People are upset that this article doesn't specifically tell you 'how' to multiclass... but they are wrong, and proving to be lazy. There is a link that sends you right to the page that tells you how to customize a character, including but not limited to multiclassing. 

Quote from Jaeken >>

I believe the key part of what Darbius was saying, & which doesn't apply to you or me, is "new players".  And doubly so if one or both classes are full casters (tripley? so if that caster is a cleric or druid).  The options a 5/5 cleric/druid has after a long rest compared to a level 10 fighter or rogue, exponentially different.

That's because a pure martial class and a pure casting class are two very different beasts entirely; all casters that can swap out spells whenever they like are tricky for both new and experienced players, as you can never quite take all the spells you want, and have to make some hard choices. In some ways that's an argument against a new player going any caster, but I'd also say that by level 10 they're not really a new player anymore, assuming they started at level 1 or so? Did they alternate levels or did they start with Cleric and decide that it wasn't quite working for their character and decided to branch out into Druid? Why five levels in each (for Wisdom based class mixes you usually only need one or two levels to get what you want).

The biggest difficulties in multi-classing come from doing it too early without a clear idea of what you want to get out of it; for example, a Fighter with a couple of levels in Barbarian can work early despite delaying your extra attack, because you can use Reckless Attack to get the most out of your one basic attack (plus Action Surge) while adding a bunch of durability, but I wouldn't recommend that someone do it unless they know it's the right fit for their character. But an experienced DM should be able to advise on issues like that.

For me the first question from a DM regarding multi-classing must always be "why?"; someone might say "I want to take a few levels in Rogue", but they should have a clear idea of why they want to do it, either mechanical or thematic, so you can explore what their alternatives might be from feats or a change of sub-class etc.

I love my multiclass Warlock 5/Eldritch Knight 3 but I wish I'd realised from the outset that dipping only 3 levels into another class sacrifices a feat or ability score improvement... it's the kind of thing that feels like it should stack between classes

Would your dm be willing to let you sacrifice that 5th level of Warlock to convert that into another level of Eldritch Knight?

Quote from DM_Loki >>

I love my multiclass Warlock 5/Eldritch Knight 3 but I wish I'd realised from the outset that dipping only 3 levels into another class sacrifices a feat or ability score improvement... it's the kind of thing that feels like it should stack between classes

A DM could rule that all regular ASI's (4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th) occur by character level, then treat the bonus ASIs for Fighters and Rogues (6th/14th and 10th respectively) as class features requiring the correct level in that class? There'd be a few edge cases where you're getting a bigger than normal boost at one level.

This actually wouldn't be too hard to manage on D&D Beyond as multi-classed players can just ignore the ASIs presented in the Manage Levels section, and manually edit ability scores (or add a feat); since everyone gets them at the same time only multi-classed Fighters and Rogues would need to remember their extra ASIs.

Only issue is how balanced it is; multi-classing can be very powerful early on as a lot of classes get a lot out of their early levels, then steadily build upon them afterwards, so in some ways the delayed ASIs/feats help to balance that out.

You could also just negotiate with your DM to just get the one missing ASI back at level 20 (if you make it that far) and add it manually?

I don't know if I'd allow the ASI to be character based. Muticlassing is, deliberately, a trade-off between powers, of which an ASI is such a thing.

A good example of this is taking that 4th level in Eldritch Knight and gaining access to the extra ASI or feat. This means the maximum level in Warlock that can be reached is 16, meaning that DM_Loki will miss out on his 9th level spell should the Character get to level 20. On the other side of that, if the Character is never meant to get that far, then the trade off might very well be worth it.

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

And what you are proposing is cheating, and goes against every theme and char progression rule in 5e. There is no negotiation. The rules are clear. If what you propose was installed in a game here is nothing stopping some player from MC'ing across 5 or 6 classes, with virtually no penalty. No, just no.

What I proposed was a house-rule that a DM could optionally choose to employ if they wanted, and it isn't as game-breaking as you hysterically pretend (or at all); every level you take in one class means something lost in the other(s), all it would do is make it easier to maintain ability score progression in line with everyone else.

Sure, you could go five or six classes deep if you wanted, but your build would be a complete mess of conflicting abilities, or a heap of 1st level spells that won't have enough impact in higher level fights. Plus a DM using a house-rule still retains full power to shut down any clearly abusive combo and just say "no, you're taking the piss". All this house rule really does is avoid the awkwardness when taking one fewer/more level in an additional class.

In absolutely no way is it cheating, so kindly drop the bad attitude.

Race: Tabaxi, from Volo's Guide to Monsters
Necessary Feats: Mobile
First Class: Monk - Specialisation: Way of Shadow (at least Level 6), Multiclass Requirements: Dexterity 13, Wisdom 13
Second Class:  Blood Hunter* - Specialisation: Order of the Lycan (Level 7), Multiclass Requirements: Strenght or Dexterity 13, Wisdom 13 **

*Created by Matt Mercer, the Dungeon Master of 'Critical Role'
**Personal note: Though it's not a requirement, but as the Blood Hunter's skills are often use your own life to convert it to power, a high Constitution is advised too.

The result: One lightning fast cat, who can increase it's speed in a really high level in the dark, because it can travel through the shadows (as a bonus action, traveling range is 60, both your beginning and arrival point should be in dim light or darkness, but you can ignore the hard terrain, movement blocking obstacles or high differences, as long as you can see your goal, and it's unoccupied), and transform into an even more dangerous form. As a Monk know, how to utilise bare-handed fights, the transformation gives it claws - wich, instead of growing claws, just increase their size, 'cause as a Tabaxi, you already has them. Also, by being a Monk, after level 6 all of your bare-handed attack considered as magical, you can use Ki to increase the number of your attacks (cost some Ki and your bonus action). Maybe not the best at in a fight of attrition (the Monk's Unarmed Defense should be good help in it though, as both class requires high Wisdom), but it's really hard to escape from it - base speed 30 + 10 from the feat +15 from Unarmored Movement (at level 6 Monk) +10 from Stalker's Prowess (at level 7 Blood Hunter, Order of the Lycan), and as a Tabaxi, you can duble your base speed for one round (you regain this ability, if you doesn't move for one round). In the end, your base speed is 65, what you can double for one round. With using Dash action, and the Monk's Step of the Wind, you can triple the amount of this movement number (if you doesn't do any other actions, just run). That's a whopping 195 in one round. Your damae, with the given class levels are - without using any other skills, except the Order of the Lycan Blood Hunter's transformation - 1d4 (from Tabaxi's claws) + 1d6 (from Monk's martial arts) + 1d6 (from Transformation) + Dexterity modifier (from Monk's martial arts) - with one attack. In that level you should has an extra attack, also one more of the Monk's martial arts (bonus action), or 2, if you spend 1 Ki after your Attack action. Also Blood Hunter's has their Crimson Rite, wich can add  a small 1d6 (at level 7) bonus to your attacks - this 1d6 is an elemental damage, the type can be chosen, when you get the ability (at level 6 you know 2 types of Rites), but activating it cost both some of your actual, and your maximum hit points - the maximum hit points returns, when the Rite is ended. If you activate them on both of your hands, that's cost extra, but you can add different kind of elements to them, if you are not sure, what is your opponents weakness. Also, your hybrid form is resistant to slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage from non-magical weapons, if they are not silvered.

The only possible problem is this combination's high character level requirement - you left only 7 level, what you can freely spend after that.

Quote from Senok13 >>

Race: Tabaxi, from Volo's Guide to Monsters
First Class: Monk - Specialisation: Way of Shadow (at least Level 6), Multiclass Requirements: Dexterity 13, Wisdom 13
Second Class:  Blood Hunter* - Specialisation: Order of the Lycan (Level 7), Multiclass Requirements: Strenght or Dexterity 13, Wisdom 13 **

[...] As a Monk, know how to utilize bare-handed fights, the transformation gives it claws - which, instead of growing claws, just increase their size, 'cause as a Tabaxi, you already have them. [...] Your damage, with the given class levels are - without using any other skills, except the Order of the Lycan Blood Hunter's transformation - 1d4 (from Tabaxi's claws) + 1d6 (from Monk's martial arts) + 1d6 (from Transformation) + Dexterity modifier (from Monk's martial arts) - with one attack.....

No.  A tabaxi's claws do 1d4 damage--they replace standard unarmed damage, they do not add 1d4 damage.  The Order of Lycan's transformation likewise allows your unarmed attacks to do 1d6 slashing damage instead of your standard unarmed attacks.  And, just like a monk's martial arts die replaces the damage for a monk weapon rather than adding to it, it will also simply replace the damage you could inflict with either the tabaxi's claws or the Lycan's transformation.  In other words, you will do just 1d6+dex mod from either monk 5 or blood hunter 3, and it will go up to 1d8+dex mod from reaching level 11 in either of those classes (which will happen much later than if you single-classed in either).

Crimson Rite, Primal Strike, and Improved Primal Strike are still of benefit, as is the boost to speed.

Quote from Jaeken >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Darbius >>

My recommendation? New players to D&D should play a pure class until they get to about lv8. At that point they should have familiarized themselves with the game enough to start exploring multi-classing. In my experience, if a pretty new player multi-classes right out of the gate, they now have the complexity of learning two (or more) classes instead of one and they tend to struggle with it.

In terms of complexity I don't think it's really all that bad; you're still only advancing in one class per level, it's just that instead of having up to 20 levels in one class, you've got up to 20 in two or more. Any complexity there comes in those features interact, or more likely in having a lot of actions/bonus actions and/or reactions to choose from (choice paralysis), but I much prefer to have too many choices of action than too few personally.

The complexity of multi-classing IMO isn't so much in using it, but in deciding which classes to mix, and when to level up each; a newbie player might have trouble coming up with that plan themselves, but with an experienced DM they could get the balance right between them, and it could still be a good idea if it supports the character theme they want, plus there are no shortage of guides on particular builds and their merits (and drawbacks), forums to ask for advice etc. There are loads of classic multi-classing builds that we know work well, and can be easy and fun to play.

 I believe the key part of what Darbius was saying, & which doesn't apply to you or me, is "new players".  And doubly so if one or both classes are full casters (tripley? so if that caster is a cleric or druid).  The options a 5/5 cleric/druid has after a long rest compared to a level 10 fighter or rogue, exponentially different.  I wouldn't let a new player go down that path without a serious conversation outside of the play session, and probably a one-off to test out how it will go a few levels down the road.   There are certainly exceptions, some people are naturally good at quickly wrapping their head around new concepts, but I wouldn't assume a new player at the FLGS is one of those people.

Yes, thank you. I was specifically thinking of players who don't have a lot of experience with D&D or tabletop RPGs in general will have trouble trying to figure out how to make their multiclass mesh well and take advantage of the interactions. They end up having to essentially learn the base mechanics of 2 classes now instead of 1. Not saying they should never multiclass, I've just seen enough new players struggle with it that it seems good to make them focus for a bit first. :)

It's not really OP. I tanked her wisdom score, so she lives up to her chaotic good nature like you wouldn't believe. Her CHA is 18, tho, and she has five levels of Great Old One Warlock, three levels of Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, and now one level of Bard, which will probably take through 20 and the College of Lore, for those additional Magical Secrets.

She has won the award for Most Cantrips Known at this point... 

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

And what you are proposing is cheating, and goes against every theme and char progression rule in 5e. There is no negotiation. The rules are clear. If what you propose was installed in a game here is nothing stopping some player from MC'ing across 5 or 6 classes, with virtually no penalty. No, just no.

What I proposed was a house-rule that a DM could optionally choose to employ if they wanted, and it isn't as game-breaking as you hysterically pretend (or at all); every level you take in one class means something lost in the other(s), all it would do is make it easier to maintain ability score progression in line with everyone else.

Sure, you could go five or six classes deep if you wanted, but your build would be a complete mess of conflicting abilities, or a heap of 1st level spells that won't have enough impact in higher level fights. Plus a DM using a house-rule still retains full power to shut down any clearly abusive combo and just say "no, taking the piss". All this house rule really does is avoid the awkwardness when taking one more or fewer level in an additional class.

In absolutely no way is it cheating, so kindly drop the bad attitude.

 Your"house rule" would bring horrible changes to the game balance. Two levels of Hexblade, three levels of Paladin, PLUS an ASI...... Yeah, that is wildly OP, and game breaking. If you think the delay getting to 4th level in a particular class should be mitigated by allowing ASI's to occur on total char level, you have not played enough 5e to grasp the impact.

I proposed it as an optional houserule to be discussed for a multi-class with five levels in warlock and potential problems getting their ASIs going forward; I quoted the damn post FFS. Next time read what you're responding to instead of just insulting people. You have concerns with the balance of it as a general house-rule? Fine. Except that's not what I suggested it as, and I literally just told you as much, yet you've decided to insult me further.

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

I read it very carefully. You are proposing separating the 4th, 8th, 12tyh, 16th, and 19th level ASI's from progression in any particular class, and make them overall level dependent. That would be a disaster, since almost every class is front end loaded.  Any analysis leads to the same conclusion. It is an absolutely terrible idea.

You're accusing me of not having played D&D 5e enough, and yet you don't understand the concept of an optional house-rule intended to help with a specific problem (multi-classing locking you into blocks of four levels) or that a DM is allowed to say no to any obvious abuse? I have not proposed this for everyone's use in every campaign or suggested it as a standard feature of D&D, I suggested it as a "discuss with your DM" option to smooth out an issue with certain builds; if it were a standard feature and it was made illegal for DM's to rule against abuses of it then sure, the kind of player that ruins D&D for everyone else and end up having no friends could absolutely take the piss, but that is not what I proposed so your pretending otherwise is incredibly bad faith conduct.

I suggest you reevaluate your own lack of experience here dude, especially at how to conduct yourself in a discussion, and maybe go back and re-read what I actually wrote a few hundred more times; this is the last I intend to say on the matter.

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

And what you are proposing is cheating, and goes against every theme and char progression rule in 5e. There is no negotiation. The rules are clear. If what you propose was installed in a game here is nothing stopping some player from MC'ing across 5 or 6 classes, with virtually no penalty. No, just no.

What I proposed was a house-rule that a DM could optionally choose to employ if they wanted, and it isn't as game-breaking as you hysterically pretend (or at all); every level you take in one class means something lost in the other(s), all it would do is make it easier to maintain ability score progression in line with everyone else.

Sure, you could go five or six classes deep if you wanted, but your build would be a complete mess of conflicting abilities, or a heap of 1st level spells that won't have enough impact in higher level fights. Plus a DM using a house-rule still retains full power to shut down any clearly abusive combo and just say "no, taking the piss". All this house rule really does is avoid the awkwardness when taking one more or fewer level in an additional class.

In absolutely no way is it cheating, so kindly drop the bad attitude.

 Your"house rule" would bring horrible changes to the game balance. Two levels of Hexblade, three levels of Paladin, PLUS an ASI...... Yeah, that is wildly OP, and game breaking. If you think the delay getting to 4th level in a particular class should be mitigated by allowing ASI's to occur on total char level, you have not played enough 5e to grasp the impact.

I proposed it as a solution to a multi-class with five levels in warlock and potential problems getting their ASIs in going forward; I quoted the damn post FFS. Next time read what you're yelling at instead of just insulting people.

 I read it very carefully. You are proposing separating the 4th, 8th, 12tyh, 16th, and 19th level ASI's from progression in any particular class, and make them overall level dependent. That would be a disaster, since almost every class is front end loaded.  Any analysis leads to the same conclusion. It is an absolutely terrible idea.

 Yes it is not part of the standard rules, but it is not cheating and surely doesn't go against every theme and character progression.  This is at the end of the day a game that allows for DMs/GMs to make their own house rules however they see fit. It's not like he is saying to do this as a player without talking to your dm or to do this for a Adventure League character. I think you should go take a step back respect that everyone here has the right to choose to play 100% by the book or make personal judgement calls.  If it was cheating to do anything outside of the core books, then you wouldn't have wonderful homebrew content available to use because that to would be considered cheating. 

As a Fellow DM I can say I currently don't use this option but I have considered it from time to time because I liked the way it worked back in 3.5 for feats.  Then it wasn't based on class level but character level.

AND AS FOR YOU @haravikk...  you keep on doing what works for you at your table. ;)

Quote from Revenant33 >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

And what you are proposing is cheating, and goes against every theme and char progression rule in 5e. There is no negotiation. The rules are clear. If what you propose was installed in a game here is nothing stopping some player from MC'ing across 5 or 6 classes, with virtually no penalty. No, just no.

What I proposed was a house-rule that a DM could optionally choose to employ if they wanted, and it isn't as game-breaking as you hysterically pretend (or at all); every level you take in one class means something lost in the other(s), all it would do is make it easier to maintain ability score progression in line with everyone else.

Sure, you could go five or six classes deep if you wanted, but your build would be a complete mess of conflicting abilities, or a heap of 1st level spells that won't have enough impact in higher level fights. Plus a DM using a house-rule still retains full power to shut down any clearly abusive combo and just say "no, taking the piss". All this house rule really does is avoid the awkwardness when taking one more or fewer level in an additional class.

In absolutely no way is it cheating, so kindly drop the bad attitude.

 Your"house rule" would bring horrible changes to the game balance. Two levels of Hexblade, three levels of Paladin, PLUS an ASI...... Yeah, that is wildly OP, and game breaking. If you think the delay getting to 4th level in a particular class should be mitigated by allowing ASI's to occur on total char level, you have not played enough 5e to grasp the impact.

I proposed it as a solution to a multi-class with five levels in warlock and potential problems getting their ASIs in going forward; I quoted the damn post FFS. Next time read what you're yelling at instead of just insulting people.

 I read it very carefully. You are proposing separating the 4th, 8th, 12tyh, 16th, and 19th level ASI's from progression in any particular class, and make them overall level dependent. That would be a disaster, since almost every class is front end loaded.  Any analysis leads to the same conclusion. It is an absolutely terrible idea.

 Yes it is not part of the standard rules, but it is not cheating and surely doesn't go against every theme and character progression.  This is at the end of the day a game that allows for DMs/GMs to make their own house rules however they see fit. It's not like he is saying to do this as a player without talking to your dm or to do this for a Adventure League character. I think you should go take a step back respect that everyone here has the right to choose to play 100% by the book or make personal judgement calls.  If it was cheating to do anything outside of the core books, then you wouldn't have wonderful homebrew content available to use because that to would be considered cheating. 

As a Fellow DM I can say I currently don't use this option but I have considered it from time to time because I liked the way it worked back in 3.5 for feats.  Then it wasn't based on class level but character level.

AND AS FOR YOU @haravikk...  you keep on doing what works for you at your table. ;)

 and before you tell me about how "OP" it is and "game breaking".  Know that you are 100% entitled to your opinion and 100 are entitled to use your opinion however you see fit at your table.  You are however not entitled to tell someone that that they can't run their own games however they see fit.  That is rude and is unbecoming of people in this community who should be supporting one another not tearing one another down for their own creativity.  

Enjoy the game your way, and let others enjoy the game their way.  Sometimes unexpected outcomes can come from us exploring new ideas that go beyond the core mechanics, and sometimes we learn that things work better a certain way.  but again thats for each DM to discover what works for them and their players.  

Respect one another and just roll the dice :)

Quote from Revenant33 >>

Quote from Revenant33 >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

And what you are proposing is cheating, and goes against every theme and char progression rule in 5e. There is no negotiation. The rules are clear. If what you propose was installed in a game here is nothing stopping some player from MC'ing across 5 or 6 classes, with virtually no penalty. No, just no.

What I proposed was a house-rule that a DM could optionally choose to employ if they wanted, and it isn't as game-breaking as you hysterically pretend (or at all); every level you take in one class means something lost in the other(s), all it would do is make it easier to maintain ability score progression in line with everyone else.

Sure, you could go five or six classes deep if you wanted, but your build would be a complete mess of conflicting abilities, or a heap of 1st level spells that won't have enough impact in higher level fights. Plus a DM using a house-rule still retains full power to shut down any clearly abusive combo and just say "no, taking the piss". All this house rule really does is avoid the awkwardness when taking one more or fewer level in an additional class.

In absolutely no way is it cheating, so kindly drop the bad attitude.

 Your"house rule" would bring horrible changes to the game balance. Two levels of Hexblade, three levels of Paladin, PLUS an ASI...... Yeah, that is wildly OP, and game breaking. If you think the delay getting to 4th level in a particular class should be mitigated by allowing ASI's to occur on total char level, you have not played enough 5e to grasp the impact.

I proposed it as a solution to a multi-class with five levels in warlock and potential problems getting their ASIs in going forward; I quoted the damn post FFS. Next time read what you're yelling at instead of just insulting people.

 I read it very carefully. You are proposing separating the 4th, 8th, 12tyh, 16th, and 19th level ASI's from progression in any particular class, and make them overall level dependent. That would be a disaster, since almost every class is front end loaded.  Any analysis leads to the same conclusion. It is an absolutely terrible idea.

 Yes it is not part of the standard rules, but it is not cheating and surely doesn't go against every theme and character progression.  This is at the end of the day a game that allows for DMs/GMs to make their own house rules however they see fit. It's not like he is saying to do this as a player without talking to your dm or to do this for a Adventure League character. I think you should go take a step back respect that everyone here has the right to choose to play 100% by the book or make personal judgement calls.  If it was cheating to do anything outside of the core books, then you wouldn't have wonderful homebrew content available to use because that to would be considered cheating. 

As a Fellow DM I can say I currently don't use this option but I have considered it from time to time because I liked the way it worked back in 3.5 for feats.  Then it wasn't based on class level but character level.

AND AS FOR YOU @haravikk...  you keep on doing what works for you at your table. ;)

 and before you tell me about how "OP" it is and "game breaking".  Know that you are 100% entitled to your opinion and 100 are entitled to use your opinion however you see fit at your table.  You are however not entitled to tell someone that that they can't run their own games however they see fit.  That is rude and is unbecoming of people in this community who should be supporting one another not tearing one another down for their own creativity.  

Enjoy the game your way, and let others enjoy the game their way.  Sometimes unexpected outcomes can come from us exploring new ideas that go beyond the core mechanics, and sometimes we learn that things work better a certain way.  but again thats for each DM to discover what works for them and their players.  

Respect one another and just roll the dice :)

 Well said. No need for accusation when the intent is mere discussion. 

Also, 2 levels in fighter pairs well with basically any class, cause action surge is always useful.