1st option you get 2 attacks and 1 bonus action attack, plus Horde Breaker (from Hunter subclass) for an additional attack sometimes. 2nd option you get 1 attack and 1 bonus action attack, plus Horde Breaker (from Hunter subclass) for an additional attack sometimes and you can almost always do the (Wails of the Grave) every turn or at least a few times a combat since something is usually dying all the time (Tokens of the Departed).
I can see why someone wouldn't like to stick with a single class, but I think I'd initially go 8/4 just for the extra ASI. You get quite a few from Rogue around those levels, but I doubt you'll have run out of good options already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Every single time I play and/or DM, more and more I am leaning heavily to not allowing MC'ing in my game. And yes, I was the powergamer who MC'ed into a Sorlock and machine-gunned EB, and am currently playing a Scout Rogue with a single level of Fighter. And yes, my players are being hunted by a Hex Assassin 4th Rogue/ 5th Hexblade.
But every time I see an MC'ed char, the chances of it being narrative as opposed to it being to create an uber-killing machine, well they are incredibly slim.
Every single time I play and/or DM, more and more I am leaning heavily to not allowing MC'ing in my game. And yes, I was the powergamer who MC'ed into a Sorlock and machine-gunned EB, and am currently playing a Scout Rogue with a single level of Fighter. And yes, my players are being hunted by a Hex Assassin 4th Rogue/ 5th Hexblade.
But every time I see an MC'ed char, the chances of it being narrative as opposed to it being to create an uber-killing machine, well they are incredibly slim.
I don't really see an issue, particularly when joining a campaign at lvl 12. I've had several players ask me if we could incorporate gearing up for a second class into the campaign at one point or another, non-casters or halfcasters with relatively little focus on magic in particular. Past levels 6 or 9 seems pretty good to get out of Rogue. Fighter is just a sea of ASIs. Monks get a few cool abilities at higher levels, but they mostly seem to stay with monk for the ki points (a frustrating feature anyway IMO). Ranger doesn't have much long term appeal at all, Barbs just keep getting more of the same. Doesn't mean it's bad not to multiclass out of these or that I'll never keep it singleclassed in them myself, but it's meant to be fun. Mixing it up can be fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Every single time I play and/or DM, more and more I am leaning heavily to not allowing MC'ing in my game. And yes, I was the powergamer who MC'ed into a Sorlock and machine-gunned EB, and am currently playing a Scout Rogue with a single level of Fighter. And yes, my players are being hunted by a Hex Assassin 4th Rogue/ 5th Hexblade.
But every time I see an MC'ed char, the chances of it being narrative as opposed to it being to create an uber-killing machine, well they are incredibly slim.
Not everyone and every table cares about narrative and roleplay though, and sometimes players just want to mow down hordes of enemies and beat the crap out of bad guys. Even when taking roleplay into account, you still want to optimize anyways since NPCs realistically would want the most competent adventurers (assuming adventurers are not rare) to do the job, and from the PCs' point of view, they are putting their lives on the line as adventurers, and they want to be as prepared as possible.
Every single time I play and/or DM, more and more I am leaning heavily to not allowing MC'ing in my game. And yes, I was the powergamer who MC'ed into a Sorlock and machine-gunned EB, and am currently playing a Scout Rogue with a single level of Fighter. And yes, my players are being hunted by a Hex Assassin 4th Rogue/ 5th Hexblade.
But every time I see an MC'ed char, the chances of it being narrative as opposed to it being to create an uber-killing machine, well they are incredibly slim.
Anything wrong with wanting to create a "uber-killing machine"? As long as the player still engages in the story and roleplays just as well as the other players?
Anything wrong with wanting to create a "uber-killing machine"? As long as the player still engages in the story and roleplays just as well as the other players?
Depends on what else is going on. If you make an uber-killing machine who dominates every battle field and causes the rest of the party to be inconsequential or at least to feel "lesser than" the killing-machine PC, that is a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Anything wrong with wanting to create a "uber-killing machine"? As long as the player still engages in the story and roleplays just as well as the other players?
Depends on what else is going on. If you make an uber-killing machine who dominates every battle field and causes the rest of the party to be inconsequential or at least to feel "lesser than" the killing-machine PC, that is a problem.
That can happen with mediocre characters as well, if the others are created without much regard for being effective. It can also happen outside combat, with players leaving all the NPC interactions to players with high Cha characters who are proficient in social skill or players who have their characters hang back all the time because they're not perceptive or stealthy compared to others. It's not up to the DM alone to try and fix this, but it's certainly an issue the DM can mitigate regardless of the PCs' respective qualities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If everyone is already an uber-killing machine, there probably will not be any problem
I've seen a lot of game groups try to design characters this way and never understood it. I mean, I can see it in an MMO or something, because the computer has a pre-programmed set of enemies so the more "uber" you are the better you can do against them. But a tabletop game has a DM. If the players make up an "uber" party the DM can just throw tougher things at them, thereby bringing the field down to level.
I've always viewed it as ultimately self-defeating, as a player, to try and "out gun" the NPCs. You literally cannot, if the GM doesn't want you to. Everyone in your Champions party gets Desolidification so they can abort and go Desolid whenever attacked, thereby making them immune to most attacks? Fine, the GM gives every agent, cop, and villain in the game powers with the "affects Desolid" power advantage. Fair? No. Logical? No, but he can do it... and you can't stop it as a player.
Trying to out-gun the DM, even if the whole party agrees to it, is both foolish and, unless the DM is very inexperienced, 100% destined to fail.
Now, that said... my position as a DM is, the challenge is the challenge. If the players exploit the rules to make it stupidly easy, then it's stupidly easy. When they complain I'm not challenging them, my answer would be, 'Stop making abusive characters and maybe you'll be challenged.'
But that's true of the whole party is overpowered. If it's just one character and that player is ruining everyone else's fun, then that player has to be stopped.
I would like to remind everyone the OP asked for opinions on their character build and suggestions relating to that.
This is not the thread to debate the merits of mutlclassing, min/maxing vs/with roleplay, or the Stormwind Fallacy. If you want to discuss those things, please start a fresh thread and leave this one to be feedback on the OPs question.
Every single time I play and/or DM, more and more I am leaning heavily to not allowing MC'ing in my game. And yes, I was the powergamer who MC'ed into a Sorlock and machine-gunned EB, and am currently playing a Scout Rogue with a single level of Fighter. And yes, my players are being hunted by a Hex Assassin 4th Rogue/ 5th Hexblade.
But every time I see an MC'ed char, the chances of it being narrative as opposed to it being to create an uber-killing machine, well they are incredibly slim.
My group is now level 8 characters. It is apparent that those who have stayed a single class or only did 1 level of a class are before the change, are more powerful. One of the weaker characters in combat is one who went to level 5 fighter and then MC'ed. A notable exception is a person who does Cleric then switches to Warlock or other spell caster at level 2. That way they get the weapons and armor proficiency of a level 1 cleric. Though it did irk him when the other warlock started casting fireballs and he had to catch up.
I voted 7/5 because Extra Attacks is that good. You will often need your bonus for something other than attacking, especially if you're trying to get in the thick of things to leverage Horde Breaker. I would not go beyond 5 in Ranger though because the lost Sneak Attack dice are significant.
I voted 7/5 because Extra Attacks is that good. You will often need your bonus for something other than attacking, especially if you're trying to get in the thick of things to leverage Horde Breaker. I would not go beyond 5 in Ranger though because the lost Sneak Attack dice are significant.
If these two are the only options I would agree
Extra attack is hard to pass up. Depending on feats/subclass choice you could make up for the sneak attack with other features.
I actually think sneak attack is at the average or below for damage per round compared to the other martial options.
7/5 is fine, bit sad to lose Reliable Talent but honestly the 4 expertise skills is good enough.
Assuming your asking this question though a optimization perspective, then I can give you the following:
The loss of 2d6 sneak attack can be veryeasily made up for with Hunter's Mark + a additional attack + subclass + fighting style.
Having two attacks means your no longer so reliant on advantage to get that land that one hit in (assuming you don't need it for sneak attack), so you can afford to use your bonus action casting Hunter's Mark and not hiding. If you need to disengage or dash, chances are it's not the first round anymore and thus Hunter's Mark has already been up.
Rip 2 ASIs though. That's probably the worse part.
Edit: If the character levels up more, I would put the levels into Rogue to make up for the lost ASIs. Rangers tend to be pretty front-loaded so you aren't missing out on too much.
Roleplay-wise it's pretty easy to think of a reason why a rogue or ranger might want to go into the other class. If it even needs explaining at all considering how closely the two can match up to in terms of flavor (esp if you pick Scout Rogue).
I say go full rogue, skip the multiclass and build a sniper style crossbow wielder that focuses on one great shot. You don't even need crossbow expert for the build. I would build it as an elf with elven accuracy to help make sure your snipes hit.
If you're going Phantom and starting at 12th, then I would absolutely take the opportunity to start with Tokens of the Departed from the beginning. That means at least 9 levels. I think 3 more levels of rogue gives you more than the dip into hunter and has you set up to pick up Ghost Walk with your first level up. Reliable Talent and the extra ASI are excellent, as is stacking as much sneak attack as possible.
I say go full rogue, skip the multiclass and build a sniper style crossbow wielder that focuses on one great shot. You don't even need crossbow expert for the build. I would build it as an elf with elven accuracy to help make sure your snipes hit.
If you're going Phantom and starting at 12th, then I would absolutely take the opportunity to start with Tokens of the Departed from the beginning. That means at least 9 levels. I think 3 more levels of rogue gives you more than the dip into hunter and has you set up to pick up Ghost Walk with your first level up. Reliable Talent and the extra ASI are excellent, as is stacking as much sneak attack as possible.
Yeah I think this might be the best approach.
Gives you what you are mostly looking for with a lot of versatile options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Making a Crossbow character, so my question is
1st option, 7th level Rogue (Phantom) 5th level Ranger (Hunter) 4d6 sneak attack
2nd option, 9th level phantom / 3rd level Hunter. 5d6 sneak attack
1st option you get 2 attacks and 1 bonus action attack, plus Horde Breaker (from Hunter subclass) for an additional attack sometimes.
2nd option you get 1 attack and 1 bonus action attack, plus Horde Breaker (from Hunter subclass) for an additional attack sometimes and you can almost always do the (Wails of the Grave) every turn or at least a few times a combat since something is usually dying all the time (Tokens of the Departed).
I would just ramp it up as a 12th level Rogue or 12th level Ranger.
Um, your survey says 7/5 and 8/3 which is confusing.
I agree just be a 12th level Rogue.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I can see why someone wouldn't like to stick with a single class, but I think I'd initially go 8/4 just for the extra ASI. You get quite a few from Rogue around those levels, but I doubt you'll have run out of good options already.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Every single time I play and/or DM, more and more I am leaning heavily to not allowing MC'ing in my game. And yes, I was the powergamer who MC'ed into a Sorlock and machine-gunned EB, and am currently playing a Scout Rogue with a single level of Fighter. And yes, my players are being hunted by a Hex Assassin 4th Rogue/ 5th Hexblade.
But every time I see an MC'ed char, the chances of it being narrative as opposed to it being to create an uber-killing machine, well they are incredibly slim.
I don't really see an issue, particularly when joining a campaign at lvl 12. I've had several players ask me if we could incorporate gearing up for a second class into the campaign at one point or another, non-casters or halfcasters with relatively little focus on magic in particular. Past levels 6 or 9 seems pretty good to get out of Rogue. Fighter is just a sea of ASIs. Monks get a few cool abilities at higher levels, but they mostly seem to stay with monk for the ki points (a frustrating feature anyway IMO). Ranger doesn't have much long term appeal at all, Barbs just keep getting more of the same. Doesn't mean it's bad not to multiclass out of these or that I'll never keep it singleclassed in them myself, but it's meant to be fun. Mixing it up can be fun.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not everyone and every table cares about narrative and roleplay though, and sometimes players just want to mow down hordes of enemies and beat the crap out of bad guys. Even when taking roleplay into account, you still want to optimize anyways since NPCs realistically would want the most competent adventurers (assuming adventurers are not rare) to do the job, and from the PCs' point of view, they are putting their lives on the line as adventurers, and they want to be as prepared as possible.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Anything wrong with wanting to create a "uber-killing machine"? As long as the player still engages in the story and roleplays just as well as the other players?
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Depends on what else is going on. If you make an uber-killing machine who dominates every battle field and causes the rest of the party to be inconsequential or at least to feel "lesser than" the killing-machine PC, that is a problem.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
That can happen with mediocre characters as well, if the others are created without much regard for being effective. It can also happen outside combat, with players leaving all the NPC interactions to players with high Cha characters who are proficient in social skill or players who have their characters hang back all the time because they're not perceptive or stealthy compared to others. It's not up to the DM alone to try and fix this, but it's certainly an issue the DM can mitigate regardless of the PCs' respective qualities.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I've seen a lot of game groups try to design characters this way and never understood it. I mean, I can see it in an MMO or something, because the computer has a pre-programmed set of enemies so the more "uber" you are the better you can do against them. But a tabletop game has a DM. If the players make up an "uber" party the DM can just throw tougher things at them, thereby bringing the field down to level.
I've always viewed it as ultimately self-defeating, as a player, to try and "out gun" the NPCs. You literally cannot, if the GM doesn't want you to. Everyone in your Champions party gets Desolidification so they can abort and go Desolid whenever attacked, thereby making them immune to most attacks? Fine, the GM gives every agent, cop, and villain in the game powers with the "affects Desolid" power advantage. Fair? No. Logical? No, but he can do it... and you can't stop it as a player.
Trying to out-gun the DM, even if the whole party agrees to it, is both foolish and, unless the DM is very inexperienced, 100% destined to fail.
Now, that said... my position as a DM is, the challenge is the challenge. If the players exploit the rules to make it stupidly easy, then it's stupidly easy. When they complain I'm not challenging them, my answer would be, 'Stop making abusive characters and maybe you'll be challenged.'
But that's true of the whole party is overpowered. If it's just one character and that player is ruining everyone else's fun, then that player has to be stopped.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
12th level Battle master fighter with sharpshooter and crossbow expert.
Max DEX and you are doing 4(1d6+15 = 18.5 damage) and have precision die if you miss.
Trip attack let's you prone someone and shoot them point blank with CBE to get ADV on the other attacks.
I would like to remind everyone the OP asked for opinions on their character build and suggestions relating to that.
This is not the thread to debate the merits of mutlclassing, min/maxing vs/with roleplay, or the Stormwind Fallacy. If you want to discuss those things, please start a fresh thread and leave this one to be feedback on the OPs question.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
My group is now level 8 characters. It is apparent that those who have stayed a single class or only did 1 level of a class are before the change, are more powerful. One of the weaker characters in combat is one who went to level 5 fighter and then MC'ed. A notable exception is a person who does Cleric then switches to Warlock or other spell caster at level 2. That way they get the weapons and armor proficiency of a level 1 cleric. Though it did irk him when the other warlock started casting fireballs and he had to catch up.
I voted 7/5 because Extra Attacks is that good. You will often need your bonus for something other than attacking, especially if you're trying to get in the thick of things to leverage Horde Breaker. I would not go beyond 5 in Ranger though because the lost Sneak Attack dice are significant.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I dislike Multiclassing the characters, because the more you do it, the later you'll reach lvl 20 in those classes.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
If these two are the only options I would agree
Extra attack is hard to pass up. Depending on feats/subclass choice you could make up for the sneak attack with other features.
I actually think sneak attack is at the average or below for damage per round compared to the other martial options.
Rogue tends to make it up out of combat though.
7/5 is fine, bit sad to lose Reliable Talent but honestly the 4 expertise skills is good enough.
Assuming your asking this question though a optimization perspective, then I can give you the following:
The loss of 2d6 sneak attack can be very easily made up for with Hunter's Mark + a additional attack + subclass + fighting style.
Having two attacks means your no longer so reliant on advantage to get that land that one hit in (assuming you don't need it for sneak attack), so you can afford to use your bonus action casting Hunter's Mark and not hiding. If you need to disengage or dash, chances are it's not the first round anymore and thus Hunter's Mark has already been up.
Rip 2 ASIs though. That's probably the worse part.
Edit: If the character levels up more, I would put the levels into Rogue to make up for the lost ASIs. Rangers tend to be pretty front-loaded so you aren't missing out on too much.
Roleplay-wise it's pretty easy to think of a reason why a rogue or ranger might want to go into the other class. If it even needs explaining at all considering how closely the two can match up to in terms of flavor (esp if you pick Scout Rogue).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I say go full rogue, skip the multiclass and build a sniper style crossbow wielder that focuses on one great shot. You don't even need crossbow expert for the build. I would build it as an elf with elven accuracy to help make sure your snipes hit.
If you're going Phantom and starting at 12th, then I would absolutely take the opportunity to start with Tokens of the Departed from the beginning. That means at least 9 levels. I think 3 more levels of rogue gives you more than the dip into hunter and has you set up to pick up Ghost Walk with your first level up. Reliable Talent and the extra ASI are excellent, as is stacking as much sneak attack as possible.
Yeah I think this might be the best approach.
Gives you what you are mostly looking for with a lot of versatile options.