Help pick my class!

[GreyBlack]

Hey y'all!

So, after some ridiculous games recently, I spoke to my DM and we killed off my character at my request in a full on Death of Superman moment. It was awesome and the entire table loved it.

BUT, it does leave me in a bit of a bind as to what to play next. I'm looking for suggestions on character builds or classes that you might consider weak, but are fun to play.

Some caveats:
1. No paladins, barbarians, fighters, or clerics. I have a history of ascending to godhood in my games, especially with those classes, so I'm looking for something that isn't in my strengths wheelhouse.
2. No melee builds. I have a tendency to play an up close and personal fighter type, and that tends to lead to some pretty ridiculous scenarios, so I don't want to play to my strength here.
3. I'm trying to avoid class overlap with the other characters. Currently, we have a Monk/Warlock, a Cleric, a Rogue, a Bard, and a Fighter (Samurai), so I'd like to not step on toes.

Character ideas I'm currently considering:
1. Halfling Drakerider Ranger. Because who doesn't want to fly around shooting a bow at enemies while riding a dragon?
2. A Pokemon master Druid: Circle of Shepherd, "I wanna be the very best!" type of dude.
3. A master spy Wizard (based on the Beguiler of 3.5)

So. Any other ideas? Please halp!

[Kane0]

I would say artificer, wizard or druid. Looks like you have plenty of Cha casters already

[strangebloke]

In a six person party you're always going to be stepping on some toes no matter what.

Drake rider ranger doesn't work until fifteenth level so I would recommend against.

My take? Tiefling fiend warlock. Blow every one up with over casted fireballs, cackle like a madman, but then just be absurdly chill and calm the rest of the time. Don't take charisma skills, take every knowledge. Just be this weird unsettling but friendly guy who always knows too much.

[Sillybird99]

Hey y'all!

So, after some ridiculous games recently, I spoke to my DM and we killed off my character at my request in a full on Death of Superman moment. It was awesome and the entire table loved it.

BUT, it does leave me in a bit of a bind as to what to play next. I'm looking for suggestions on character builds or classes that you might consider weak, but are fun to play.

Character ideas I'm currently considering:
1. Halfling Drakerider Ranger. Because who doesn't want to fly around shooting a bow at enemies while riding a dragon?
2. A Pokemon master Druid: Circle of Shepherd, "I wanna be the very best!" type of dude.
3. A master spy Wizard (based on the Beguiler of 3.5)

So. Any other ideas? Please halp!

What is your priority? Weak or fun? It sounds like you are trying to not be powerful on purpose. Playing any full caster is going to make you the strongest one at the table eventually.

So if no melee builds and no full casters, I'd say straight alchemist artificer or straight ranger without combat feats (xbow expert, SS) are your best bets of filling out the party according to your rules and breaking relatively 'weak but fun.'

*I played ranger/rogue with ritual caster that was thematically really cool. His brother was a wizard and taught him some stuff. It was definitely not strong in combat, but did ok. Out of combat was pretty fun.

[Khrysaes]

Hey y'all!

So, after some ridiculous games recently, I spoke to my DM and we killed off my character at my request in a full on Death of Superman moment. It was awesome and the entire table loved it.

BUT, it does leave me in a bit of a bind as to what to play next. I'm looking for suggestions on character builds or classes that you might consider weak, but are fun to play.

Some caveats:
1. No paladins, barbarians, fighters, or clerics. I have a history of ascending to godhood in my games, especially with those classes, so I'm looking for something that isn't in my strengths wheelhouse.
2. No melee builds. I have a tendency to play an up close and personal fighter type, and that tends to lead to some pretty ridiculous scenarios, so I don't want to play to my strength here.
3. I'm trying to avoid class overlap with the other characters. Currently, we have a Monk/Warlock, a Cleric, a Rogue, a Bard, and a Fighter (Samurai), so I'd like to not step on toes.

Character ideas I'm currently considering:
1. Halfling Drakerider Ranger. Because who doesn't want to fly around shooting a bow at enemies while riding a dragon?
2. A Pokemon master Druid: Circle of Shepherd, "I wanna be the very best!" type of dude.
3. A master spy Wizard (based on the Beguiler of 3.5)

So. Any other ideas? Please halp!


Small character Battlesmith Artificer Archer.

Mix of the smart character, ranged combat via bow, riding a robotic dragon(it can look however you want it, including be bipedal and have functioning opposable thumbs to hold things)

I.e. You wanted to ride a dragon, so you made one yourself.

Take Ritual Caster (Wizard) to give versatility

Once you can, infuse a cloak of flying and have your pet equip it.

Edit:

Looked at the infusions. Level 10 has Winged boots and level 14 has Cloak of the night.
No winged cloak, but the boots are good too.

[Nikushimi]

Some caveats:
1. No paladins, barbarians, fighters, or clerics. I have a history of ascending to godhood in my games, especially with those classes, so I'm looking for something that isn't in my strengths wheelhouse.
2. No melee builds. I have a tendency to play an up close and personal fighter type, and that tends to lead to some pretty ridiculous scenarios, so I don't want to play to my strength here.
3. I'm trying to avoid class overlap with the other characters. Currently, we have a Monk/Warlock, a Cleric, a Rogue, a Bard, and a Fighter (Samurai), so I'd like to not step on toes.

Character ideas I'm currently considering:
1. Halfling Drakerider Ranger. Because who doesn't want to fly around shooting a bow at enemies while riding a dragon?
2. A Pokemon master Druid: Circle of Shepherd, "I wanna be the very best!" type of dude.
3. A master spy Wizard (based on the Beguiler of 3.5)

So. Any other ideas? Please halp!

I mean, unless you're using some homebrew class, there is no "Drakerider" ranger, though there is the Drakewarden. However you won't be able to actually ride your drake for a long time as it starts out small and only becomes medium sized at level 7 and large at 15th level, and it can't fly with you on it until you're level 15...so. Take that into account.

Personally, the most interesting option imo is the Master Spy Wizard. Take Divination or Illusion would work well for that feel I think.
----

My personal thoughts? With your stipulations it narrows the options of classes to Artificer, Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. The weakest one here, imo, is the Ranger though slightly mitigated with the optional rules in Tasha's for them.

So, personally I think some kind of Swarmkeeper Ranger would be cool and flavorful. Could make a really strange, chicken loving version of Link from Zelda whose swarm is just a bunch of chickens that actually help him instead of harming him. Like they made a truce at one point and now help him attack and defend. Or really any kind of "swarm" that your DM allows.

Along the lines of a Pokemon Trainer you could go the Beast Master route using the optional rules from Tasha's to summon different beasts of land, water, and sky.

So, there are ways to make, imo one of the "weakest" classes to be flavorful and fun. Though, you'd have to stick to archery stuff since Rangers COULD be frontline and you want to avoid that.

In the end, I'd choose Ranger or Wizard. Alchemist from the Artificer wouldn't be bad either.

[Eldariel]

The most unique option with absolutely no overlap is the Druid. A casty Druid, a Moon Druid, a summoner Druid, whatever works.

For Wizards, there's slight overlap with Bard and Warlock but they combo nicely (e.g. CC Wizard loves Eloquence Bard) and most subclasses work just fine. Notable options include the CC-like Diviner, Chronurgist and Illusionist, the tanky Abjurer & War Wizard (Abjurer can project Ward too) and the DPRy Evoker and Bladesinger (that can also tank - you can go ranged to avoid tanking). Necromancer can be an interesting tank/minionmancer Death Knight-like character too.

Honestly, it's just down to what you want to play. Though if we think about the party, some restoration, AOE and CC would be welcome so Shepherd Druid or something line Wildfire, Land or Stars could also work.

[GreyBlack]

Okay, so some stuff.

I see a lot of people saying that Drakewarden doesn't work until 15th. After reading the class, I have to say none of y'all know what you're talking about. Drakewarden does function; at 7th level, you are allowed to ride it even if not flying. But, it sounds to me like you're griping about power levels here, which as previously stated is SOOOOO not a concern for me. "Oh, no! I can't take to the skies and rain death upon all who cross my bow! Woe is me!"

If I wanted power, I would have stayed with my Goliath Rune Knight who could casually bench press a literal ton. Let's focus less on whether a class actually works and whether or not a character concept is interesting and weird, even if it doesn't exactly "work."


In a six person party you're always going to be stepping on some toes no matter what.

Drake rider ranger doesn't work until fifteenth level so I would recommend against.

My take? Tiefling fiend warlock. Blow every one up with over casted fireballs, cackle like a madman, but then just be absurdly chill and calm the rest of the time. Don't take charisma skills, take every knowledge. Just be this weird unsettling but friendly guy who always knows too much.

We have a Warlock, and Warlocks work too well. So, not taking Warlock.


What is your priority? Weak or fun? It sounds like you are trying to not be powerful on purpose. Playing any full caster is going to make you the strongest one at the table eventually.

So if no melee builds and no full casters, I'd say straight alchemist artificer or straight ranger without combat feats (xbow expert, SS) are your best bets of filling out the party according to your rules and breaking relatively 'weak but fun.'

*I played ranger/rogue with ritual caster that was thematically really cool. His brother was a wizard and taught him some stuff. It was definitely not strong in combat, but did ok. Out of combat was pretty fun.

I'm definitely erring on the "Fun" side of things. Honestly, I tend to make more powerful non-caster characters than full casters, so saying "Playing any full caster is going to make you the strongest at the table eventually" sounds like a pretty bad take to me. Wizards and Sorcerers especially are pretty limited by their spell choices; making a Wizard who has no boom spells and only creates illusions, for example, would be interesting.

That said, I am looking at a straight Ranger without combat feats, especially the Beastmaster, Drakewarden, and Swarmkeeper. I do have a Horizon Walker character concept, too, but that may be better suited to a different campaign.


I mean, unless you're using some homebrew class, there is no "Drakerider" ranger, though there is the Drakewarden. However you won't be able to actually ride your drake for a long time as it starts out small and only becomes medium sized at level 7 and large at 15th level, and it can't fly with you on it until you're level 15...so. Take that into account.

Personally, the most interesting option imo is the Master Spy Wizard. Take Divination or Illusion would work well for that feel I think.
----

My personal thoughts? With your stipulations it narrows the options of classes to Artificer, Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard. The weakest one here, imo, is the Ranger though slightly mitigated with the optional rules in Tasha's for them.

So, personally I think some kind of Swarmkeeper Ranger would be cool and flavorful. Could make a really strange, chicken loving version of Link from Zelda whose swarm is just a bunch of chickens that actually help him instead of harming him. Like they made a truce at one point and now help him attack and defend. Or really any kind of "swarm" that your DM allows.

Along the lines of a Pokemon Trainer you could go the Beast Master route using the optional rules from Tasha's to summon different beasts of land, water, and sky.

So, there are ways to make, imo one of the "weakest" classes to be flavorful and fun. Though, you'd have to stick to archery stuff since Rangers COULD be frontline and you want to avoid that.

In the end, I'd choose Ranger or Wizard. Alchemist from the Artificer wouldn't be bad either.

This character will be starting at level 9, so I'm not super concerned about not being able to start riding my Drake.

That said.... OMG, I love that image of a chicken loving young Link that just swarms everyone with chickens. Just a little fey child running around with a swarm of chickens. Even better, I'm thinking of the 3.5 "feat" of "Chicken infested" and maybe making the character some kind of riff on that; he is a cursed fey child that, whenever he tries to take something out of a bag, he has a 50% chance of grabbing a chicken instead, which just adds to his swarm. That image is amazing, and I very possibly will wind up using it. Thank you so much for that idea!

[da newt]

Gnome Druid lad in green tunic and tights w/ a small shield and a child's wooden sword - go Shepherd make a point to never use Conjure Animals for anything other than abyssal chickens (would require DM to buy into them being beasts for your purposes).

[GreyBlack]

Gnome Druid lad in green tunic and tights w/ a small shield and a child's wooden sword - go Shepherd make a point to never use Conjure Animals for anything other than abyssal chickens (would require DM to buy into them being beasts for your purposes).

I'm noticing a pattern here, and I'm loving the chickens theme. Let's gooooooooo!

[Sillybird99]

(would require DM to buy into them being beasts for your purposes).

Lol it would require DM buyin to even summon that many creatures all the time. What a headache for them and the rest of the table potentially. Super cool idea if everyone is on board though.

[GreyBlack]

Lol it would require DM buyin to even summon that many creatures all the time. What a headache for them and the rest of the table potentially. Super cool idea if everyone is on board though.

Conjure Animals can summon 8 Beasts of CR 1/4 or lower. Abyssal Chickens are CR 1/4, so if you were to convince the DM to simply turn them into Beasts (which, honestly, shouldn't be too hard), you could totally summon that many at a time.

[Khrysaes]

Gnome Druid lad in green tunic and tights w/ a small shield and a child's wooden sword - go Shepherd make a point to never use Conjure Animals for anything other than abyssal chickens (would require DM to buy into them being beasts for your purposes).

Halfling would be a good choice too, as Forest Gnome is a bit redundant with Shepard Druid getting beast speach.

I love this.

so 6 Shepard/x conjuration wizard? or Full Shepard?

I know 6 Shep/x conjuration wizard and/or 6 Peace cleric/x Shepard are both good.

The 6 peace cleric also fits with the Cuccos taking damage and summoning a swarm of them. Make all the chickens into the Cleric's bond and then when they get hit they swarm

[Sillybird99]

Conjure Animals can summon 8 Beasts of CR 1/4 or lower. Abyssal Chickens are CR 1/4, so if you were to convince the DM to simply turn them into Beasts (which, honestly, shouldn't be too hard), you could totally summon that many at a time.

I didn't mean convince them of the legality of summoning that many. I meant the practicality. Idk how often you have played with summons at the table, but in my experience there is at least one eye-roll going on.

[Eldariel]

I didn't mean convince them of the legality of summoning that many. I meant the practicality. Idk how often you have played with summons at the table, but in my experience there is at least one eye-roll going on.

That depends on the players and the arrangement too though. On computer it's dirt-easy to just autoroll 8 attacks and move the creatures to nearest available squares (if you also DM, this should come to you naturally for playing large hordes of weak enemies). On table it's a bit more complex but still, just roll 8d20, have DM state the target number (or check it out themselves or just state the attacks) and it's pretty quick to see how many hits and misses occur. Using a lot of minions is something that takes practice but it is doable on one minute's turn timer, especially if you get to choose what you summon and thus have stats available efficiently and DM is on-spot about creature ACs so you can just go "okay, X+ hits and everyone else misses" just taking first X damage dice (or color-paired X damage dice, whichever is more intuitive to you).

[strangebloke]

I see a lot of people saying that Drakewarden doesn't work until 15th. After reading the class, I have to say none of y'all know what you're talking about. Drakewarden does function; at 7th level, you are allowed to ride it even if not flying. But, it sounds to me like you're griping about power levels here, which as previously stated is SOOOOO not a concern for me. "Oh, no! I can't take to the skies and rain death upon all who cross my bow! Woe is me!"
Effectiveness isn't the question. It's a question of being able to do what you said you wanted to do: ride the flying dragon.



We have a Warlock, and Warlocks work too well. So, not taking Warlock.

Warlocks are customizable in such a way that you can have multiple warlocks without overlap. You don't need to take eldritch agonizing blast.

I also wasn't sure what the warlock/monk split was.

[GreyBlack]

I didn't mean convince them of the legality of summoning that many. I meant the practicality. Idk how often you have played with summons at the table, but in my experience there is at least one eye-roll going on.

Mmm. That's a good point. Don't really wanna slow down the game that much with the summons.

[Nikushimi]

Okay, so some stuff.

I see a lot of people saying that Drakewarden doesn't work until 15th. After reading the class, I have to say none of y'all know what you're talking about. Drakewarden does function; at 7th level, you are allowed to ride it even if not flying. But, it sounds to me like you're griping about power levels here, which as previously stated is SOOOOO not a concern for me. "Oh, no! I can't take to the skies and rain death upon all who cross my bow! Woe is me!"
Well, that is what you mentioned with the Drakewarden. Flying around shooting stuff. Which isn't until 15th level. Also, I was tired when going back through the Drakenwarden, so I misread the part where it bypasses the typical rules of a mount stating it has to be 1 size larger than you. so yeah, you can ride the medium drake as a medium character. That's my bad, though it does lose its flying speed, but as you said you're not quite worried about that. I just thought it was something you wanted to do as that was said in your original post. Oops. Lol.


I'm definitely erring on the "Fun" side of things. Honestly, I tend to make more powerful non-caster characters than full casters, so saying "Playing any full caster is going to make you the strongest at the table eventually" sounds like a pretty bad take to me. Wizards and Sorcerers especially are pretty limited by their spell choices; making a Wizard who has no boom spells and only creates illusions, for example, would be interesting.
Well, in most cases a caster will, eventually, become stronger than most martial classes. Typically anyways, but not wanting to get into semantics. Casters who are blasters are pretty powerful, while casters who aren't blasters are also powerful in their own right. Divination Wizard says your Natural 20 is now a Natural 1. Lots of ways to go with Wizards and spell casters in general.


This character will be starting at level 9, so I'm not super concerned about not being able to start riding my Drake.

That said.... OMG, I love that image of a chicken loving young Link that just swarms everyone with chickens. Just a little fey child running around with a swarm of chickens. Even better, I'm thinking of the 3.5 "feat" of "Chicken infested" and maybe making the character some kind of riff on that; he is a cursed fey child that, whenever he tries to take something out of a bag, he has a 50% chance of grabbing a chicken instead, which just adds to his swarm. That image is amazing, and I very possibly will wind up using it. Thank you so much for that idea!
As said, didn't know you were starting off at 9th level and as long as you're not too concerned about riding it, it can be a pretty cool option. Though might be a bit melee heavy unless you use it to keep your distance in battle.

But I'm glad you like the Link idea. Lol. I myself have thought of doing something similar, but never got around to it. Since they never say your swarm HAS to be a specific thing. You can CHOOSE your swarm, so it would be hilarious to use chickens. So no problem. Glad you liked the idea.

[GreyBlack]

Well, that is what you mentioned with the Drakewarden. Flying around shooting stuff. Which isn't until 15th level. Also, I was tired when going back through the Drakenwarden, so I misread the part where it bypasses the typical rules of a mount stating it has to be 1 size larger than you. so yeah, you can ride the medium drake as a medium character. That's my bad, though it does lose its flying speed, but as you said you're not quite worried about that. I just thought it was something you wanted to do as that was said in your original post. Oops. Lol.


Well, in most cases a caster will, eventually, become stronger than most martial classes. Typically anyways, but not wanting to get into semantics. Casters who are blasters are pretty powerful, while casters who aren't blasters are also powerful in their own right. Divination Wizard says your Natural 20 is now a Natural 1. Lots of ways to go with Wizards and spell casters in general.


As said, didn't know you were starting off at 9th level and as long as you're not too concerned about riding it, it can be a pretty cool option. Though might be a bit melee heavy unless you use it to keep your distance in battle.

But I'm glad you like the Link idea. Lol. I myself have thought of doing something similar, but never got around to it. Since they never say your swarm HAS to be a specific thing. You can CHOOSE your swarm, so it would be hilarious to use chickens. So no problem. Glad you liked the idea.

Oh, yeah. Not your fault at all on any of these things. No worries there.

[Sception]

Given the party, I'd lean druid or wizard - but that's a pretty large party so if you did go for druid wouldn't go heavy into summoning. Maybe wildfire instead of shepherd?

But honestly, I'd go for the spymaster wizard, that sounds like a fun build. Or possibly an abberant mind sorcerer built for the same concept, possibly dipping 2 levels into warlock for the 'mask of many faces' invocation, or 3 for that plus chain familiar and voice of the chain master invocation, which combines very with the Actor feat on spymaster/infiltrator builds.

[GreyBlack]

Given the party, I'd lean druid or wizard - but that's a pretty large party so if you did go for druid wouldn't go heavy into summoning. Maybe wildfire instead of shepherd?

But honestly, I'd go for the spymaster wizard, that sounds like a fun build. Or possibly an abberant mind sorcerer built for the same concept, possibly dipping 2 levels into warlock for the 'mask of many faces' invocation, or 3 for that plus chain familiar and voice of the chain master invocation, which combines very with the Actor feat on spymaster/infiltrator builds.

The way you say that makes me now think that, instead of a spymaster, maybe I should just go full Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and just play up the brain touching the void thing. Basically, play Summer Tam, but with fewer scruples and much more "The voices in my head are telling me to burn things."

Really play up the alien nature of things, and maybe play into the alien abduction trope?

[Eldariel]

The way you say that makes me now think that, instead of a spymaster, maybe I should just go full Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and just play up the brain touching the void thing. Basically, play Summer Tam, but with fewer scruples and much more "The voices in my head are telling me to burn things."

Really play up the alien nature of things, and maybe play into the alien abduction trope?

You could also do that with Diviner, seeings things that aren't meant to be seen with a touch to an adjacent world that only you can see (hence why you can "pick" the future with Portent and divine so much and so on). I played a similar character once and it was a lot of fun.

[GreyBlack]

You could also do that with Diviner, seeings things that aren't meant to be seen with a touch to an adjacent world that only you can see (hence why you can "pick" the future with Portent and divine so much and so on). I played a similar character once and it was a lot of fun.

You absolutely could, but Diviner Wizard seems more mystic-y and controlled. More like someone who is actively studying his occult connection to whatever this aberrant mind is. Honestly, if I go that route, I don't want to make it seem like the character is studying; no spellbook, no nothing. Just letting the brain touch the void and then letting the crazy flow.

Given some of the Wizard's features, such as the Spellbook, that doesn't strike me as "I'm in touch with aliens, and now they're talking to me" that strikes me as "Aliens are out there and I must study them." That level of control is something I'd want to avoid with such a character.

If I'm playing a Diviner Wizard, I'd go with the Spymaster type. If I'm going with the "Alien Invasion" trope, I'm going with Aberrant Sorcerer. Both sound super fun, but they will play very differently.

ETA: ALTHOUGH.... Playing a character based on Dib from Invader Zim would be _super_ fun. There's some evidence of demonic/diabolic entities in town, so maybe playing him like that would be fun. "There's a demon invasion in this town, and it's all because of that guy!"

[nickl_2000]

Githyanki Aberrant Mind Sorcerer who focus on psychic and telekenetic powers. You won't ever be the most powerful, but you can be a major edgelord and absolutely frightening.

[GreyBlack]

Githyanki Aberrant Mind Sorcerer who focus on psychic and telekenetic powers. You won't ever be the most powerful, but you can be a major edgelord and absolutely frightening.

I dunno if I want "Frightening," though.

I tend to flourish when I'm not playing characters who are actively trying to be menacing or foreboding or frightening, but instead as the comic relief who, when they actually step up, go absolute ham on the enemy. This has, in the past, actually become a problem for some DM's when I have done absolutely ridiculous things when the party was in a bind. (e.g. a 3.P game where my half-orc Barbarian who thought he was a bear and frequently played for comic relief solo'd an Ancient Red Dragon to save the rest of the party, playing a character based on Groundskeeper Willie only to have him basically turn most boss monsters into a joke when he got serious, etc.) It's become a running gag that these characters tend to become literal gods in their constituent worlds when left unchecked.

So, playing an absolute edgelord sounds kinda lame to me, as it lacks a lot of the comic edge that I try and keep in my characters to prevent them from succumbing to the "I'm better than you" syndrome that, as a player, I actively try and avoid. I don't like playing badasses, because playing a badass makes it sound like I'm trying too hard to be better than someone and I really don't like playing either with or as that kind of character.

So, instead of a Githyanki, I think I'd rather play it as a Pixie or a Rabbitfolk, or some other type of cutesy creature. Because having someone say "The Void devours all! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" sounds a lot less threatening when it's being said by a cute little bunny.

[nickl_2000]

I dunno if I want "Frightening," though.

I tend to flourish when I'm not playing characters who are actively trying to be menacing or foreboding or frightening, but instead as the comic relief who, when they actually step up, go absolute ham on the enemy. This has, in the past, actually become a problem for some DM's when I have done absolutely ridiculous things when the party was in a bind. (e.g. a 3.P game where my half-orc Barbarian who thought he was a bear and frequently played for comic relief solo'd an Ancient Red Dragon to save the rest of the party, playing a character based on Groundskeeper Willie only to have him basically turn most boss monsters into a joke when he got serious, etc.) It's become a running gag that these characters tend to become literal gods in their constituent worlds when left unchecked.

So, playing an absolute edgelord sounds kinda lame to me, as it lacks a lot of the comic edge that I try and keep in my characters to prevent them from succumbing to the "I'm better than you" syndrome that, as a player, I actively try and avoid. I don't like playing badasses, because playing a badass makes it sound like I'm trying too hard to be better than someone and I really don't like playing either with or as that kind of character.

So, instead of a Githyanki, I think I'd rather play it as a Pixie or a Rabbitfolk, or some other type of cutesy creature. Because having someone say "The Void devours all! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" sounds a lot less threatening when it's being said by a cute little bunny.

You could certainly play up that side of it instead, a cutsie bunny who is occasionally channels some powerful eldritch being and blacks out while doing it. Afterwards comes back innocently having no clue what in the world just happened

You could also play it as a more Gith or Hobgoblin that has been reincarnated as a Harigon or something just as fluffy.

[J-H]

Alchemist artificer. They can do some of everything. There's an active thread now on the topic.

[Psyren]

+1 Alchemist since you're actively trying to be a bit weak. Go with one of the better subclasses if not.

[Khrysaes]

I like 2 warlock/x alchemist

The two short rest slots means that you can use the slots to fuel your potion ability twice per short rest.

Some invocations, like Eldritch mind, eldritch sight, devil's sight, eyes of the runekeeper, and the false life one are very fitting for an alchemist.

I personally pick the eyes of runekeeper and eldritch sight.

[GreyBlack]

Alchemist artificer. They can do some of everything. There's an active thread now on the topic.


+1 Alchemist since you're actively trying to be a bit weak. Go with one of the better subclasses if not.


I like 2 warlock/x alchemist

The two short rest slots means that you can use the slots to fuel your potion ability twice per short rest.

Some invocations, like Eldritch mind, eldritch sight, devil's sight, eyes of the runekeeper, and the false life one are very fitting for an alchemist.

I personally pick the eyes of runekeeper and eldritch sight.

I'll consider the suggestion of Artificer, but honestly, Artificer just doesn't seem fun. Maybe I just don't understand the class and class fantasy here, but it seems super niche fantasy, and doesn't really _do_ anything.

The 5e Artificer seems like a great NPC class, but as a PC, not so much. I'd rather play a Druid or a Wizard with skills in Alchemy and/or Nature to make potions.

ETA: Although, I will say I do love the Pathfinder Alchemist. That said, I do find very little overlap between the PF Alchemist and the 5e Alchemist, so maybe that's where my problem lies; I'm comparing apples to oranges? Someone please explain.

[Psyren]

Someone please explain.

For me the primary fun of Artificer is being a great trapmonkey without having to be a rogue, and being a solid Int/investigation/loremonkey without being a Wizard. Those roles are less necessary in 5e than they were in 3.5, but there are still plenty of DMs who call for Int checks, and many builds tend to dump the stat since it's not really tied to skill acquisition or scaling anymore and ASIs are so valuable. Chances are the other folks in the party are martials or Wis/Cha based, so you have a good chance of your services being in demand.

Artificer also gets some really fun features:

- They know their entire spell list
- Flash of Genius to weaponize being a know-it-all on their or the party's behalf
- More attunement slots than any other character
- Relevant buffs for anyone in the party via infusions
- Can attune to restricted items
- Cheap magic item crafting for the party if that's a thing in your game (and if it isn't, Infusions let you cherry-pick items the group most needs).
- Can use spell-storing for bonus preparations/slots (which their homunculus/familiar or a party member can use on their behalf.)
- Great damage if you go Artillerist or Battlesmith
- Solid tanking if you go Armorist or Battlesmith
- Alchemist also exists!



The one hesitation I see most often for them is the potential flavor clash between their scientific creations and standard medieval fantasy - but Tasha's did a great job showing how they have a place in every setting, not just Eberron. Which is a pretty good thing considering that Tasha's itself is not a setting-specific book.

The other hesitation of course is for very low-magic-item campaigns, but there they become even more useful since the party is likely to have a bunch of attunement slots going to waste in those cases.

[Khrysaes]

I'll consider the suggestion of Artificer, but honestly, Artificer just doesn't seem fun. Maybe I just don't understand the class and class fantasy here, but it seems super niche fantasy, and doesn't really _do_ anything.

The 5e Artificer seems like a great NPC class, but as a PC, not so much. I'd rather play a Druid or a Wizard with skills in Alchemy and/or Nature to make potions.

ETA: Although, I will say I do love the Pathfinder Alchemist. That said, I do find very little overlap between the PF Alchemist and the 5e Alchemist, so maybe that's where my problem lies; I'm comparing apples to oranges? Someone please explain.

I think the fantasy is the "Smart guy who makes stuff"

There are other character archetypes in D&D that do that too, such as the forge cleric,
but the artificer is the most versatile one.

[Sception]

The way you say that makes me now think that, instead of a spymaster, maybe I should just go full Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and just play up the brain touching the void thing. Basically, play Summer Tam, but with fewer scruples and much more "The voices in my head are telling me to burn things."

Really play up the alien nature of things, and maybe play into the alien abduction trope?

Sounds like a pretty cool character concept to me. Maybe multiclass with great ones warlock, or maybe keep it single classed. Either way really. Single classed sorcerers in 5e have been a bit frustratingly limited, mostly due to getting too few spells known from a too narrow spell list, but the Tasha's sorcerers, including aberrant mind, fix that right up with their adjustable bonus spells known, plus they're just cool and fun generally.

If you use dndbeyond as your character sheet, be aware that, afaik, they still haven't managed to implement your ability to swap out spells on the tasha sorcerer bonus spell lists as you level, so you might need some extra work to track that.

[KorvinStarmast]

The 5e Artificer seems like a great NPC class, but as a PC, not so much. Yep. That said, the guy I have who plays one enjoys it quite a bit.

[Sception]

+1 Alchemist since you're actively trying to be a bit weak. Go with one of the better subclasses if not.

I don't know. There's "a bit weak", and then there's "alchemist". Half casting is a really nice way to a versatile set of supporting abilities around a core non-caster mechanical identity, like that provided by the martial classpects of the paladin, ranger, & battlesmith. But alchemist is kind of missing that core supporting structure. It's all herbs & spices, no meat & vegetables. All neat & flavorful ancillary abilities, but lacking in bog standard, round-by-round actions.

Artificer is designed in a way that puts a lot of weight (imo too much) on subclasses for basic character functionality, and Alchemist kind of struggles to carry it. It's not unplayable or anything, mind, but even so.

[Psyren]

I don't know. There's "a bit weak", and then there's "alchemist". Half casting is a really nice way to a versatile set of supporting abilities around a core non-caster mechanical identity, like that provided by the martial classpects of the paladin, ranger, & battlesmith. But alchemist is kind of missing that core supporting structure. It's all herbs & spices, no meat & vegetables. All neat & flavorful ancillary abilities, but lacking in bog standard, round-by-round actions.

Artificer is designed in a way that puts a lot of weight (imo too much) on subclasses for basic character functionality, and Alchemist kind of struggles to carry it. It's not unplayable or anything, mind, but even so.

You're preaching to the choir, trust me (as my facetious last bullet above was meant to indicate :smallsmile:). Again, my suggestion was more predicated on the OP's stated desire to self-nerf. Any of the other three subclasses boost the artificer considerably higher in one direction or another.

[GreyBlack]

For me the primary fun of Artificer is being a great trapmonkey without having to be a rogue, and being a solid Int/investigation/loremonkey without being a Wizard. Those roles are less necessary in 5e than they were in 3.5, but there are still plenty of DMs who call for Int checks, and many builds tend to dump the stat since it's not really tied to skill acquisition or scaling anymore and ASIs are so valuable. Chances are the other folks in the party are martials or Wis/Cha based, so you have a good chance of your services being in demand.

Artificer also gets some really fun features:

- They know their entire spell list
- Flash of Genius to weaponize being a know-it-all on their or the party's behalf
- More attunement slots than any other character
- Relevant buffs for anyone in the party via infusions
- Can attune to restricted items
- Cheap magic item crafting for the party if that's a thing in your game (and if it isn't, Infusions let you cherry-pick items the group most needs).
- Can use spell-storing for bonus preparations/slots (which their homunculus/familiar or a party member can use on their behalf.)
- Great damage if you go Artillerist or Battlesmith
- Solid tanking if you go Armorist or Battlesmith
- Alchemist also exists!



The one hesitation I see most often for them is the potential flavor clash between their scientific creations and standard medieval fantasy - but Tasha's did a great job showing how they have a place in every setting, not just Eberron. Which is a pretty good thing considering that Tasha's itself is not a setting-specific book.

The other hesitation of course is for very low-magic-item campaigns, but there they become even more useful since the party is likely to have a bunch of attunement slots going to waste in those cases.

So, based on that, it actually makes me even more hesitant to go into Artificer. It seems, to me, like there is no real reason for an artificer to go into the dungeon; why isn't he just making a deal with the other PC's to supply them with support top-side while they go into the dungeon? Effectively, you're becoming a glorified air traffic controller, not an adventurer. "Hold on while I craft you some magic items and infuse magic into your stuff... and now don't forget to split the profits with me!"

Which, granted, isn't a bad thing. It just doesn't feel very "Adventurer-y" to me.

I dunno; maybe Artificer just isn't a class for me. I liked old versions of the Artificer (e.g. 3.x, 4e), but this version just isn't sticking. Maybe it's the 5e "mechanics" for crafting (or lack thereof)?

[Gtdead]

I'd love to play an evoker blaster in this party. Most bases are already covered and blasting can be very fun. I don't think that the playstyle steps on anyone's toes. And you always have the option of bringing more utility to the party which is always a good thing to have.

[Psyren]

So, based on that, it actually makes me even more hesitant to go into Artificer. It seems, to me, like there is no real reason for an artificer to go into the dungeon; why isn't he just making a deal with the other PC's to supply them with support top-side while they go into the dungeon? Effectively, you're becoming a glorified air traffic controller, not an adventurer. "Hold on while I craft you some magic items and infuse magic into your stuff... and now don't forget to split the profits with me!"

Because they won't get any XP and progress their class that way? What an odd question.

Presumably, a PC Artificer is the kind of character that wants to see their gadgets in action, take notes on their efficacy in the field, and continuously hone their craft. This to me is like asking why a cleric bothers going into the dungeon instead of just running prayer services and mass in the wealthy district all the time. You can probably earn a lot more money doing the latter if you hook a few juicy nobles into the congregation after all.


I liked old versions of the Artificer (e.g. 3.x, 4e), but this version just isn't sticking. Maybe it's the 5e "mechanics" for crafting (or lack thereof)?

I'm the opposite, I really disliked the 3.5 version. (4e Artificer was primarily a reskinned bard, i.e. Arcane Leader/Controller.) I wasn't a fan of 3.5 crafting to begin with, and a class that more or less made you feel forced to interact with the system, or else wonder why you bothered with the class at all, was not my cup of tea. Yeah you could do an Infusion-only build (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?427628-Disregard-Money-Acquire-Buff-Spells-Artificers-without-the-Artifice) and do reasonably well, but I'd much rather leave one feature on the table than half the ones I get over my career. Also, you needed UMD/UPD to use half of what you made (the wands and such anyway), which just made me feel like an up-jumped muggle instead of a magical artisan.

5e artificer meanwhile has a couple of crafting-related features - well, just the one really - but you (and more importantly, your GM) are free to ignore any such features completely without impacting the class' power in any way.

[J-H]

I'm DMing for a 16th level Armorer. His AC is in the mid-20s, his strength is 21 thanks to an infusion, and he's Iron Man (instant-suit up, flying armor) who can tank or do some lightning zaps for, I think, about 5d6+10 net per round? He can tank, he can fly, he can buff with Haste, he can help others with magic items, etc.

Alchemists can:
-Crunch heal (Healing Word/Mass HW), Lesser Restoration at level 9, temp HP with elixirs, Greater Restoration or Heal 1/day at 15th
-Do cantrip damage all day like any other caster, with INT to damage on most elemental types, making them the best cantrip caster for damage in the game... and the Anytool (name?) means you can swap out one cantrip per day if you get it.
-Create elixirs for free, or with 1st level spell slots. For the cost of a few 1st level slots, you can hit the whole party with Concentration-free flight (10 minutes), Alter Self (water breathing/swim speed, 10 minutes), stacking Bless (+1d4 to attacks and saves for 1 minute, stacks with Bless), or +10 move speed for 1 hour. Pair up with a priest and give everyone +2d4 to hit and saves before a big fight. Giving everyone Water Breathing or Flight for 10 minutes opens up good mobility opportunities in inconvenient terrain.
-Hand out infusions. Of note:
+15' teleport as a BA back to a space you occupied earlier in the turn. Go in, hit, and teleport out with no OAs, every round.
+Homonculus that gives you a bonus action ranged spell attack, 1d4+PB force damage.
+Darkvision 60'
+Lantern of Revealing, Detect Invisibility 30' radius for 6 hours on a pint of oil.
+STR or INT 19 items at 10th level
+Flight boots, Spider climb boots at 10th
+STR 21 item at 14th level
+Spell Storing Item (apparently very exploitable)

The problem I have with artificer is that there are almost too many options.

[GreyBlack]

Because they won't get any XP and progress their class that way? What an odd question.

Presumably, a PC Artificer is the kind of character that wants to see their gadgets in action, take notes on their efficacy in the field, and continuously hone their craft. This to me is like asking why a cleric bothers going into the dungeon instead of just running prayer services and mass in the wealthy district all the time. You can probably earn a lot more money doing the latter if you hook a few juicy nobles into the congregation after all.

But that's why I feel like the Artificer is a great NPC class; the fantasy of the artificer lends itself so well to not going into the dungeon and just sending the heroes in to do it for them. The solution of "Well, you won't gain XP," at least to me, is kind of a non-diegetic answer.

I would like to sidebar about the Cleric, since you brought it up, and just note that the Cleric is not a priest. Anyone can be a priest if you take the Acolyte background. Rather, the Cleric is a miracle worker who roams from town to town performing great feats, including turning the undead away from the town, bringing down divine power on the werewolf, etc. Normally, I argue the Cleric is less "The Pope" and more "Vampire Hunter" in terms of concept. But that's neither here nor there; I'm both playing a Cleric in another game and Cleric is my most frequently played class, so that's off the table.

[Psyren]

Alchemists can:
-Crunch heal (Healing Word/Mass HW), Lesser Restoration at level 9, temp HP with elixirs, Greater Restoration or Heal 1/day at 15th
-Do cantrip damage all day like any other caster, with INT to damage on most elemental types, making them the best cantrip caster for damage in the game... and the Anytool (name?) means you can swap out one cantrip per day if you get it.
-Create elixirs for free, or with 1st level spell slots. For the cost of a few 1st level slots, you can hit the whole party with Concentration-free flight (10 minutes), Alter Self (water breathing/swim speed, 10 minutes), stacking Bless (+1d4 to attacks and saves for 1 minute, stacks with Bless), or +10 move speed for 1 hour. Pair up with a priest and give everyone +2d4 to hit and saves before a big fight. Giving everyone Water Breathing or Flight for 10 minutes opens up good mobility opportunities in inconvenient terrain.
-Hand out infusions. Of note:
+15' teleport as a BA back to a space you occupied earlier in the turn. Go in, hit, and teleport out with no OAs, every round.
+Homonculus that gives you a bonus action ranged spell attack, 1d4+PB force damage.
+Darkvision 60'
+Lantern of Revealing, Detect Invisibility 30' radius for 6 hours on a pint of oil.
+STR or INT 19 items at 10th level
+Flight boots, Spider climb boots at 10th
+STR 21 item at 14th level
+Spell Storing Item (apparently very exploitable)

The problem I have with artificer is that there are almost too many options.

My primary issue with Alchemist is that every other Artificer subclass can also do the vast majority of this stuff, and do it better in a lot of cases. For example, the Homunculus BA attack looks great, until you realize that every other subclass has much better uses (both damage and utility) for their own BA, AND they can use the homunculus attack if they really feel the need to on top of that. With the Protector Cannon, the Artillerist might even beat them at "healing" some days.


But that's why I feel like the Artificer is a great NPC class; the fantasy of the artificer lends itself so well to not going into the dungeon and just sending the heroes in to do it for them. The solution of "Well, you won't gain XP," at least to me, is kind of a non-diegetic answer.

I gave the diegetic answer though, you won't learn as much about how to improve your creations (or yourself) if you stay topside. Which, not coincidentally, translates to the lack of XP in game terms.

Still though, it's up to you, I'm not here to yuck your yum or vice-versa.

[GreyBlack]

I gave the diegetic answer though, you won't learn as much about how to improve your creations (or yourself) if you stay topside. Which, not coincidentally, translates to the lack of XP in game terms.

Still though, it's up to you, I'm not here to yuck your yum or vice-versa.

Okay, I think I have a way to rationalize it to myself, and correct me if I'm wrong here.

Back in the day when the earth was young, there were no such things as "photographs." If you wanted to see something like Notre Dame de Paris, you would have to physically travel there to observe it. If you were an architect of some type, you'd literally have to physically go, observe it, sketch out the basic floor plan, and run the calculations in order to gain that type of knowledge.

As such, I could conceive of some architect engineer type who is going out into the world to investigate the various shapes and structures of buildings and habitats all over the world. So, reason they're delving into the dungeon is because they're interested in ancient and lost mechanical structures, and wants to reinvigorate the world's knowledge of these mechanics in order to create something bigger and better.

But, honestly, that doesn't feel super compelling. There's no "Architect" skill in game, there's no real mathematics skill in 5e, nothing that really supports that type of build. There's Arcana, sure, but I'm not comfortable with calling mathematics and engineering "magical," personally. Although, I will say that my brother, the mathematics and physics major, is probably a witch.

Maybe my problem is that my conception of an Artificer requires more mechanical support from the game than currently exists? Like, you'd have to create some more skills, beef up the crafting system, and create an entire subsystem of being able to build forts and keeps and such for yourself? It's less that it's a 5e problem and more of a "Me" problem.

[Psyren]

Okay, I think I have a way to rationalize it to myself, and correct me if I'm wrong here.

Back in the day when the earth was young, there were no such things as "photographs." If you wanted to see something like Notre Dame de Paris, you would have to physically travel there to observe it. If you were an architect of some type, you'd literally have to physically go, observe it, sketch out the basic floor plan, and run the calculations in order to gain that type of knowledge.

As such, I could conceive of some architect engineer type who is going out into the world to investigate the various shapes and structures of buildings and habitats all over the world. So, reason they're delving into the dungeon is because they're interested in ancient and lost mechanical structures, and wants to reinvigorate the world's knowledge of these mechanics in order to create something bigger and better.

See, why does it have to be "observing the Notre Dame de Paris?" I made a robot dog. I want to watch it fight a few times (and better yet, fight alongside it) so I can spot design flaws/limitations and make a better robot dog later. This is abstracted by the level-up system, which has me make a better robot dog. If I don't go and gain that experience, my skills don't improve and my dog stays static. It really is just that simple, unless of course you want it to be more convoluted than that.

Same with Infusions. I can use my internal magical aura to maintain X of them, just like any other caster can use their internal magic to prepare Y spells. As I put myself in harm's way day after day, my technique or reserve of power or mental focus or overall stamina or whatever you want to think of it as grows, and I can maintain more simultaneously. This pertains to levels again. It's no different for them than any other magic-using class.


But, honestly, that doesn't feel super compelling. There's no "Architect" skill in game, there's no real mathematics skill in 5e, nothing that really supports that type of build. There's Arcana, sure, but I'm not comfortable with calling mathematics and engineering "magical," personally. [color=#000fff]Although, I will say that my brother, the mathematics and physics major, is probably a witch.

Maybe my problem is that my conception of an Artificer requires more mechanical support from the game than currently exists? Like, you'd have to create some more skills, beef up the crafting system, and create an entire subsystem of being able to build forts and keeps and such for yourself? It's less that it's a 5e problem and more of a "Me" problem.

Artificers already have all the support/justification they need, hence getting reprinted in a setting-neutral splat. But if what WotC has devised doesn't work for you, that's completely fine, you don't have to play one. I was only suggesting it based on the gaps I perceived in your party makeup; if you find the idea that off-putting, please by all means disregard.

[GreyBlack]

See, why does it have to be "observing the Notre Dame de Paris?" I made a robot dog. I want to watch it fight a few times (and better yet, fight alongside it) so I can spot design flaws/limitations and make a better robot dog later. This is abstracted by the level-up system, which has me make a better robot dog. If I don't go and gain that experience, my skills don't improve and my dog stays static. It really is just that simple, unless of course you want it to be more convoluted than that.

Same with Infusions. I can use my internal magical aura to maintain X of them, just like any other caster can use their internal magic to prepare Y spells. As I put myself in harm's way day after day, my technique or reserve of power or mental focus or overall stamina or whatever you want to think of it as grows, and I can maintain more simultaneously. This pertains to levels again. It's no different for them than any other magic-using class.

The concept, for me, was more that you can't do the necessary calculations and research without going out into the world and seeing these various things for yourself. How are you going to improve your robot dog? Well, observing beast behavior to make it more "accurate" to the real thing. I only used Notre Dame de Paris as an example.

If we were to swap the dog for a turtle, I could now envision a Charles Darwin type character who is traveling to the metaphorical Galapagos to observe the behaviors of the tortoises and tinker with my creation based on what I'm observing.

Of course, WOTC kinda got rid of the Archivist, which was my favorite of the Artificer subclasses, and that would go perfectly with the above character concept. But, alas, WOTC doesn't know a good idea from a bad one sometimes.


Artificers already have all the support/justification they need, hence getting reprinted in a setting-neutral splat. But if what WotC has devised doesn't work for you, that's completely fine, you don't have to play one. I was only suggesting it based on the gaps I perceived in your party makeup; if you find the idea that off-putting, please by all means disregard.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I said this very well may be a "Me" problem. Right now, I'd like to thank you for helping me understand how the class fantasy of the Artificer might be interesting. I will say that I don't think the Artificer is a strong enough concepts without some modification to the base 5e system personally, but at least I now understand why sometimes someone might like the concept in theory.

[Psyren]

The concept, for me, was more that you can't do the necessary calculations and research without going out into the world and seeing these various things for yourself. How are you going to improve your robot dog? Well, observing beast behavior to make it more "accurate" to the real thing. I only used Notre Dame de Paris as an example.

If we were to swap the dog for a turtle, I could now envision a Charles Darwin type character who is traveling to the metaphorical Galapagos to observe the behaviors of the tortoises and tinker with my creation based on what I'm observing.

Sounds like we're on the same page then, field observation and experience are valuable (as they would be for any caster). I was just questioning your belief that an artificer would prefer to stay home rather than get this empirical data. (I mean, I'm sure some would, but those would generally not be adventurers/PCs by definition.)


Of course, WOTC kinda got rid of the Archivist, which was my favorite of the Artificer subclasses, and that would go perfectly with the above character concept. But, alas, WOTC doesn't know a good idea from a bad one sometimes.

Was that like a proposed subclass that never made it to print? The only "Archivist" I know is the 3.5 one.


Oh, absolutely. That's why I said this very well may be a "Me" problem. Right now, I'd like to thank you for helping me understand how the class fantasy of the Artificer might be interesting. I will say that I don't think the Artificer is a strong enough concepts without some modification to the base 5e system personally, but at least I now understand why sometimes someone might like the concept in theory.

You're welcome!

[GreyBlack]

Was that like a proposed subclass that never made it to print? The only "Archivist" I know is the 3.5 one.



Oh, word? UA 58 had an Artificer subclass called the Archivist that was all about programming artificial intelligences. It was super cool and it was cut because most people didn't understand what it was trying to achieve.

[Psyren]

Gotcha - yeah, I don't really bother with UA stuff, there's more than enough in print to occupy my attention now.

[stoutstien]

Setting aside all the flavor components the artificer is basically the ultimate switch hitter and 5th man. There's few classes that they actually match up one-on-one against but the fact that they can be compared to every class simultaneously is telling.

I recommend eventually playing one because they're just fun. Especially true if you get bored with one tone options. Just so many little nuances that you can play with.

[sithlordnergal]

Hehehe, you could go Hexblade Warlock / Wild Magic Sorcerer.

The Hexblade is really only there for the Medium Armor, the meat of this class is gonna be Wild Magic Sorcerer. You'll need to be careful with your spell choices, but Sorcerers can be pretty decent. And Wild Magic is always going to be a fun choice


You can also go Order of Scribes Wizard. You'll probably want a way to use armor, so maybe a single level in a frontline class, like fighter or cleric, but its not required. That said, Order of Scribes is probably my favorite Wizard subclass. Being able to change damage types at will is a huge boon, especially when you add in the Tasha feats. Specifically, take the Crusher feat. You can find bludgeoning damage from spells in just about every spell level, which means you can do things like cast Scorching Ray, have it deal Bludgeoning damage, and then benefit from the Crusher feat.

[GreyBlack]

Hehehe, you could go Hexblade Warlock / Wild Magic Sorcerer.

The Hexblade is really only there for the Medium Armor, the meat of this class is gonna be Wild Magic Sorcerer. You'll need to be careful with your spell choices, but Sorcerers can be pretty decent. And Wild Magic is always going to be a fun choice


You can also go Order of Scribes Wizard. You'll probably want a way to use armor, so maybe a single level in a frontline class, like fighter or cleric, but its not required. That said, Order of Scribes is probably my favorite Wizard subclass. Being able to change damage types at will is a huge boon, especially when you add in the Tasha feats. Specifically, take the Crusher feat. You can find bludgeoning damage from spells in just about every spell level, which means you can do things like cast Scorching Ray, have it deal Bludgeoning damage, and then benefit from the Crusher feat.

Seeing as the entire intent is to make the opposite of a frontline-er, I fail to see why I would want armor?

The DM has also explicitly banned the Warlock/Sorcerer combo. Something about "No, you're not allowed to have unlimited spell slots, by Odin's left eye, why would you even ask, that's madness?"

[sithlordnergal]

Seeing as the entire intent is to make the opposite of a frontline-er, I fail to see why I would want armor?

The DM has also explicitly banned the Warlock/Sorcerer combo. Something about "No, you're not allowed to have unlimited spell slots, by Odin's left eye, why would you even ask, that's madness?"

You always want armor, even if you're in the backline. @_@ In my experience, if you're a spell caster then the DM WILL target you, even if you're in the backline. I have seen 4 Werewolves and their leader ignore a Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian just to get at me, the spell caster. My only saving grace was that I had armor. X_X

As for the unlimited spell slots, a single level of Warlock wouldn't do that and its questionable how well that works...but honestly, taking any class that grants armor works. Heck, they could even go dwarf for Medium Armor proficiency.

[GreyBlack]

You always want armor, even if you're in the backline. @_@ In my experience, if you're a spell caster then the DM WILL target you, even if you're in the backline. I have seen 4 Werewolves and their leader ignore a Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian just to get at me, the spell caster. My only saving grace was that I had armor. X_X

As for the unlimited spell slots, a single level of Warlock wouldn't do that and its questionable how well that works...but honestly, taking any class that grants armor works. Heck, they could even go dwarf for Medium Armor proficiency.

Or just Sorcerer Extend Spell Mage Armor. 16 hours of 13+dex armor at the low cost of 1 level 1 spell and 1 sorcery point.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the point when there's more effective defensive options out there than multiclassing and not getting much out of it.

[sithlordnergal]

Or just Sorcerer Extend Spell Mage Armor. 16 hours of 13+dex armor at the low cost of 1 level 1 spell and 1 sorcery point.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the point when there's more effective defensive options out there than multiclassing and not getting much out of it.

That costs a Sorcery Point, Spell Slot, and you need an 20 Dex to max out at 18 AC. Fighter/Sorcerer with even Medium Armor and Defense FS grants 19 AC with Scale Mail, 14 Dex, a Shield, and 100gp.

[GreyBlack]

That costs a Sorcery Point, Spell Slot, and you need an 20 Dex to max out at 18 AC. Fighter/Sorcerer with even Medium Armor and Defense FS grants 19 AC with Scale Mail, 14 Dex, a Shield, and 100gp.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is.... and?

The bigger cost is that you can't get your capstone and you're devoting an entire level of your build to potentially something only momentarily useful.

So, IMHO, it the Sorcery Point and Spell Slot cost less than a full level in something useless.

ETA: I'll also remind you that Fighter is on the banned class list. I've gotten in trouble with Fighters in the past and will not dip my toes in there. If you can find a way to justify dipping into (for example) Ranger, I'll consider it.

[sithlordnergal]

I guess what I'm trying to say here is.... and?

The bigger cost is that you can't get your capstone and you're devoting an entire level of your build to potentially something only momentarily useful.

So, IMHO, it the Sorcery Point and Spell Slot cost less than a full level in something useless.

I guess I can see that. To be honest, I find most capstones very underwhelming. For example, the Sorcerer capstone grants you 4 Sorcery Points every short rest, at a time when you can have 19 to 21 depending on feats. Its extremely underwhelming, to the point where I don't need it. Especially when starting as a Fighter nets you:

4 more max HP then what you get as a Sorcerer

Saves that are just as good

Bonus action heal

All martial weapons and armor

Fighting style of your choice

And better starting gear

All in all, I'd say that's better than a single spell, a spell slot, and 4 sorcery points per short rest at level 20. That's not even enough to get a decent number of spell slots back.

Now, if we were talking about the Druid, then I'd agree that its not worth it.

Edit: And yeah, Fighter is on the banned list. But I still say go for a class that gives you armor proficiency.

[strangebloke]

From a general optimization perspective I'd generally argue that medium armor is something most characters should have eventually. It's really easy to get and does offer a significant bonus at no real cost.

But it's really disagreeable to me from a flavor perspective to take a single level of cleric or (especially) hexblade. It's pure out of character logic and it really doesn't make sense how getting a blessing from a god of knowledge suddenly makes you an expert in armor when that's otherwise treated as something very difficult to learn (though "learning to use armor" is sort of silly in itself, but that's another story)

[Psyren]

Setting aside all the flavor components the artificer is basically the ultimate switch hitter and 5th man. There's few classes that they actually match up one-on-one against but the fact that they can be compared to every class simultaneously is telling.

I recommend eventually playing one because they're just fun. Especially true if you get bored with one tone options. Just so many little nuances that you can play with.

Not only are they a great 5th man they can also be the primary trapguy and loremonkey for a group that doesn't have one.


Seeing as the entire intent is to make the opposite of a frontline-er, I fail to see why I would want armor?

The DM has also explicitly banned the Warlock/Sorcerer combo. Something about "No, you're not allowed to have unlimited spell slots, by Odin's left eye, why would you even ask, that's madness?"

I mean, if they don't want you converting pact slots into points that's easy enough to ban without kneecapping the whole combo.

[GreyBlack]

From a general optimization perspective I'd generally argue that medium armor is something most characters should have eventually. It's really easy to get and does offer a significant bonus at no real cost.

But it's really disagreeable to me from a flavor perspective to take a single level of cleric or (especially) hexblade. It's pure out of character logic and it really doesn't make sense how getting a blessing from a god of knowledge suddenly makes you an expert in armor when that's otherwise treated as something very difficult to learn (though "learning to use armor" is sort of silly in itself, but that's another story)

And there's the tricky word: "Optimization." I'm really trying not to optimize at all, and just make something fun.

So, if I'm doing something for only optimization's sake, then why should I consider it?

[Psyren]

Well the two aren't mutually exclusive...

Based on your opening post, it seems like nearly any non-melee ranger, wizard or druid can do the trick. Maybe a bit more about what you consider fun can help narrow it down within that solution set?

[GreyBlack]

Well the two aren't mutually exclusive...

Based on your opening post, it seems like nearly any non-melee ranger, wizard or druid can do the trick. Maybe a bit more about what you consider fun can help narrow it down within that solution set?

Oh, at this point, we've figured out what I'm going with; I'm just enjoying the discussion to help pick other classes and understand the base mechanics that might develop into new and interesting characters in the future.

[Psyren]

Gotcha - what did you pick? The dragonrider Ranger?

[GreyBlack]

Gotcha - what did you pick? The dragonrider Ranger?

Actually went with the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer. Have a pretty cool hook to it and we decided that it's actually an NPC who had been in the game.

Long story short, the DM wants to do a storyline where one of the big mob bosses is going to essentially perform a coup d'etat, and my character is/was the "gentleman caller" of the city governor. Who happens to be a Yuan-Ti who was trying to get the city under their control. He's been a sort-of on-again-off-again ally of the PC's, and using him now actually feels right.

Oh, and the DM would frequently ask me to voice him because apparently I do voices good. So it's a character I've sort-of played since the beginning of the campaign anyway.