Why have I not heard of more Fighter2 dipping?

[Endarire]

On Player's Handbook 72, a Fighter2 can take an extra turn once per short rest! This extra turn has no limits. Hello, spellcasting!

A Fighter2/Caster18 seems like a wonderful way to make an optimal character. You only need 13 DEX or STR to multiclass out of Fighter.

[hecetv]

On Player's Handbook 72, a Fighter2 can take an extra turn once per short rest! This extra turn has no limits. Hello, spellcasting!

A Fighter2/Caster18 seems like a wonderful way to make an optimal character. You only need 13 DEX or STR to multiclass out of Fighter.

I didn't take part in the play test at all but I've heard people say that that was the best nova casters were fighter2 casterX so it is talked about sometimes.

Ultimately I think consensus is that it's better to get higher level spells earlier than once a short rest nova.

[Baptor]

It was my understanding that the RAW said you can't cast more than one real spell per round no matter what. You can cast extra cantrips though. I may be wrong and I don't have time to look it up, anyone got a page reference or did this one come out of my behind?

[Perseus]

Eh, it is nice but you don't need it to be a great evoker in this edition. Broomstick sorcerer does it well enough without dips in Fighter.

[Eslin]

On Player's Handbook 72, a Fighter2 can take an extra turn once per short rest! This extra turn has no limits. Hello, spellcasting!

A Fighter2/Caster18 seems like a wonderful way to make an optimal character. You only need 13 DEX or STR to multiclass out of Fighter.

Yep, frequently very useful for classes like wizards - start off as a fighter, you get to start with 21 AC and proficiency on constitution saves and the second level gives you an extra action (not turn) every short rest. Choosing the fighter levels early does delay your spellcasting by a full level however, which is a very big deal.


It was my understanding that the RAW said you can't cast more than one real spell per round no matter what. You can cast extra cantrips though. I may be wrong and I don't have time to look it up, anyone got a page reference or did this one come out of my behind?

If you use a bonus action to cast a spell, all other spells that turn have to be cantrips. Fighter gives you an extra action, so it doesn't violate that. Plus if you want to get round it in regular situations just cast your spell then use the bonus action to cast a cantrip, RaW legal =D

[Human Paragon 3]

This is totally viable, and I'm pretty sure the rule about your second spell being a cantrip only applies if you are casting a spell as a bonus action. If you have 2 real actions, then you can cast two spells of any level.

The downside of this build is (as people said above) that it delays your higher level spells by two levels, so when your friends are casting third level spells, you're still casting 2nd level spells, and when they're casting 6th level spells, you're still only at 5th. It also limits the power of your lower level spells since you don't have the same high-level slots. It also means you don't get 9th level spells until level 19, which is pretty much never.

From the other side, it delays your stat boost, so you will also be lagging behind your friends in terms of attributes or feats. Personally, I would not dip anything for fewer than 4 levels, because getting those 20s is pretty important to me.

All that said, action surge is awesome and dipping fighter is not a dumb move at all.

[Shadow]

It was my understanding that the RAW said you can't cast more than one real spell per round no matter what. You can cast extra cantrips though. I may be wrong and I don't have time to look it up, anyone got a page reference or did this one come out of my behind?

That's the rule if you cast a spell as a bonus action.
Action Surge gives you an entirely new action to work with.
A fighter-2/sorcerer-X could hypothetically cast a quickened spell as a bonus action, then cast a cantrip with his action (following the rules of bonus spells on page 202) and then action surge and cast another spell with that action, for three spells that round.

[Baptor]

If you use a bonus action to cast a spell, all other spells that turn have to be cantrips. Fighter gives you an extra action, so it doesn't violate that. Plus if you want to get round it in regular situations just cast your spell then use the bonus action to cast a cantrip, RaW legal =D

Thanks Eslin for correcting me!

[Perseus]

That's the rule if you cast a spell as a bonus action.
Action Surge gives you an entirely new action to work with.
A fighter-2/sorcerer-X could hypothetically cast a quickened spell as a bonus action, then cast a cantrip with his action (following the rules of bonus spells on page 202) and then action surge and cast another spell with that action, for three spells that round.

Yup, though in this game you don't need that extra action. Plus it refreshes on a short or long rest so you will be giving up class features of the sorcerer (high level ones) for a 1/S or L rest extra spell. Its nice and all but the way the game is set up you don't need to optimize even that much.

Though Fighter 2/Sorcerer X does make for a better EK I think... Well maybe more fighter. (Subrace) Halfling Fighter/Sorcerer archery style range death god does sound fun... Death by arrow or spell...

[Eslin]

Yup, though in this game you don't need that extra action. Plus it refreshes on a short or long rest so you will be giving up class features of the sorcerer (high level ones) for a 1/S or L rest extra spell. Its nice and all but the way the game is set up you don't need to optimize even that much.

Though Fighter 2/Sorcerer X does make for a better EK I think... Well maybe more fighter. (Subrace) Halfling Fighter/Sorcerer archery style range death god does sound fun... Death by arrow or spell...

Try eldritch knight 7/warlock 2- many blasts and bonus action bow attack every time you do.

[Hytheter]

I think it's hilarious that even in a totally different system, and for totally different reasons, Fighter 2 is still a killer dip just like in 3.5.

[Eslin]

I think it's hilarious that even in a totally different system, and for totally different reasons, Fighter 2 is still a killer dip just like in 3.5.

Well, it wasn't really in 3.5. It was a good dip for a lot of martials if you weren't taking levels in a class with a useful system (ToB, incarnum, psionic, gish) and decent even if you were, but crappy for most other characters.

In 5e a two level fighter dip breaks even in pretty much any build - it varies in strength, but there are few or no instances where you can go 'no, this is a bad investment'. And that's pretty amazing.

[Perseus]

I think it's hilarious that even in a totally different system, and for totally different reasons, Fighter 2 is still a killer dip just like in 3.5.

Well when you front load a class with the best item of the class and don't give it anything *awesome* later in its life... Yeah it will be a very dip friendly class.

*The other class features (outside subclass) really don't stack up to Action Surge.

I'm surprised the wording wasn't changed to something like "perform an action besides casting a spell" or whatever.

[Eslin]

Well when you front load a class with the best item of the class and don't give it anything *awesome* later in its life... Yeah it will be a very dip friendly class.

*The other class features (outside subclass) really don't stack up to Action Surge.

I'm surprised the wording wasn't changed to something like "perform an action besides casting a spell" or whatever.

It's not like casting a spell is supposed to be stronger than attacking with your action - and fighters can cast spells now too =P

[Perseus]

It's not like casting a spell is supposed to be stronger than attacking with your action - and fighters can cast spells now too =P

But it does take a different sort of concentration than attacking. The EK knight has a specific class feature for attacking and casting a cantrip, why would a level 2 ability copy it?

I'll give 5e some credit, it is like they wanted to give non casters nice things but ended up restricting them so much that the nice things became "Meh".

Remarkable Athlete and Indomitable are both good examples of class features that could be awesome but they fall flat.

The first one is just... So out of whck they should just take a long hard look at their lives and figure out what went wrong that they thought it was a good idea and the second one... Well you will be using it saves you are probably bad at to begin with (wisdom saves) so a reroll probably isn't going to help all that much unless you get lucky.

Make remarkable Athlete work like expertise (pick 2 physical skills though) and increase the jump by +100% of your normal jump and at least it wouldn't be worthless as it is now.

Indomitable, just make them legendary saves and you have a solid fantastic ability. Wizard cast a high level spell of doom that is sure to take out lesser women? Not Linda the fighter, she just shrugs it off and keeps on going. If you change it to this way Fighter 9 will be quite popular and you will have a reason to go past fighter 2.

[Eslin]

But it does take a different sort of concentration than attacking. The EK knight has a specific class feature for attacking and casting a cantrip, why would a level 2 ability copy it?

I'll give 5e some credit, it is like they wanted to give non casters nice things but ended up restricting them so much that the nice things became "Meh".

Remarkable Athlete and Indomitable are both good examples of class features that could be awesome but they fall flat.

The first one is just... So out of whck they should just take a long hard look at their lives and figure out what went wrong that they thought it was a good idea and the second one... Well you will be using it saves you are probably bad at to begin with (wisdom saves) so a reroll probably isn't going to help all that much unless you get lucky.

Make remarkable Athlete work like expertise (pick 2 physical skills though) and increase the jump by +100% of your normal jump and at least it wouldn't be worthless as it is now.

Indomitable, just make them legendary saves and you have a solid fantastic ability. Wizard cast a high level spell of doom that is sure to take out lesser women? Not Linda the fighter, she just shrugs it off and keeps on going. If you change it to this way Fighter 9 will be quite popular and you will have a reason to go past fighter 2.

Well, you do have a reason to go past fighter 2. Fighter 4 and 6 give boosts/feats, fighter 5 gives extra attack and fighter 3 gives 3 maneuvers and 4 superiority dice, a fantastic investment.

Which is kind of the problem - 3 levels of fighter gives you 4 superiority dice and an extra action, the next 17 give you 2 superiority dice and an extra action. The first 3-5 levels give far more than the next 15 do. Battlemaster 5 is amazing, battlemaster 15 is not 3 times as amazing. Contrast a paladin or wizard who get to look forward to cool new stuff constantly to a battlemaster or champion fighter who get to slowly drag on after level 5, get a decent boost in damage at 11 which is still not very exciting (it's just +numbers, look I get 4 attacks per round instead of 3) and then slowly drag on until 20.

We need ToB!

[Perseus]

Well, you do have a reason to go past fighter 2. Fighter 4 and 6 give boosts/feats, fighter 5 gives extra attack and fighter 3 gives 3 maneuvers and 4 superiority dice, a fantastic investment.


We need ToB!

Battle master is mostly meh except for one maneuver (totally need a gnome with menacing strike "Rawr I'm a monster"). Why go after all that other stuff when I can pick up so much more from other classes?

I'm not saying fighter is useless but they just aren't interesting. Extra attack is pretty much the same as 3.5 " ooooh I swing my weapon really fast again". Also, feats (a very optional choice) shouldn't be a highlight of a class.


Edit: also, yes, we need ToB5e

[Eslin]

Battle master is mostly meh except for one maneuver (totally need a gnome with menacing strike "Rawr I'm a monster"). Why go after all that other stuff when I can pick up so much more from other classes?

I'm not saying fighter is useless but they just aren't interesting. Extra attack is pretty much the same as 3.5 " ooooh I swing my weapon really fast again". Also, feats (a very optional choice) shouldn't be a highlight of a class.


Edit: also, yes, we need ToB5e

Because it gives you a bunch of choice other classes don't. A fighter with a couple of hand crossbows and the ability to push, trip and taunt foes is great at level 3 - it's just as you level your choices are the options you didn't want at previous levels, as opposed to casters who get and more options every level.

[Marcelinari]

Ooh, here's an idea - every time you have the option of gaining a new maneuver, you can instead gain another superiority die.

[Eslin]

Ooh, here's an idea - every time you have the option of gaining a new maneuver, you can instead gain another superiority die.

Not a terrible idea, and it'd certainly improve them.

But the issue still remains that they get access to a small pool of maneuvers at level 3 that never grows, and indeed shrinks as you take more of the options. By level 15, the only maneuvers you have to choose from are the ones you didn't want at level 3, 7 or 10 while the wizard is getting access to yet another pool of newer, better spells.

[LucianoAr]

it does sound amazing. btw say youre a lvl 5 paladin, if you take 2 levels in fighter, you get 2 extra attacks using your action surge? or just 1 like with haste?

[silveralen]

it does sound amazing. btw say youre a lvl 5 paladin, if you take 2 levels in fighter, you get 2 extra attacks using your action surge? or just 1 like with haste?

Two extra, it's a full action. A paladin of vengeance who dips fighter can do some really nice burst damage.

[Eslin]

it does sound amazing. btw say youre a lvl 5 paladin, if you take 2 levels in fighter, you get 2 extra attacks using your action surge? or just 1 like with haste?

Scales with your actions. You do get two sets of two attacks, it doesn't have the rider haste has specifying only one. Just in case it slipped by please note that you don't get an extra bonus action, just an extra action, I've had players think they were getting an entire extra turn

[Perseus]

The thing is though, unless you have a horrible capstone (coughrangercough) or only decent mid to late game class features you don't really need Action Surge. Action surge is like a dipping sauce, sure it makes things fantastic but you don't need it to receive the nourishment of the dipping food.

Gravey on the taters.

All the classes do just fine without Fighter 2.

Another thing that people tend to forget (along with feats) is that muktuclassing is up to the DM. I see a lot of cool builds on here or threads about advice and yet not many people ask "is multiclassing allowed" they just assume that it is.

Which is fine but we need to remember that by base rules, multiclassing is not automatically ok.

[Eslin]

The thing is though, unless you have a horrible capstone (coughrangercough) or only decent mid to late game class features you don't really need Action Surge. Action surge is like a dipping sauce, sure it makes things fantastic but you don't need it to receive the nourishment of the dipping food.

Gravey on the taters.

All the classes do just fine without Fighter 2.

Another thing that people tend to forget (along with feats) is that muktuclassing is up to the DM. I see a lot of cool builds on here or threads about advice and yet not many people ask "is multiclassing allowed" they just assume that it is.

Which is fine but we need to remember that by base rules, multiclassing is not automatically ok.

Yep. All builds work fine without fighter 2, all builds work fine with fighter 2. Ideally that's how it should work with any levels of any classes, but this is not a perfect world.

And people ignore the whole part about multiclassing and feats technically being optional because honestly, why on earth wouldn't you include them? They're technically optional to reduce complexity for new players, it's be a given that they are part of the game.

I mean honestly, look at what the game would be like if you removed feats. Your average fighter wants two stats, strength and constitution, and gets 7 stat boosts. By the time they're halfway through they'll have maxed the stats they care about, which is where feats come in.

[Ghost Nappa]

Another thing that people tend to forget (along with feats) is that muktuclassing is up to the DM. I see a lot of cool builds on here or threads about advice and yet not many people ask "is multiclassing allowed" they just assume that it is.

Because a DM who nixes Multi-classing generally reduces the question of optimization to a simple enough experiment for most people to figure it out for themselves.

Really, the only people who needed help figuring out what they need to choose from at higher levels are casters. Martials are pretty specific in their roles in a single class.

But when you allow for multi-classing the complexity becomes sufficiently complicated that not everyone is going to be able to find what they want without peer review.

[Submortimer]

So, fighter2/warlock 2/ sorcerer 16 seems legit insane.

12d10+12d6+60 damage nova. avg of 168 force damage, plus shoving that asshat 120'. freaking nuts.

[Hytheter]

So, fighter2/warlock 2/ sorcerer 16 seems legit insane.

12d10+12d6+60 damage nova. avg of 168 force damage, plus shoving that asshat 120'. freaking nuts.

Plus if you take Fighter first you can wear full plate, a shield and defense style for 21 AC.

[Perseus]

Plus if you take Fighter first you can wear full plate, a shield and defense style for 21 AC.

And all of this is just not needed.

Against normal creatures you will be grossly overpowered (which can be fun I admit) and not have much of a challenge.

Against creatures like Tiamat... Well you still aren't badass enough to take her out fast enough.

5e has many flaws but one of them is not a need to optimize. Which is a good thing :smallsmile:.

If you want to optimize then by all means, but you don't need to in order to keep up with the game. At least they kept one thing from 4e :smalltongue:

[Eslin]

And all of this is just not needed.

Against normal creatures you will be grossly overpowered (which can be fun I admit) and not have much of a challenge.

Against creatures like Tiamat... Well you still aren't badass enough to take her out fast enough.

5e has many flaws but one of them is not a need to optimize. Which is a good thing :smallsmile:.

If you want to optimize then by all means, but you don't need to in order to keep up with the game. At least they kept one thing from 4e :smalltongue:

Eh, it means you do better in fights and you can skip ahead to fighting the more challenging stuff more quickly. Plus it's fun when the DM expects you to lose a fight and you win instead.

[Perseus]

Eh, it means you do better in fights and you can skip ahead to fighting the more challenging stuff more quickly. Plus it's fun when the DM expects you to lose a fight and you win instead.

If you are optimized I don't think the DM will expect you to lose. Plus the level of optimization most people expect on these forums, or when they give advice, is to the point where you make BBEG look like a minion.

I'm not against optimization but the love for it on these boards, to auto win, bugs me sometimes.

I've played uber chargers and I recently made a damn good grapple build for 5e so I get it... But not to the extremes of others.

I'm mostly being the voice of reason or devils advocate if you will, not speaking out against optimization.

Do note though, in your scenario, there is a good chance that you get into a arms race of DM versus PC that nobody wins. Optimization is something that must be done carefully.

I think beating a DM with pure power isn't as fun as beating them with tactics... But I'm the kind of player who doesn't lose HP in 3.P because of tactics and junk by outhinking said DM... So I know I'm coming from a different direction with all this.

[Eslin]

If you are optimized I don't think the DM will expect you to lose. Plus the level of optimization most people expect on these forums, or when they give advice, is to the point where you make BBEG look like a minion.

I'm not against optimization but the love for it on these boards, to auto win, bugs me sometimes.

I've played uber chargers and I recently made a damn good grapple build for 5e so I get it... But not to the extremes of others.

I'm mostly being the voice of reason or devils advocate if you will, not speaking out against optimization.

Do note though, in your scenario, there is a good chance that you get into a arms race of DM versus PC that nobody wins. Optimization is something that must be done carefully.

I think beating a DM with pure power isn't as fun as beating them with tactics... But I'm the kind of player who doesn't lose HP in 3.P because of tactics and junk by outhinking said DM... So I know I'm coming from a different direction with all this.
Obviously beating the DM with tactics is better than pure power, that's why optimisation heavily favours options. You only do things like decking the wizard in plate when it's cheap to do so.

Uberchargers are boring, nobody enjoys spending the rest of the game saying 'I attack' and nothing else, you want to build a character that is as useful as possible, not strong in one dimension.