depending on how your DM reads the upcasting clause, you may also be Enhancing the other PCs' Dex (for Stealth) at the same time.
My problem by level 20 as a bard is I don't have enough spells known. So EA has fallen off the list.

Because I'm using foresight. Bwahahahaha.