Almost all 2024 feats now give +1 ASI; I think the free level 1 origin feats are the only exception.
D&D 5E Why Did You Take That Level of Fighter?
- Thread starter CleverNickName
- Start date
Tessarael
Adventurer
In our level 9 A5E campaign, we have a Dwarven Fighter 1/Wizard 8, who wears heavy armor and uses a tower shield. With his Wand of Fireballs, he does pretty high amounts of damage in an area. His AC is high, but his hit points are not that high, so he can still get in trouble sometimes. That said, it's a fun character that is moderately tanky and able to be on the front line of battle.
Any spellcaster doing a dip into Fighter is sacrificing some spellcasting progression. For the 5E D&D 2014 version, going to level 2 Fighter for Action Surge gives a spellcaster that can nova quite well at high levels. However for D&D 2024, Action Surge doesn't permit the Magic action to be taken twice. If you want to nova like that in D&D 2024, you need a Sorcerer level 2 quickened spell as a bonus action, and can cast a cantrip as your main action.
Keep in mind that a heavily armored spellcaster using a shield needs to keep a hand free, be a Cleric using a holy symbol emblazoned on their shield, have the War Caster feat to be able to perform somatic components while wielding weapon + shield, or otherwise have a way to have their weapon or shield as a spellcasting focus at least.
There are other ways to fix the desire to level dip into Fighter for a spellcaster. For example, the A5E Stekart's Enhanced Mage Armor rare spell variant gives AC 10 + your proficiency bonus + Dexterity modifier. So you're able to get AC closer to heavier types at high levels, particularly with Bracers of Defense +2.
In A5E, the other motivation for a level dip into Fighter is to pick up some combat maneuvers and for faster combat maneuver progression, which can be quite useful for some builds.
Note that you can also get heavy armor + shield proficiency from a level dip into Cleric.
Any spellcaster doing a dip into Fighter is sacrificing some spellcasting progression. For the 5E D&D 2014 version, going to level 2 Fighter for Action Surge gives a spellcaster that can nova quite well at high levels. However for D&D 2024, Action Surge doesn't permit the Magic action to be taken twice. If you want to nova like that in D&D 2024, you need a Sorcerer level 2 quickened spell as a bonus action, and can cast a cantrip as your main action.
Keep in mind that a heavily armored spellcaster using a shield needs to keep a hand free, be a Cleric using a holy symbol emblazoned on their shield, have the War Caster feat to be able to perform somatic components while wielding weapon + shield, or otherwise have a way to have their weapon or shield as a spellcasting focus at least.
There are other ways to fix the desire to level dip into Fighter for a spellcaster. For example, the A5E Stekart's Enhanced Mage Armor rare spell variant gives AC 10 + your proficiency bonus + Dexterity modifier. So you're able to get AC closer to heavier types at high levels, particularly with Bracers of Defense +2.
In A5E, the other motivation for a level dip into Fighter is to pick up some combat maneuvers and for faster combat maneuver progression, which can be quite useful for some builds.
Note that you can also get heavy armor + shield proficiency from a level dip into Cleric.
Tessarael
Adventurer
I'd argue that the following should be sufficient as a feat for a spellcaster to reduce the need for a level dip into Fighter:
Shielded Caster
General Feat (Prerequisites: Level 4+; Spellcasting or Pact Magic Feature)
- Shield proficiency
- Constitution saving throw proficiency
- You can use your shield as a spellcasting focus, if it's emblazoned appropriately (costs 5gp + a day to decorate it).
- This permits you to cast spells with V,M and V,S,M components, without having a hand free, providing that the material component is inexpensive.
- To use the shield as a spellcasting focus in this manner, these markings cannot be hidden, and they may glow or give off other audiovisual effects while spellcasting. For example, a Bard's shield might resonate like a chime, or have crystals with a tinkling sound, when casting.
I had originally listed light + medium armor, or heavy armor if you already have medium armor proficiency, as alternatives for shield proficiency. However in practice, shield proficiency will usually be the best option of these three, so I think it makes sense to simplify it to just shield proficiency, rather than giving a choice.
Note also that a shield can be used with the Mage Armor spell.
Last edited:
Iry
Legend
I'm in complete agreement with you on this. Totally Not A Fighter as presented by @CleverNickName is a genuinely hard choice for me. It's strong enough I would give it serious consideration, where many feats I simply wouldn't consider at all. I get 10 levels to work with, but only 2-3 feats, so every feat is major opportunity cost to either get +2 ASI or get access to something utterly unique like Reactive Strike.
Totally Not A Fighter is good enough I would feel pretty conflicted, but not so good it would be an automatic pick against just taking a level of Fighter.
CreamCloud0
Hero
i mean, it by itself is functionally almost equal to four other existing feats:
-light armour prof - Lightly Armoured
-medium armour and shield prof - Moderately Armoured
-CON saving throw prof - Resilient
-a fighter fighting style - Fighting Initiate
you miss out on three +1 ASIs (one to STR or DEX from both Armoured feats and the stat associated one from Resilient), but don't need the prerequisite of being trained in a martial weapon for Fighting Initiate.
if i were doing my own attempt at this feat then maybe...
Totally not a Fighter
Prerequisites: STR 13+, CON 13+
When you take this Feat you gain:
-gain the Lesser Wind feature (use a bonus action to regain 1d6+character level HP, feature refreshes after a short or long rest).
-proficiency with either one type of medium or heavy armour or shields.
-half proficiency on CON saving throws.
given a fighting style is almost it's own feat by itself it feels too generous to put that into a totally not a fighter feat.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Sure, but that's what makes the multiclass dip compelling. You're getting multiple feats of worth of abilities, but have to pay the cost of constantly being behind on your main class progression. That's a hard choice. And hard choices are good.
CreamCloud0
Hero
sure but NickName's proposed 'totally not a fighter' feat is exactly that, a feat, not a level dip, so sure it's got to be worth as a viable option to considered against dipping but it's also not got to totally outclass the sum total of nearly four other feats by itself.
Last edited:
This part breaks my brain, but it's not your fault. I think you make a good case for why it's a fine swap for War Caster. I just happen to have players that're always trying to get around the VSM - need a free hand requirement.
"Back in my day" the fantasy was "have a one-handed weapon in one hand, and fling spells with the other," but all my modern players want "sword in on hand, shield in the other, and cast spells" but they still want to max their casting stats ASAP so they don't want to take War Caster.
BTW, I realize the thread is about FIGHTER multiclass level, but the real juice is with taking your first level in Artificer because then you don't lose out on spell slot progression (as I learned from one savvy player).
Tessarael
Adventurer
Yes, I agree. Artificer is an even better one level dip at character level 1 for a spellcaster to pick up Concentration saving throw proficiency and shield proficiency, if you don't care about Fighting Style, and don't need heavy armor proficiency.
Regarding spell components, honestly, it is an annoyingly complicated rule that should not be needed any more in my opinion. I put together a summary for A5E for which cases you don't need a free hand. See this ENWorld thread:
Level Up (A5E) - Do material spell components always require a free hand in A5E?
If you're wielding a weapon, you can sheathe and unsheathe it to get around the free-hand requirement. Likewise, with a two-handed weapon, you can temporarily hold it in one hand while spellcasting.
The only way to avoid this is to make a house rule: "A free object interaction is used when casting a spell with Somatic or Material components. You cannot (un)sheathe a weapon or drop then pick it up as a free object interaction on the same turn."
But honestly, does it make spellcasters significantly more powerful if you allow them to wield a weapon and/or shield while spellcasting? No. The benefit is pretty minimal, coming down to whether you have a weapon in hand to make an opportunity attack when someone moves outside your range or similar.
So I would be more than happy to house rule that we don't care about a free hand when spellcasting. You do the weapon shuffle, or your shield is strapped to your arm, and I don't want to track in a fine-grained manner whether your weapon is sheathed or unsheathed.
Anyway, ignoring the whole issue of spell V,S,M components, the Shielded Caster feat I proposed would still be worthwhile. In simpler terms, it is the following:
Shielded Caster
General Feat (Prerequisites: Level 4+; Spellcasting or Pact Magic Feature)
Regarding spell components, honestly, it is an annoyingly complicated rule that should not be needed any more in my opinion. I put together a summary for A5E for which cases you don't need a free hand. See this ENWorld thread:
Level Up (A5E) - Do material spell components always require a free hand in A5E?
If you're wielding a weapon, you can sheathe and unsheathe it to get around the free-hand requirement. Likewise, with a two-handed weapon, you can temporarily hold it in one hand while spellcasting.
The only way to avoid this is to make a house rule: "A free object interaction is used when casting a spell with Somatic or Material components. You cannot (un)sheathe a weapon or drop then pick it up as a free object interaction on the same turn."
But honestly, does it make spellcasters significantly more powerful if you allow them to wield a weapon and/or shield while spellcasting? No. The benefit is pretty minimal, coming down to whether you have a weapon in hand to make an opportunity attack when someone moves outside your range or similar.
So I would be more than happy to house rule that we don't care about a free hand when spellcasting. You do the weapon shuffle, or your shield is strapped to your arm, and I don't want to track in a fine-grained manner whether your weapon is sheathed or unsheathed.
Anyway, ignoring the whole issue of spell V,S,M components, the Shielded Caster feat I proposed would still be worthwhile. In simpler terms, it is the following:
Shielded Caster
General Feat (Prerequisites: Level 4+; Spellcasting or Pact Magic Feature)
- Shield proficiency
- Constitution saving throw proficiency
- You can use your shield as a spellcasting focus.
IME the big benefit isn't attacks of opportunity, it's having a shield's +2 or more AC. +2 or 3 AC is a big deal in 5e, especially since the Shield spell stacks with a shield in 5e.
Ofc a caster CAN have a shield in one hand and a spell focus/free hand in the other; the big thing is that lots of other things require a free hand, and doing those things means you won't have a wand in your hand to cast spells between turns... the most common uses for that other hand in my game are drinking a potion, and climbing. So many times characters are climbing and end up engaging in combat, but climbing requires a free hand, but they always want shields, and donning/doffing a shield is an action.. so they get stuck if they're climbing cuz they need a free hand... OR they wanted to drink a potion, so they stowed their staff/weapon and drank, but now they don't have the action economy left to draw their stowed implement.
I also don't want to handwave it away, saying "ok you can have a weapon/focus and shield and just do whatever; climb, drink, etc," I'd be killing the reason to take War Caster right there.
I feel like if you don't want to bother with the pain in the butt action mechanics and you're gonna house-rule something, you're either going to:
A. handwave it away, as above "ok you can have a weapon/focus and shield and just do whatever."
or
B. just say "you need warcaster if you want to do any of that, we're not going to do with you trying to juggle actions to get around the rules."
5e currently rides the fence between A and B, and yeah it makes it a pain if your players want to have their cake and eat it too.
Similar Threads
