D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[Treantmonklvl20]

Isn't using a weapon just an upgrade to your at will attack though, at the cost of pushing DEX? (and melee being a bit dangerous but archery not especially so)

It seems to me they have the same choice a a normal wizard - at will attacks or turn it on with spells.

As a Wizard levels up, the Cantrips get used less and less though. At low, or even mid levels, I completely agree.

As to traditional Bladesinger fans, well they should realise they have to give up something for full casting, like some wizard levels (though wasn't it for fighter/MUs in 2e too?)

Hopefully more now realize that there is also the option of giving up full casting. In 2nd edition, when the Bladesinger was introduced, elves needed to Multiclass Wiz/Fighter, which meant being a lower level, so less casting. In 3rd, when it was reintroduced as a prestige class, a mutliclass with fighter was required to qualify, again, meaning giving up some casting ability.

Fans of the original Bladesinger who are looking to re-create the same kind of character in 5th ed should have no problem giving up some casting for some multiclass levels, they just need to know to do so. Hopefully, a few now do.

A very enjoyable guide by the way!

TY!

 

[NADRIGOL]

This is an excellent point. I made it work because my DM relaxed the multiclassing requirement. With stat array it's a nightmare to qualify, can be done with point buy, not it's still not pretty.

That makes sense. The more I tried to figure out that point buy, the more it hurt.

If he hadn't relaxed the requirement, I would have dipped a single fighter level (which I did qualify for) and grabbed TWF. I would have played with the idea of a couple more levels fighter and grab battlemaster for the combat tricks/superiority dice. Wiz 16/Fighter 4 I suspect would work reasonably well.

This is what I'm playing in my current campaign. Started Fighter with TWF. DM let me play a Human so I grabbed Dual Wielder. I'll grab warcaster at 4. Debating whether I'll grab a second fighter level after Wizard 5 for action surge. That would mean giving up the last Wizard ASI, but I don't expect we'll play to 20 anyways. That third fighter level gives you maneuvers but at the expense of Spell Mastery, and the fourth gets you back that lost ASI but at the cost of lvl 9 spells. Both very tough calls. I don't expect I'll make either (maneuvers in high level encounters vs effective +5AC, and ASI vs foresight/wish).

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

That makes sense. The more I tried to figure out that point buy, the more it hurt.



This is what I'm playing in my current campaign. Started Fighter with TWF. DM let me play a Human so I grabbed Dual Wielder. I'll grab warcaster at 4. Debating whether I'll grab a second fighter level after Wizard 5 for action surge. That would mean giving up the last Wizard ASI, but I don't expect we'll play to 20 anyways. That third fighter level gives you maneuvers but at the expense of Spell Mastery, and the fourth gets you back that lost ASI but at the cost of lvl 9 spells. Both very tough calls. I don't expect I'll make either (maneuvers in high level encounters vs effective +5AC, and ASI vs foresight/wish).

If you aren't getting to 9th level spells anyways, pick up that ASI. Not a tough call at all.

 

[NADRIGOL]

If you aren't getting to 9th level spells anyways, pick up that ASI. Not a tough call at all.

That would imply taking three extra fighter levels early. I feel like I'd rather play through the bladesinger progression as quickly as I can manage. I feel like other than maybe grabbing action surge, I'd delay fighter levels until late to accelerate spallcasting progression.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

That would imply taking three extra fighter levels early. I feel like I'd rather play through the bladesinger progression as quickly as I can manage. I feel like other than maybe grabbing action surge, I'd delay fighter levels until late to accelerate spallcasting progression.

Depends what you mean by "early". I woudl consider Fighter 1 early on. Fighter 1-4 I woudl consider at levels 8-11.

 

[NADRIGOL]

Depends what you mean by "early". I woudl consider Fighter 1 early on. Fighter 1-4 I woudl consider at levels 8-11.

I took my first level in Fighter. Gives me proficient con saves which is superb on the front lines and stacks incredibly with bladesinger and warcaster. I've thought about a second Fighter level after singer 5 so I have lvl 3 spells, but of course extra attack is at singer 6 which along with Haste gives the FightSinger his melee kick. At that point I'm a level off lvl 4 spells. I think the next spell level will always be too tempting to pick up another Fighter level.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As to traditional Bladesinger fans, well they should realise they have to give up something for full casting, like some wizard levels (though wasn't it for fighter/MUs in 2e too?)

A very enjoyable guide by the way!

Fighter/Mages in 2nd edition basically gave up 9th level spells in two ways:

1.) Only demihumans can multiclass, and level limits prevent demihumans from reaching 18th level as wizards (barring optional DMG rules that would let an elf with 19 Int just barely hit 18th level as a wizard);

2.) Painfully slow advancement when multiclassing meant you needed eight million XP to hit 18th level as a wizard, which basically just wouldn't ever happen. A normal wizard would be 30th level by the time the fighter/mage hit 18th level.

Therefore, single-classed mages (and dual-classed mages who jumped ship to wizard early on) were pretty much the only feasible ways to get 9th level spells.

 

[CapnZapp]

It doesn't? I didn't see anything in the PHB that actually required you to make the stat reqs for your first class. Though it may say in the MC section that you need to meet the pre-reqs for both. I don't have the PHB in front of me but if you could point me to that note I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

You don't need to meet any stat reqs for your first class.

You do need to meet state reqs for LEAVING this class.

Meaning, as long as you stay singleclassed there's no requirements to worry about.

As soon as you multiclass, however, you need to fulfill the reqs for BOTH classes.

Obviously this may trip up a newcomer to the game. As the DM, I would allow the character to rearrange his or her stats to comply with the multiclassing rules, rather than to simply forbid that character from attaining his or her desired concept.

I would not, however, waive the multiclassing requirements. (Assuming point buy. Rolling for stats is so inherently unbalanced, I guess it's okay to allow the bad roller the consolation of free multiclassing...?)

 

[CapnZapp]

As for the Bladesinger topic, I feel there's been a burst of good quality discussion here, and I guess my point is that there's two ways to write a guide on the concept:

One where you smugly and slyly reveals all the tricks (including mc) needed to get that good old Bladesinger feeling; trusting Wotc to have added this layer of system mastery by choice.

Or the guide can complain about how the various offered features don't easily work together, and feel "off" for the concepts you desire.

You might have taken my complaints against your guide, when I essentially say it's the second guide, as fault-finding.

But really, I would hope you take my criticism in a better light: the reason I respond in such detail is that I trust you to make that first guide.

Perhaps I have been too blunt about it, but I really think you can create that really great, optimistic, self-confident guide!

That doesn't mean I won't acknowledge weaknesses in WotC's approach. I just think it makes for a much better read to let them slide, and to focus on what we have, rather than to talk about what we didn't get.

Regards

 

[LarenF3D5]

You don't need to meet any stat reqs for your first class.

You do need to meet state reqs for LEAVING this class.

Meaning, as long as you stay singleclassed there's no requirements to worry about.

As soon as you multiclass, however, you need to fulfill the reqs for BOTH classes.

Obviously this may trip up a newcomer to the game. As the DM, I would allow the character to rearrange his or her stats to comply with the multiclassing rules, rather than to simply forbid that character from attaining his or her desired concept.

I would not, however, waive the multiclassing requirements. (Assuming point buy. Rolling for stats is so inherently unbalanced, I guess it's okay to allow the bad roller the consolation of free multiclassing...?)

Yeah. Also I feel like some of the class requirements are sort of bunk, or perhaps should be more flexible. Fighters can be Dex or Str based (I think the primary reason here is for the variance between melee and ranged) however I feel the same function should be allowable for other classes. Specifically Ranger and Paladins. Rangers can be built for range or melee, and even the melee builds would be better served focusing on finesse/two-weapon fighting which is equally viable with Dex. I've also seen very successful Dex/Cha based finesse Paladins. While Paladins don't work for range, duelist and a rapier pairs really well with a shield, their smite, etc etc. A Gnome Duelist paladin with a rapier loses nothing compared to any other race (minus alt. Human w/ feat) of similar build. Granted they don't get to pull out great sword executions, but I feel like if the class features let you function well as a combative character either at range or with a finesse weapon they really should be Dex or Str.

My opinion, not a fact, and it hasn't come up as a funcitonal discussion in my group (overall we shy away from multiclassing).

I am however super tempted to go Wiz3 (for flaming sphere), Rog3 (arcane trickster), Fighter3 (Eldritch), just to see what happens. The issue with that is I really think I'd rather have Evard's, Hold Monster, Wall of Force, etc..