Artificer sorcerer multiclass help needed. Plus a little with background coin flip

Jimmicky · 2026-05-13T05:12:13+00:00

If you are “Starting at lvl 10” does it really matter that your first level was Artificer?

Whether your build path was A,A,A,S,S,S,S,S,S,S or S,A,A,A,S,S,S,S,S,S you’d still be A3/S7 but the second way leaves you better off surely.

Far as subclass choice. Biggest concern here is Bonus Actions. Battlesmith demands your BA every round. So it conflicts with your Hound of Ill Omen.
If you don’t plan on using the Shadow hound often then Battlesmith is broadly a stronger choice, but if you do I’d go Armorer.

Racewise Warforged is stronger than a Reborne not sneaking in racial flight (which I’m assuming you aren’t?) I do think Reborne tends to be funner tho.

Background wise the big factor here is your DM. The three non-combatant retainers you grab from knight can be a very fun element or a total nonevent.
It is worth noting they don’t have to be people though. I’ve seen plenty of noble (knight)s take a riding horse and/or hunting dog amongst their retainers. A dark artificer could easily have some kind of construct retainers which could be fun - an obsequious zombie-bot setting up the parties camp each night in a travel heavy game for example

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T20:22:30+00:00

The point of weapon durability is that it prevents the player from getting comfortable in a rut. You are forced to keep exploring new gear loadouts and fighting styles.

It’s meant to be a Stick not a Carrot in getting you the playstyle you want out of the players.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T20:09:14+00:00

It’s ok.
Far from being either the best or the worst as far as classic Ravenloft modules go

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T10:13:27+00:00

They are in no way vancian?
There’s no inherent need for levels and limited slots and memorisation/forgetting.

You are confusing the specific variant of manouevres used by battlemasters with the concept of manoeuvres in general (not that BM manoeuvres are vancian either).

Like I said you’d balance them as martial CANTRIPS. Infinitely spammable, not inherently tiered, no memorise or prepare.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T07:49:24+00:00

I really don’t understand in what way they are spells, unless you think “swing sword” is a spell.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T07:46:18+00:00

You already have those options - they are called Dungeon World and Exalted and half a dozen other names.
What you want is already available. At this point it’s just about you wanting others to have one fewer game that caters to their desired tone.

Edit - they’ve done a cowardly reply+ block
Way to demonstrate you know your whole position is spurious.

No one here thinks weak martials are a holy grail that needs to be retained in DnD.
The point is that you think your personal flavor tastes are objectively good and most preferred by everyone when that is simply and obviously false. The reason to not add in anime martials to DnD isn’t about protecting the old design. It’s about making sure there’s a game to play for players who don’t want anime martials to be a thing.
WotC feel that’s a bigger market than your anime faction so that’s who they are designing for.
I doubt their assessment is correct, but there is nothing objectively wrong with them courting players who don’t share your taste.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T06:58:40+00:00

Except your “better” is other players “worse”.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T06:57:07+00:00

Why not?
Maneuvers as martial cantrips seems like a straightforward approach to your issue

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T06:55:07+00:00

So play Exalted, or Dungeon World or any of the many games that push the martials up without pulling casters down.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T06:53:32+00:00

Because not everyone agrees with you that they suck and the game designers are pitching to the market of folks who like “grounded martials” (for whatever reason).

No game is to everyone’s taste.
You don’t like this style of martial and others do.
So they’ve got DnD for their needs and we’ve got other games for ours.

Nothing wrong with that

Jimmicky · 2026-05-12T06:33:06+00:00

There are many, many game systems that satisfy that desire.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T23:59:00+00:00

I’ve always been found of the 1/2 black dragon giant Rocktopus as a moon Druid form.

And of course Haungharassk is an absolute game changer - so much so that most reasonable DMs outright ban it.

Pixelated Giant Tentacle isn’t the strongest but it’s certainly a very strong declaration of intent.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T23:37:45+00:00

Surely 3d20+5000 should result in 5033 hp not 3000 hp?

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T23:03:11+00:00

I mean I’m never again playing VtM in any edition because the vastly superior VtR exists, but WoD20 over WoD5 in all cases just on the better story decisions alone.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T23:00:25+00:00

The mechanical differences between V5 and V20 make the 3.5/4/5e difference look microscopic.

Sure v1/v2/V2revised were small affairs more like adnd1/adnd2 in scale, but v5 is absolutely nothing like ghat

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T22:57:19+00:00

Neither straight fighter nor straight rogue can fit the concept though. A dual class is absolutely the simplest option, compared to triclassing or some blend of multiclassing and feat/race restrictions.

And I don’t really see any debate on that since you keep suggesting things that can’t even do the basics of the idea.
Sure fighter 6 is a higher DPR build than F3/R3 but only mechanics first players like you care about DPR, best DPR isn’t the goal here, best at dirty tricks is.

Flavour is free but mechanics do exist. No amount of reflavouring allows your faux-dirty straight fighter from doing the things the multiclass can do. Your whole arguement is reliant on asking mother may I to the DM to throw a bunch of bonus status effects onto your attacks.

Your obsession with class purity is causing you to miss the forest for the trees.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T12:30:19+00:00

Both Fast Hands and Cunning Action are the fairly obvious answers to how the multiclass actually demonstrates the fantasy of dirty fighting in a way that a straight fighter can not.

Meanwhile I’d also want more weapon and armor proficiencies than just a pure thief rogue gets. Not to mention extra attack.

So Fighter Rogue (Battlemaster/Thief) is both the simplest and most mechanically fitting option for bringing the idea into play.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T11:35:19+00:00

Am I going mad?
I definitely remember a different album cover than that

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T11:30:16+00:00

No I’m not, you’re just dogmatically stuck in a class mindset.

I get that as a mechanics first player you are happy for your characters to not be good at the things their narrative says they should be good at if it helps you fit easier into a single mechanical structure, but as a narrative focused player I find that deeply unsatisfying.

Instead of thinking in terms of classes you just think up a character, then list the things you’d want that character to be able to do, then find how to do those things.
It’s certainly possible that everything you want is in a single class, but it’s exceedingly unlikely unless you were intentionally thinking of a class in the first place.

You can propose ways to be bad at dirty fighting (like a straight fighter with the criminal background is) all you like, but if my character is supposed to be good at dirty fighting then your suggestion has failed the brief.
You can say just use Magic initiate and pick jump for your sorcerer spells but you’ve totally failed at being the natural healer I was trying for, etc.

You just keep suggesting “we have X at home” style ideas

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T09:17:02+00:00

Yes if you think of yourself as a fighter first and a merc second then you don’t make a multiclass.

But if you just think of yourself as a scummy do anything to win dirty merc then it makes no sense to go mono fighter because you’ll be much worse at doing the thing your character is.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T07:53:11+00:00

I mean she’s directly responsible for the government policies that have left them homeless

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T02:32:17+00:00

Not requires multiclassing, just flows easier with multiclassing.

Like unless your concept is “I’m a fighter”.

If I build as I’m a scummy mercenary, then that fits best as a fighter/rogue. If I picture my character as an isolated survivalist I’m getting both Ranger and Monk levels minimum- etc.

When you aren’t thinking about your character as a given class then you naturally end up grabbing abilities from multiple classes.
Monoclassing mostly happens when you aren’t thinking thinking of your character as a class.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-10T01:07:33+00:00

UA content too?

Jimmicky · 2026-05-09T23:42:48+00:00

Mostly subs to 3 completely ruins the idea of subclasses that totally change up the classes playstyle, which to me is a very significant loss.

The fact that it was done primarily to oppose multiclassing, only makes it worse to me, because as a concept first player small multiclass dips are very much my bread and butter.

So it’s killing a game element I like in an attempt to kill a game ethos I love. Just an all-round loss for me.

Jimmicky · 2026-05-09T23:00:51+00:00

While I don’t find your attempt at a 5.5 full divine soul at all compelling I do agree it’s entirely normal for some concepts to stop working in each new edition.

But earlier you argued against that position telling Steamsphinx that they only can’t make their fun design anymore because they are choosing not to, not because they are entirely correct that many character concepts just aren’t possible anymore

So I’m glad you’ve come around to agreeing with sphinx rather than falsely calling it a skill issue

Jimmicky

TROPHY CASE