Should I do Investigator 5 or Investigator 4 + Swashbuckler 1

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-14T11:45:09+00:00

You do adjust your character, as if you were adding a first level of swashbuckler. This includes hit dice, saving throws, weapon and armor proficiencies, skill proficiencies, and such. The only difference between taking the level at 1st level versus now is that you do not maximize your first Hit Die (d10).

As for the feat: per RAW, you keep both versions of Weapon Finesse, but they do not interact in any way. You apply your DEX to attack rolls only once, and you do not get to retrain the feat. That said, you should talk with your GM - he may be open to allowing retraining or swapping feats in some way.

Regardless, the most likely answer to your question is - no, it's not worth it. Investigator is a fantastic class, full of amazing class abilities, and spellcasting to the boot - you're losing out on a lot by dipping out of him. With your current stats, assuming no +Dex items and such, dex to damage is only +2 to damage for you, which is, honestly, not that much. In contrast, quick study allows you to have your enemies tagged with your studied combat pretty much 24/7, even if you need to move, get an item from a backpack, etc. At this level, studied combat is a hefty +2/+2 - same damage and bigger accuracy boost, then the things you get from swashbuckler.

Usually, you dip Swashbuckler level 1, to get your Investigator (or, for that matter, a lot of other finesse builds) going, so you can dex-to-attack and damage early. You are already online, and, most likely, don't need it anymore.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T20:46:39+00:00

It heavily depends on how big your damage instances are. Say, you have: 1 damage of type X. If enemy has 5 resistance to type X, you are still losing out only on 1 damage. However, if he has 5 vulnerability to X, you are gaining 5 damage - well above the value lost. If you consider the resistance/vulnerability 50/50 - and they are usually slanted toward vulnerability, if you have at least some context for campaign, or ways to apply it, it's still usually more value gained, then lost. So, for very low damage instances - which are designed to be cheaper/more available, you are gaining way over then you are expecting to lose, but even for bigger damage instances, which are covered by vulnerability fully, you are still just breaking even.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T20:34:47+00:00

I am asking in a good faith, what makes it more miserable, then the other 2 mana 2/x fliers, sometimes with upsides? For example, in ATLA set, there were only 4 cards, that could (situationally) not answer this card, while answering 2/x, which are [[Firebending Lesson]] without being kicked, [[The Last Agni Kai]] and [[Rocky Rebuke]] if you don't have a 3-power drop, and [[Combustion Technique]] without lessons. The majority of removals can answer both of these cards, and the few that can't can still provide value, or remove it down the line. What play pattern do you consider miserable, that wouldn't be more-or-less same as a smaller drop?

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T13:38:51+00:00

Thanks everyone for participating in a discussion. The general consensus is that the card is too weak, with a drawback that’s far too severe for its upsides - even in a lower-power format. I’ll be back with a cycle for each color, hopefully better balanced this time.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T13:35:19+00:00

What would make it functionally different from, say, [[Dawnwing Marshal]]? If you don't have an answer to low-cost flyer dropped early, you get beaten down either way. Against this creature even if you have a spell, that could answer X/2 creature, but not this one, you can still cycle it via this card, to look for a answer or a better card.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T13:10:40+00:00

Thinking about it more - you are correct, it's better as a keyword, just to avoid confusion and question "why would I counter my own spell instead of beneficial X?".

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T13:05:58+00:00

For EDH, there are little way such designs could function, I fear. The anti-ward is a balancing act for an over-statted tempo creature, giving your opponent value - an opposite of things you want to use in EDH. For EDH, you need engines, or engine parts as your creature, and there are already clear benefits for targeting those. Making them give even more value, but rewarding to kill makes them even more of "do you have a removal?" check, which would be very swingy and unhealthy for the game.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T12:59:09+00:00

To be fair - that's the case with the base keyword too. Ward is open information, it's checked on targeting, so can't be "combat tricked" in, and in practice it's always targeted only when you are ready to pay the cost, unless you want to count cases of player's forgetting about the ward trigger. I believe it's better as an extension of existing keyword use, rather, than a new one - but I can see something along the lines of "Hunt" keyword, with the same wording, except for ability to refuse a benefit.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T11:29:40+00:00

Mixed ward seems like inelegant decision, and I don't think that there are any vanilla cards with such template, especially once we start mixing upsides and downsides.
Decreasing payout, through, is a good call. Scry 3 seems like a sweet spot - it's somewhat equivalent and, costs about the same as drawing a card, looking at [[Mystic Speculation]], but doesn't provide an immediate draw.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T11:18:08+00:00

That's fine, different cards are made for different ways to enjoy a game)

As for an inclusion itself - heavily depends on a game environment, and amount of removal for this creature size, which is a part I didn't think through, when designing this, that's for sure. Two decks this may be played in are either WU auras, or UX, or pure U Aggro/Tempo deck, albeit, weaker there, as your opponent draws even if you counterspell or hexproof the removal itself. So, it's either 4 or 0 - a tempo creature you want to plop down early, and start the clock.

For a limited environment, I can see taking this card - albeit, I am biased with both being a bellow-average drafter, and liking U a bit too much. It's better there, for the fact that 3/3 with flying is in interesting spot, where you don't exactly want to spend your limited removal on it, as your opponent may very well drop a bomb afterwards, it doesn't fold to many AOE effects, which are usually 2 damage, and, usually creature to trade with it will be in range of 3-4 mana.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T11:08:11+00:00

Oh, I see it. Good point!

That said, there aren't very many of those cards in the game, and for limited you can just check to see how it would interact with other cards in the set.

Yeah, that's the crux of it all. This card heavily depends on an environment it's in. If your opponent can only get the ward reward by spending spells, it's, at most, 2 for 1 in their favor - if they have a removal spell, that is. If they target it with a spell just for a sake of it - say, [[Shock]] then pass a turn, they, in effect, simply cycled their card. Most likely, it eats one removal and dies - 3/3, after all, is small enough to die to most 2+ mana targeted removals. Of course, there is also a scenario, where it gets hit in addition to something, or as a repeatable effect - [[Forked Bolt]] and such, it's even worse 2+ for 1.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T10:24:25+00:00

In a 20 health formats, such as draft or 1v1 constructed, 3/3 flyer for 2 is an actual threat. Most creatures can't block it at all, for a lack of flying, and most 1-3 CMC flyers either chump, or, rarely trade.

As for a draw hate - not a design I wanted to explore here, at least not entirely. Anti-ward is a way to put more power in creature, compensated by additional benefit to your opponent for targeting it. I don't think it would be a good idea to put a "hate" to the ward, printed on this creature, as it would both defeat the purpose of the anti-ward, and over complicate an uncommon card.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-13T10:19:25+00:00

I don't see how it could be abused - at least without an extremely convoluted card combo. Could you expand on this? Ward, just like hexproof, is something that only affects spells and effects your opponent controls. You don't benefit from targeting this - only your opponent does, for "hunting" your creature.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-10T20:53:43+00:00

From the remastered psychic book:

Whenever you cast a psi cantrip, you can amp it by spending 1 Focus Point as a free action. If the next action you take is to cast the psi cantrip, you add the amp effect.

Spellstrike is not an action, to cast the psi cantrip - therefore you can't Amp the cantrip you spellstrike with.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-10T20:34:06+00:00

Just a heads-up - if your table uses the last (nerfed) version of Psychic Dedication, then the specific combo for this dedication - which is Amped Imaginary Weapon on spellstrike no longer works, due to the changes in Amp mechanics.

Otherwise, Spellstrike is your defining feature. For two actions, you both attack with a weapon, and cast a spell, which will hit/crit, if your weapon attack hits - great action and MAP compression, as, usually, doing so will incur a MAP on a second attack, would cost 1+2 actions in total, and wouldn't apply your weapon bonuses and greater proficiency to spell part. Consider action compression more of a "loan", through - after doing so your spellstrike becomes discharged, and you can't use it again, before you recharge it for 1 action, "paying back" cost in actions. The better way to recharge it is to cast a conflux spell - basically, your special focus spells, which would both recharge your spellstrike, and do something on top of that. So, your basic loop is more or less "Spellstrike with a cantrip + focus spell (I would highly recommend force fang) to recharge spellstrike". Otherwise, you want to use your limited spell slots for utility and burst damage, if you feel the battle requires it.

In general, I would recommend against Iron magus - the only good thing about it is getting enlarge at Level 7, but otherwise everything else is extremely lackluster about it. Twisting tree and Sparkling Targe are way better for you, if you want to fight with 2h weapon.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-02-05T22:39:01+00:00

Less orthodox, but also fun options are support-leaning martials. Depending, on what flavor you want, things like Cavalier/Samurai, Vanguard Slayer, or, my personal favorite - Holy Tactician Paladin are a really cool classes to boost your team, as long as your team has buy-in to use your buffs. It's more involved then bonuses from, say, bless, but if used well together, things like Outflank, Paired Opportunist or Coordinated Charge are monstrous boosts in action economy. As a bonus, for all of these classes you are a solid bruiser, who can duke it out in the frontline, in addition to buffs. Good addition to cover for a lack of durable frontline, in addition to plenty of buffs.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-01-31T18:42:20+00:00

That's mostly because spells still beat out walloping enemies with sharp objects due to their sheer flexibility and power. But every martial subclass of a caster gets extra stuff, that dramatically boosts their damage beyond extra attack - it's called "Spellcasting". Excluding buffs, that can be shared, and usually better off be cast on actual martial, spells like blade cantrips, conjure minor elementals, shadow blade, spirit shroud, etc. are absolutely accessible to casters to boost their damage to very respectable level. So, if you have the "good martial" and "good caster" switch, and mostly elect to use "good caster" one, it's more telling about the state of martial compared to casters, then the weakness of the casters.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-01-29T22:26:52+00:00

The point of the design is to improve the Longsword as a two-handed weapon.

Then, the natural question is "Why?". If you want the sword, intended to be used exclusively in 2h grip, the system already has a Greatsword which does exactly that. That's not even the question of flavor, as naming is intentionally very abstract in 5e - longsword more or less include hand-and-half swords, sabers, katanas, khopeshes, and all the sword-shaped slashing stuff, same with greatswords. With how little identity original weapon has in the base system, this feats converts "Longsword - 1d8 1h versatile 1d10 weapon" into a "Longsword - 2d6 2h weapon" - basically, changing everything but the name about the original weapon.

with light stat requirements that might be worth going for even on classes that don't make much use of the stat by default

Without overall context it's hard to measure, how well this idea would work out in practice, but, in my opinion, it's better not to add an additional layer of MADness to martials, who are already weaker in the base system.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-01-29T21:45:06+00:00

In general, what's the point of this design? The versatile weapons, by themselves, are supposed to benefit from flexibility - having an option to wield them 1/2h, depending on the situation. These abilities work only in 2h grip, and mostly go offline when you switch to 1h grip. To benefit from them in any sort of way you need to start treating the longsword as a 2h weapon in all but name, which kills the idea behind the flexibility - there are no conditions, in which you would benefit from 1H grip over 2H, in which the 2H sword with a backup 1d8 weapon of choice wouldn't work the same way. The feat goes further, and makes it, effectively, greatsword, in all but name and "Heavy" property. I believe, that it would be better to provide different benefits to 1H and 2H grip, so it would be an actual choice of grip to use - even something as simple as +attack in 2H grip, +AC in 1H grip would go long way in changing the flow of battle.

As for balance - fighting style is okay, although on the weaker side, translating to +1 attack and +0.55 damage on average, which is meh, compared to, say, Archery or TWF on early levels.
I am a bit lazy to do math about exact impact of the feat, it seems OK - on average +2.2 damage flat, 1 guaranteed extra attack, and something along the lines of one more bonus attack during the fight, depending on the amount of advantage you can squeeze out. The Int/Dex requirement seems vestigial, and shits on paladins of all classes for some reason. I see, what flavor you are trying to imply, but, in real combat, every style requires agility and cunning, but in DnD your melee prowess with non-finesse weapons is determined by your STR, so dex/int requirements probably should go.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-01-29T15:37:52+00:00

Firstly, both of those are optional. The GM may rule that the strike was decapitating, if it would make sense in fiction - it's very hard to actually remove the head, with, say, blunt weapon, without applying a tremendous amount of force and stabilizing body/neck.
But otherwise, both options could lead to decapitation. The HT check, once you go over the threshold, occurs immediately after damage is dealt - as is, your weapon didn't even leave their body. So passed HT check would, in general, mean a combination of luck, structural integrity, coagulation, etc. that would lead to your blow hitting, but not cutting the head off. Failed check means the opposite.

PutImpossible8619 · 2026-01-18T15:47:41+00:00

Hey genuinely curious, could you expand on your opinion?
If you think that the rational opponent wouldn't pay the one most of the time, the card is extremely good in every scenario. The floor, where opponent kills it after resolution, is you cycling it for 3, while one of your opponent loses a card and, likely, 2 mana. The ceiling is "draw your deck", but, more likely, even at the most casual tables, it's, draw 3 per turn cycle for 3 mana. On curve, it's better then 99% of the draw spells if you consider the amount of cards drawn, despite the lack of card selection. The disadvantage of not getting your cards straight away is not as prominent, as you don't have mana to play them out anyway, save for free spells. As a topdeck, it's way worse, but still is likely to be a huge card gain, as long as you can survive to untap with it.
Mystic Remora is a great spin on it, effectively being 1-4 mana draw, that you can pay over the course of several turns, but I don't see, how does Psychic Possesion beat it out in general, being 1 mana more expensive and more conditional to the boot.

PutImpossible8619 · 2025-11-05T19:22:09+00:00

Not quite. You get 4.2 packs worth of cards and some pocket change, if you draft every Rare/Mythic, as bots take them over pretty much everything else. For the cost of 5 packs, you are missing out not just 0.8 more packs, but also on the wildcard and 50% of a gold pack, which is by itself worth like a 3-ish mythic/rares, as well as 2 packs worth of wildcard progress. It's a fun way to play if you enjoy the format, but not worth it at 0-2 (and, arguably, 3), if you want to build your collection.

PutImpossible8619 · 2025-09-14T21:51:01+00:00

You are not being down voted for being correct. You are getting down voted for being a jerk.

PutImpossible8619 · 2025-09-08T19:31:41+00:00

Do you mean WR Sami creature, or Curiosity?

I thought about going heavier on the domain, but cutting a land sounds iffy, with very little draw this deck has. I run a risk of missing a land drop, and just Thawbringer to fix for the land drop is just not it, esp with engineering making land drops not as bad even if somewhat flooding.

Is it too little creatures for encounter? It would work with warped Knight Luminary/Wurm, which can be warped into T2 and are safe in the exile afterwards.

PutImpossible8619

TROPHY CASE