So, I was just thinking. The Fighting Initiate feat is basically the 1st level of fighter without most of the cool features. So why take it? Most, if not all classes, would benefit more from that single level of Fighter than from just a fighting style. The only exceptions I can think on the top of my head that might want a fighting style but not a level of Fighter is Artifcer or Barbarian if they are aiming for level 20.
Am I missing something? Or is it like with Metamagic Adept? It's good for the "origin class" than but inly 'meh' for other classes?
Not every game allows multiclassing, and even in those that do, sometimes it's more beneficial to keep going on your main progression than to divert for a level. I've played an artificer/wizard to character level 12, and I can say that my one level of wizard has been tremendously helpful but also it's been agonizing at times to see what I could've had if I'd bitten the bullet and just gone straight artificer. That and some people simply don't like single-level multiclass dips for purely mechanical benefit with no narrative reason for it.
First thing that comes to mind is a melee cleric that doesn’t want to slow down their spell progression, but wants a little boost. Or most any caster that doesn’t want to slow spell progression. Or a rogue (two-weapon fighting in particular could be nice) or bard who spends a lot of time in melee.
There arenseveral reasons why you'd choose the feat.
You might prefer your capstone ability over what that level of Fighter provides. In cases where you're not expecting to get to L20, whichever ability would get cut off.
You might a Barb and unwilling to sacrifice that sweet d12 hit die.
You might have maxed out your ASIs and not interested in the other feats (I always struggle to find a feat I'm actually happy with).
You might decide that you don't want to deal with different types of hit dice.
You might prefer to maintain spell slot progression.
You might like to keep learning more spells instead.
You may want to avoid losing the claim that you've never multiclassed before.
None of which is to say that it's a bad or suboptimal thing to go for a level in Fighter, but there are certainly circumstances in which a player might choose the feat. I would prefer more interesting feats in its place - but we have it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A feat and a level have different opportunity costs. This isn't a fair comparison.
Though I agree that the "special feature you can barely use" feats don't seem worthwhile. They probably *are* just as good as many other feats, but they don't appeal.
Not every game allows multiclassing, and even in those that do, sometimes it's more beneficial to keep going on your main progression than to divert for a level. I've played an artificer/wizard to character level 12, and I can say that my one level of wizard has been tremendously helpful but also it's been agonizing at times to see what I could've had if I'd bitten the bullet and just gone straight artificer. That and some people simply don't like single-level multiclass dips for purely mechanical benefit with no narrative reason for it.
I've yet to see an actual game that doesn't allow multiclassing. Even less so, one that allows feats but not multiclassing. That said, the premise of the question obviously assumes both. But yes, as I mentioned, Artificer might be one of the few classes that might actually benefit from this feat.
There arenseveral reasons why you'd choose the feat.
You might prefer your capstone ability over what that level of Fighter provides. In cases where you're not expecting to get to L20, whichever ability would get cut off.
I touched upon this but I can clarify. Which class(es), which would actually benefit enough from a Fighting Style that makes the feat worth taking wouldn't benefit more from just taking that first level of Fighter? If you are going for full spellcasting or high level abilities you don't really need a Fighting Style. Or you belong to a class that already gets one.
You might a Barb and unwilling to sacrifice that sweet d12 hit die.
That's a difference of, on average, one single hit point over 20 levels. Barbarians benefit more from taking Con +2 than this feat. But as you noticed, I did mention barbarians as one of the few exceptions. :)
You might have maxed out your ASIs and not interested in the other feats (I always struggle to find a feat I'm actually happy with).
If you have maxed out ASIs you can't take this feat. Or do you mean that you have already maxed your stats? In that case, a level of Fighter actually makes even more sense.
You might decide that you don't want to deal with different types of hit dice.
How is this more beneficial?
You might prefer to maintain spell slot progression.
You might like to keep learning more spells instead.
If your want to go for optimal spellcasting there are better feats than Fighting Initiate.
You may want to avoid losing the claim that you've never multiclassed before.
This isn't really a benefit, now is it? Also, that ship sailed a looong time ago. ;)
None of which is to say that it's a bad or suboptimal thing to go for a level in Fighter, but there are certainly circumstances in which a player might choose the feat. I would prefer more interesting feats in its place - but we have it.
So, in which of those situations is it actually better to pick the feat over the whole class level?
A feat and a level have different opportunity costs. This isn't a fair comparison.
In this case I think it is. At least for those characters where taking the feat is a valid option to begin with. If you've trained enough to, narratively, justify taking the FI feat then I say you are just as justified to take a level of fighter.
Though I agree that the "special feature you can barely use" feats don't seem worthwhile. They probably *are* just as good as many other feats, but they don't appeal.
Yeah, but except for a few of the early ones (like Weapons master) most of them at least have some kind of appeal and actual benefit to them. I dunno.
Bear on mind that fighting initiate allows you to have multiple fighting styles. With their plethora of ASIs, fighters are one of the better candidates for taking fighting initiate (though there's better feats).
So, what you're saying when you say that the opportunity costs are effectively the same, is that delaying every class feature and spell you ever acquire by a full level is effectively the same as reducing your most important ability score by 2. That only makes sense under one condition, I think.
Have you perhaps already decided which classes and multiclass combinations are of legitimate power, dismissing the rest as being beneath your consideration? If so, don't you think you should tell us what those are, so we're all on the same page?
There arenseveral reasons why you'd choose the feat.
You might prefer your capstone ability over what that level of Fighter provides. In cases where you're not expecting to get to L20, whichever ability would get cut off.
I touched upon this but I can clarify. Which class(es), which would actually benefit enough from a Fighting Style that makes the feat worth taking wouldn't benefit more from just taking that first level of Fighter? If you are going for full spellcasting or high level abilities you don't really need a Fighting Style. Or you belong to a class that already gets one.
Your post seems to request an objective answer to a subjective question. At the end of the day, the game is.about preferences. Maybe they want a Fighting style but want their capstone ability. Trying to find scenarios where it is objectively better to do that is going to be a very long exercise. One thst very few people will be willing to go through. You asked why someone would take FI instead of a level in Fighter, that is an answer- because MCing would remove their capstone ability but they still want a Fighting Style.
You might a Barb and unwilling to sacrifice that sweet d12 hit die.
That's a difference of, on average, one single hit point over 20 levels. Barbarians benefit more from taking Con +2 than this feat. But as you noticed, I did mention barbarians as one of the few exceptions. :)
You might have maxed out your ASIs and not interested in the other feats (I always struggle to find a feat I'm actually happy with).
If you have maxed out ASIs you can't take this feat. Or do you mean that you have already maxed your stats? In that case, a level of Fighter actually makes even more sense.
No, it doesn't make sense. They'd either have to only ever get to L3 in any given class or bite the bullet and take either an ASI to a dumpstat or take a feat.
You might decide that you don't want to deal with different types of hit dice.
How is this more beneficial?
Because they don't want to deal with multiple hit dice and if they go into a different class with a different hit die, they'll have to deal with different hit die?
You might prefer to maintain spell slot progression.
You might like to keep learning more spells instead.
If your want to go for optimal spellcasting there are better feats than Fighting Initiate.
But they can have the benefits of FI without losing out on spell slot progression or learning spells...
You may want to avoid losing the claim that you've never multiclassed before.
This isn't really a benefit, now is it? Also, that ship sailed a looong time ago. ;)
It's a ship sailed before for you, but we're not talking about you, and yeah, some people have things for being able tonsay that they've never done x. Eh.
None of which is to say that it's a bad or suboptimal thing to go for a level in Fighter, but there are certainly circumstances in which a player might choose the feat. I would prefer more interesting feats in its place - but we have it.
So, in which of those situations is it actually better to pick the feat over the whole class level?
You're being argumentative and trying to prove me.wrong, rather than trying to understand. I've pointed out multiple times where it would be advantageous to go for the feat rather than MC. One of your responses was to stop all progression in your main class, which is not exactly conventional wisdom. This seems to be far more about picking a fight than actually understanding why others make certain decisions.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So, I was just thinking. The Fighting Initiate feat is basically the 1st level of fighter without most of the cool features. So why take it? Most, if not all classes, would benefit more from that single level of Fighter than from just a fighting style. The only exceptions I can think on the top of my head that might want a fighting style but not a level of Fighter is Artifcer or Barbarian if they are aiming for level 20.
Am I missing something? Or is it like with Metamagic Adept? It's good for the "origin class" than but inly 'meh' for other classes?
Cheers!
Fighting Initiate is worse on its origin class than any other class, because of how difficult it is to find Fighting Styles that usefully stack. It's a fundamentally bad feat - fighting styles are clearly balanced towards being weaker than a feat - but it's at its best on someone who can't multiclass into Fighter because they don't have the necessary Strength or Dexterity due to not needing either for anything. Here are examples:
Artificer Armorers.
Moon Druids.
Tortle spellcasters, but especially the ones who can attack with their mental stat, so Artificer Battle Smiths (Intelligence), Druids and Nature Clerics (Wisdom), and Hexblades (Charisma). Similarly, a Tortle Astral Self Monk can dump-stat Dexterity without it being the end of the world.
Tortle Rangers who dump-stat Dexterity but also take Druidic Warrior qualify - but they get their own fighting style, and as I mentioned above, additional Fighting Styles get less and less useful the more you have.
Anything a Tortle can do a Loxodon can do worse.
Dwarven clerics whose subclass grants Heavy Armor proficiency, as they don't need any Strength to avoid being slowed down by their armor, and pure spellcasters being bad at weapon attacks is pretty normal. If we assume 25 feet is simply fast enough for a cleric, these races are also 25 feet in Heavy Armor:
Air Genasi
Centaur
Dhampir
Half-Wood Elf that chooses Fleet of Foot.
Leonin
Mark of Passage Human
Satyr
Wood Elf
Note that if you're willing to be only 20 feet fast, the vast majority of races open up here, and at 15, every playable race - the question is how fast you think a cleric needs to be to be mobile.
Because almost everyone needs Strength or Dexterity to have a credible AC (without crippling their mobility, in the case of Strength) and thereby live through encounters, it's otherwise quite rare finding a functional build that lacks access to Fighter.
Fighting Initiate is worse on its origin class than any other class, because of how difficult it is to find Fighting Styles that usefully stack.
It's perfectly practical to stack, say, Blind-Fighting, Defense, Dueling (or Great Weapon, or Two Weapon), and Protection. It's just kinda underwhelming.
So, I was just thinking. The Fighting Initiate feat is basically the 1st level of fighter without most of the cool features. So why take it? Most, if not all classes, would benefit more from that single level of Fighter than from just a fighting style. The only exceptions I can think on the top of my head that might want a fighting style but not a level of Fighter is Artifcer or Barbarian if they are aiming for level 20.
Am I missing something? Or is it like with Metamagic Adept? It's good for the "origin class" than but inly 'meh' for other classes?
Cheers!
What if your playing a spellcaster?
Taking a level in fighter would mean you didn't get any more spell slots and it would delay your progression.
Taking this feat means you dont have to do that.
In addition, taking a level in fighter would mean that you miss out on your special level 20 feature.
Though I personally dont think fighting initiate is good, it certainly has it's uses.
So, what you're saying when you say that the opportunity costs are effectively the same, is that delaying every class feature and spell you ever acquire by a full level is effectively the same as reducing your most important ability score by 2.
Not really, and no need to be confrontative. You are most likely not delaying as much as you are exchanging. If the class features are so important (and there are a lot of features that are a lot better than Fighter 1) you probably don't want or need a Fighting style to begin with. So I'm trying to figure out if there's something I've missed. So far it seems I haven't, really.
Have you perhaps already decided which classes and multiclass combinations are of legitimate power, dismissing the rest as being beneath your consideration? If so, don't you think you should tell us what those are, so we're all on the same page?
Like I said, I'm trying to figure out when the fighting initiate feat actually is the more beneficial choice.
There arenseveral reasons why you'd choose the feat.
You might prefer your capstone ability over what that level of Fighter provides. In cases where you're not expecting to get to L20, whichever ability would get cut off.
I touched upon this but I can clarify. Which class(es), which would actually benefit enough from a Fighting Style that makes the feat worth taking wouldn't benefit more from just taking that first level of Fighter? If you are going for full spellcasting or high level abilities you don't really need a Fighting Style. Or you belong to a class that already gets one.
Your post seems to request an objective answer to a subjective question.
Not really, no. I was asking for motivations and generally just opening up for discussion.
At the end of the day, the game is.about preferences. Maybe they want a Fighting style but want their capstone ability. Trying to find scenarios where it is objectively better to do that is going to be a very long exercise. One thst very few people will be willing to go through.
Then people don't have to. But if they do it's always nice if they stay on topic, don't you think?
You asked why someone would take FI instead of a level in Fighter, that is an answer- because MCing would remove their capstone ability but they still want a Fighting Style.
I asked when it would be more beneficial than taking a level of fighter.
If you have maxed out ASIs you can't take this feat. Or do you mean that you have already maxed your stats? In that case, a level of Fighter actually makes even more sense.
No, it doesn't make sense. They'd either have to only ever get to L3 in any given class or bite the bullet and take either an ASI to a dumpstat or take a feat.
Why do you think it doesn't make any sense? I'm not sure I even understand what you mean by "maxed out ASIs".
You might decide that you don't want to deal with different types of hit dice.
How is this more beneficial?
Because they don't want to deal with multiple hit dice and if they go into a different class with a different hit die, they'll have to deal with different hit die?
The question remains. If you don't want to answer you don't have to. :)
You might prefer to maintain spell slot progression.
You might like to keep learning more spells instead.
If your want to go for optimal spellcasting there are better feats than Fighting Initiate.
But they can have the benefits of FI without losing out on spell slot progression or learning spells...
Sure, but you would still lose out over not taking a feat that is better suited for spellcasting.
You may want to avoid losing the claim that you've never multiclassed before.
This isn't really a benefit, now is it? Also, that ship sailed a looong time ago. ;)
It's a ship sailed before for you, but we're not talking about you, and yeah, some people have things for being able tonsay that they've never done x. Eh.
It's still not a benefit.
None of which is to say that it's a bad or suboptimal thing to go for a level in Fighter, but there are certainly circumstances in which a player might choose the feat. I would prefer more interesting feats in its place - but we have it.
So, in which of those situations is it actually better to pick the feat over the whole class level?
You're being argumentative and trying to prove me.wrong, rather than trying to understand.
No, I'm asking follow up questions. That is not being argumentative, that is called having a conversation.
I've pointed out multiple times where it would be advantageous to go for the feat rather than MC.
You've claimed that it's advantageous but you haven't explained why under the premise of the topic.
One of your responses was to stop all progression in your main class, which is not exactly conventional wisdom.
Multiclassing goes against "conventional wisdom"? Wow, that's a new one.
This seems to be far more about picking a fight than actually understanding why others make certain decisions.
If that's how you choose to interpret it you are welcome not to reply. Personally I ask follow up question because I'm interested in engaging in discussion.
Fighting Initiate is worse on its origin class than any other class, because of how difficult it is to find Fighting Styles that usefully stack. It's a fundamentally bad feat - fighting styles are clearly balanced towards being weaker than a feat - but it's at its best on someone who can't multiclass into Fighter because they don't have the necessary Strength or Dexterity due to not needing either for anything. Here are examples:
Artificer Armorers.
Moon Druids.
Tortle spellcasters, but especially the ones who can attack with their mental stat, so Artificer Battle Smiths (Intelligence), Druids and Nature Clerics (Wisdom), and Hexblades (Charisma). Similarly, a Tortle Astral Self Monk can dump-stat Dexterity without it being the end of the world.
Tortle Rangers who dump-stat Dexterity but also take Druidic Warrior qualify - but they get their own fighting style, and as I mentioned above, additional Fighting Styles get less and less useful the more you have.
Anything a Tortle can do a Loxodon can do worse.
Artificers are one of the few exceptions, yes. As you say, Rangers already get fighting styles. I'm not sure if a moon druid would ever really need a fighting style though?
[Snipped for space.]
Because almost everyone needs Strength or Dexterity to have a credible AC (without crippling their mobility, in the case of Strength) and thereby live through encounters, it's otherwise quite rare finding a functional build that lacks access to Fighter.
Yes, this is kind of my point. Why would any of those really need a fighting style though?
Taking a level in fighter would mean you didn't get any more spell slots and it would delay your progression.
Taking this feat means you dont have to do that.
In addition, taking a level in fighter would mean that you miss out on your special level 20 feature.
Though I personally dont think fighting initiate is good, it certainly has it's uses.
If you are playing a spellcaster (already mentioned exceptions excluded) I don't really see the need for a Fighting Style to begin with. Some classes have fantastic capstones, many do not. Few games actually go to level 20. As you say, FI isn't really that good of a feat, which, if you want to add some martial prowess to your character, makes it an even lesser choice compared to a full level of Fighter. The classes/character builds who would benefit from a fighting style but not a level of fighter (because of cool capstones) pretty much already has access to fighting styles and they seldom need more than one, as far as I can see.
"Artificers are one of the few exceptions, yes. As you say, Rangers already get fighting styles. I'm not sure if a moon druid would ever really need a fighting style though?"
I could see an argument for blind fighting on a moon druid, let's you charge into any type of darkness and keep fighting effectively.
Really blind fighting is great for anyone that can get close enough safely like a blade singer or a durably built spellcaster that can cast darkness and still target creatures with their spells.
Edit: both this theoretical wizard and druid wouldn't benefit meaningfully from the added wep and armor proficiency if you choose a level of fighter.
The classes/character builds who would benefit from a fighting style but not a level of fighter (because of cool capstones) pretty much already has access to fighting styles and they seldom need more than one, as far as I can see.
The classes that are based on 'hit things with weapons' and don't have fighting style are
Barbarian (has a cool capstone, though taking 2 levels of fighter for action surge is also pretty cool)
Bard (valor) (only marginally based on hitting things with weapons)
Monk (will have trouble benefiting from a fighting style, but you also don't want to slow your monk progression)
Rogue (capstone is pretty skippable)
Warlock (hexblade) (taking 2 levels of fighter for action surge is likely an upgrade)
Wizard (bladesinger) (only marginally based on hitting things with weapons)
The question for all of those classes, though, is "is fighting initiate really the best use of a feat?" Sure, I'll benefit, but there are other things I'll benefit more from.
If you're convinced Fighting Initiate is the worst feat to've ever existed in all of D&D for the last fifty years, don't take it.
it exists in the same space Magic Initiate does - allowing other classes to dip their toes into features/abilities of other classes to achieve a certain vision the player may have. Perhaps a War domain cleric doesnt't want to deviate from their deity's chosen path but is looking for more of a martial flair for their character - they can take Fighting Initiate and gain an appropriate fighting style to reflect their character's training and valor without diluting their devotion to their chosen deity
Mechanically, it doesn't tend to come up often unless you're playing a bow user that doesn't get native access to the Archery fighting style, a'la dexy paladins that want pocket bows, artificers using crossbows, or anyone else who wants the arguably-overpowered attack bonus Archery provides. Neither paladins nor artificers want to delay gaining access to exceptional features like Aura of Protection or further progress on their Infusion track, so the opportunity cost of Fighting Initiate over a Fighter dip becomes a valid debate.
A Swashbuckler who wants the Two-Weapon Fighting Style but doesn’t want to slow their Sneak Attack progression is one that comes to my mind.
Problem is... sneak attack isn't all that exciting. Taking 2 levels fighter (action surge), 3 levels fighter (+superiority dice), or 5 levels fighter (+extra attack) will easily get you more damage per round than you're sacrificing for sneak attack.
A Swashbuckler who wants the Two-Weapon Fighting Style but doesn’t want to slow their Sneak Attack progression is one that comes to my mind.
Problem is... sneak attack isn't all that exciting. Taking 2 levels fighter (action surge), 3 levels fighter (+superiority dice), or 5 levels fighter (+extra attack) will easily get you more damage per round than you're sacrificing for sneak attack.
It only matters how the player of the character feels about it. IF the player is excited to get that next sneak attack die or some other class feature, then dipping into fighter may not be worth it for the player. It is all about personal preferences.
A Swashbuckler who wants the Two-Weapon Fighting Style but doesn’t want to slow their Sneak Attack progression is one that comes to my mind.
Problem is... sneak attack isn't all that exciting. Taking 2 levels fighter (action surge), 3 levels fighter (+superiority dice), or 5 levels fighter (+extra attack) will easily get you more damage per round than you're sacrificing for sneak attack.
It only matters how the player of the character feels about it. IF the player is excited to get that next sneak attack die or some other class feature, then dipping into fighter may not be worth it for the player. It is all about personal preferences.
Sure, but if you aren't concerned with optimization, it doesn't particularly matter if a feat is good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I was just thinking. The Fighting Initiate feat is basically the 1st level of fighter without most of the cool features. So why take it? Most, if not all classes, would benefit more from that single level of Fighter than from just a fighting style. The only exceptions I can think on the top of my head that might want a fighting style but not a level of Fighter is Artifcer or Barbarian if they are aiming for level 20.
Am I missing something? Or is it like with Metamagic Adept? It's good for the "origin class" than but inly 'meh' for other classes?
Cheers!
Not every game allows multiclassing, and even in those that do, sometimes it's more beneficial to keep going on your main progression than to divert for a level. I've played an artificer/wizard to character level 12, and I can say that my one level of wizard has been tremendously helpful but also it's been agonizing at times to see what I could've had if I'd bitten the bullet and just gone straight artificer. That and some people simply don't like single-level multiclass dips for purely mechanical benefit with no narrative reason for it.
Please do not contact or message me.
First thing that comes to mind is a melee cleric that doesn’t want to slow down their spell progression, but wants a little boost. Or most any caster that doesn’t want to slow spell progression. Or a rogue (two-weapon fighting in particular could be nice) or bard who spends a lot of time in melee.
There arenseveral reasons why you'd choose the feat.
You might prefer your capstone ability over what that level of Fighter provides. In cases where you're not expecting to get to L20, whichever ability would get cut off.
You might a Barb and unwilling to sacrifice that sweet d12 hit die.
You might have maxed out your ASIs and not interested in the other feats (I always struggle to find a feat I'm actually happy with).
You might decide that you don't want to deal with different types of hit dice.
You might prefer to maintain spell slot progression.
You might like to keep learning more spells instead.
You may want to avoid losing the claim that you've never multiclassed before.
None of which is to say that it's a bad or suboptimal thing to go for a level in Fighter, but there are certainly circumstances in which a player might choose the feat. I would prefer more interesting feats in its place - but we have it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A feat and a level have different opportunity costs. This isn't a fair comparison.
Though I agree that the "special feature you can barely use" feats don't seem worthwhile. They probably *are* just as good as many other feats, but they don't appeal.
So, just a reminder, the question was when the feat is useful, not when not taking a fighter level would narratively be more fitting. :)
I've yet to see an actual game that doesn't allow multiclassing. Even less so, one that allows feats but not multiclassing. That said, the premise of the question obviously assumes both. But yes, as I mentioned, Artificer might be one of the few classes that might actually benefit from this feat.
I touched upon this but I can clarify. Which class(es), which would actually benefit enough from a Fighting Style that makes the feat worth taking wouldn't benefit more from just taking that first level of Fighter? If you are going for full spellcasting or high level abilities you don't really need a Fighting Style. Or you belong to a class that already gets one.
That's a difference of, on average, one single hit point over 20 levels. Barbarians benefit more from taking Con +2 than this feat. But as you noticed, I did mention barbarians as one of the few exceptions. :)
If you have maxed out ASIs you can't take this feat. Or do you mean that you have already maxed your stats? In that case, a level of Fighter actually makes even more sense.
How is this more beneficial?
If your want to go for optimal spellcasting there are better feats than Fighting Initiate.
This isn't really a benefit, now is it? Also, that ship sailed a looong time ago. ;)
So, in which of those situations is it actually better to pick the feat over the whole class level?
In this case I think it is. At least for those characters where taking the feat is a valid option to begin with. If you've trained enough to, narratively, justify taking the FI feat then I say you are just as justified to take a level of fighter.
Yeah, but except for a few of the early ones (like Weapons master) most of them at least have some kind of appeal and actual benefit to them. I dunno.
Bear on mind that fighting initiate allows you to have multiple fighting styles. With their plethora of ASIs, fighters are one of the better candidates for taking fighting initiate (though there's better feats).
So, what you're saying when you say that the opportunity costs are effectively the same, is that delaying every class feature and spell you ever acquire by a full level is effectively the same as reducing your most important ability score by 2. That only makes sense under one condition, I think.
Have you perhaps already decided which classes and multiclass combinations are of legitimate power, dismissing the rest as being beneath your consideration? If so, don't you think you should tell us what those are, so we're all on the same page?
Your post seems to request an objective answer to a subjective question. At the end of the day, the game is.about preferences. Maybe they want a Fighting style but want their capstone ability. Trying to find scenarios where it is objectively better to do that is going to be a very long exercise. One thst very few people will be willing to go through. You asked why someone would take FI instead of a level in Fighter, that is an answer- because MCing would remove their capstone ability but they still want a Fighting Style.
No, it doesn't make sense. They'd either have to only ever get to L3 in any given class or bite the bullet and take either an ASI to a dumpstat or take a feat.
Because they don't want to deal with multiple hit dice and if they go into a different class with a different hit die, they'll have to deal with different hit die?
But they can have the benefits of FI without losing out on spell slot progression or learning spells...
It's a ship sailed before for you, but we're not talking about you, and yeah, some people have things for being able tonsay that they've never done x. Eh.
You're being argumentative and trying to prove me.wrong, rather than trying to understand. I've pointed out multiple times where it would be advantageous to go for the feat rather than MC. One of your responses was to stop all progression in your main class, which is not exactly conventional wisdom. This seems to be far more about picking a fight than actually understanding why others make certain decisions.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Fighting Initiate is worse on its origin class than any other class, because of how difficult it is to find Fighting Styles that usefully stack. It's a fundamentally bad feat - fighting styles are clearly balanced towards being weaker than a feat - but it's at its best on someone who can't multiclass into Fighter because they don't have the necessary Strength or Dexterity due to not needing either for anything. Here are examples:
Because almost everyone needs Strength or Dexterity to have a credible AC (without crippling their mobility, in the case of Strength) and thereby live through encounters, it's otherwise quite rare finding a functional build that lacks access to Fighter.
It's perfectly practical to stack, say, Blind-Fighting, Defense, Dueling (or Great Weapon, or Two Weapon), and Protection. It's just kinda underwhelming.
What if your playing a spellcaster?
Taking a level in fighter would mean you didn't get any more spell slots and it would delay your progression.
Taking this feat means you dont have to do that.
In addition, taking a level in fighter would mean that you miss out on your special level 20 feature.
Though I personally dont think fighting initiate is good, it certainly has it's uses.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Not really, and no need to be confrontative. You are most likely not delaying as much as you are exchanging. If the class features are so important (and there are a lot of features that are a lot better than Fighter 1) you probably don't want or need a Fighting style to begin with. So I'm trying to figure out if there's something I've missed. So far it seems I haven't, really.
Like I said, I'm trying to figure out when the fighting initiate feat actually is the more beneficial choice.
Not really, no. I was asking for motivations and generally just opening up for discussion.
Then people don't have to. But if they do it's always nice if they stay on topic, don't you think?
I asked when it would be more beneficial than taking a level of fighter.
Why do you think it doesn't make any sense? I'm not sure I even understand what you mean by "maxed out ASIs".
The question remains. If you don't want to answer you don't have to. :)
Sure, but you would still lose out over not taking a feat that is better suited for spellcasting.
It's still not a benefit.
No, I'm asking follow up questions. That is not being argumentative, that is called having a conversation.
You've claimed that it's advantageous but you haven't explained why under the premise of the topic.
Multiclassing goes against "conventional wisdom"? Wow, that's a new one.
If that's how you choose to interpret it you are welcome not to reply. Personally I ask follow up question because I'm interested in engaging in discussion.
Artificers are one of the few exceptions, yes. As you say, Rangers already get fighting styles. I'm not sure if a moon druid would ever really need a fighting style though?
Yes, this is kind of my point. Why would any of those really need a fighting style though?
If you are playing a spellcaster (already mentioned exceptions excluded) I don't really see the need for a Fighting Style to begin with. Some classes have fantastic capstones, many do not. Few games actually go to level 20. As you say, FI isn't really that good of a feat, which, if you want to add some martial prowess to your character, makes it an even lesser choice compared to a full level of Fighter. The classes/character builds who would benefit from a fighting style but not a level of fighter (because of cool capstones) pretty much already has access to fighting styles and they seldom need more than one, as far as I can see.
"Artificers are one of the few exceptions, yes. As you say, Rangers already get fighting styles. I'm not sure if a moon druid would ever really need a fighting style though?"
I could see an argument for blind fighting on a moon druid, let's you charge into any type of darkness and keep fighting effectively.
Really blind fighting is great for anyone that can get close enough safely like a blade singer or a durably built spellcaster that can cast darkness and still target creatures with their spells.
Edit: both this theoretical wizard and druid wouldn't benefit meaningfully from the added wep and armor proficiency if you choose a level of fighter.
The classes that are based on 'hit things with weapons' and don't have fighting style are
The question for all of those classes, though, is "is fighting initiate really the best use of a feat?" Sure, I'll benefit, but there are other things I'll benefit more from.
If you're convinced Fighting Initiate is the worst feat to've ever existed in all of D&D for the last fifty years, don't take it.
it exists in the same space Magic Initiate does - allowing other classes to dip their toes into features/abilities of other classes to achieve a certain vision the player may have. Perhaps a War domain cleric doesnt't want to deviate from their deity's chosen path but is looking for more of a martial flair for their character - they can take Fighting Initiate and gain an appropriate fighting style to reflect their character's training and valor without diluting their devotion to their chosen deity
Mechanically, it doesn't tend to come up often unless you're playing a bow user that doesn't get native access to the Archery fighting style, a'la dexy paladins that want pocket bows, artificers using crossbows, or anyone else who wants the arguably-overpowered attack bonus Archery provides. Neither paladins nor artificers want to delay gaining access to exceptional features like Aura of Protection or further progress on their Infusion track, so the opportunity cost of Fighting Initiate over a Fighter dip becomes a valid debate.
Please do not contact or message me.
A Swashbuckler who wants the Two-Weapon Fighting Style but doesn’t want to slow their Sneak Attack progression is one that comes to my mind.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Problem is... sneak attack isn't all that exciting. Taking 2 levels fighter (action surge), 3 levels fighter (+superiority dice), or 5 levels fighter (+extra attack) will easily get you more damage per round than you're sacrificing for sneak attack.
It only matters how the player of the character feels about it. IF the player is excited to get that next sneak attack die or some other class feature, then dipping into fighter may not be worth it for the player. It is all about personal preferences.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Sure, but if you aren't concerned with optimization, it doesn't particularly matter if a feat is good.