It just seems strange to me that a dwarf, whose essence is centred on constitution and resistance, has to wait until class level 4 to gain proficiency in con saves.
Would you rather be a level 1 dwarf with an 18 CON, or a level 1 dwarf with a 14 CON and proficiency in CON saves?
They end up with the exact same bonus on their CON saves, but the former seems a lot more like a character "whose essence is centred on constitution and resistance" than the latter to me.
I'd idealise a system that could accommodate an academic who was a health fanatic and a sniper type character that may be a physical slob but who had other personal strengths. Why the jump from 18 to 14?
Why does a character, with a background and racial traits that suit certain strengths, instead get the benefit for other strengths just because they gained a single level in one character class? Why is this then set? Why is it possible for a character you toughen up as a fighter to prepare to become a wizard and why is it only possible for a third level wizard to toughen up by taking another level in wizardry rather than by taking a level in fighter?
It makes no sense.
I'd think it would be more logical if saving throw proficiencies gravitated around those of the majority of a character's class levels with some additional leeway in accordance to what players had to say about their character's lifestyles. This might have an additional effect of helping characters to exhibit more of the behaviours that would make them what they are.
Why does a character, with a background and racial traits that suit certain strengths, instead get the benefit for other strengths just because they gained a single level in one character class?
Because D&D is a class-based game
You keep talking like proficiency is the only way to be good at saving throws, and like saving throws are the only way a character can be considered 'strong' in that stat
Frankly, it's very weird
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you start with a class, it provides proficiencies. If you think that you have developed a proficiency via leveling in a class, that is exactly what resilient feats are for.
Why does a character, with a background and racial traits that suit certain strengths, instead get the benefit for other strengths just because they gained a single level in one character class?
Because D&D is a class-based game
You keep talking like proficiency is the only way to be good at saving throws, and like saving throws are the only way a character can be considered 'strong' in that stat
Frankly, it's very weird
In a stated context of d&d being "a class-based game", please explain this:
... that a fighter 1/wizard 19 with a sage background does directly get proficiency in constitution saving throws but, for instance, a wizard 1/fighter 19 with a hermit background, if the levels were gained in that order, doesn't..
I keep talking about proficiency as being the preset and unchangeable way to be good at saving throws as pushed on each first level character regardless of race, background or character focus regarding progression after level 1.
I neither see why 5e adds saving throw proficiencies into the game or why they get slapped on in such a monolithic way. But, given that 5e has chosen to use a system of saving throws, I can understand a desire for simplistic addition. However, I can't understand, if I want to construct a wizard build, why I am encouraged to take one of perhaps two levels in fighter first.
Frankly, that's really weird.
It's weird enough that the fighter turned wizard gets a 50 gp spellbook with 600 gp worth of (non specialist) inscription dropped in their lap upon level up. It's even weirder to have an in-game reward for choosing an odd route of character progression choices like this.
If you start with a class, it provides proficiencies. If you think that you have developed a proficiency via leveling in a class, that is exactly what resilient feats are for.
In character generation, the player starts with a character concept and then typically a class.
In-game a character starts with a race, an upbringing and, typically, a background. Races and backgrounds also give some proficiencies and present ideas of the focuses of characters by way of their abilities.
Characters then face being fixed into a format of base saving throw proficiencies because of their initial choice of adventuring class.
A spellcaster who doesn't start with sorcerer or artificer may then have to sacrifice possibilities of other feat choices for something they could have got at level one if they had, say, chosen to start with, say, one of two levels in fighter. I don't see why, for instance, new players should potentially be left to regret starting their wizards as wizards.
This entire argument sounds like a spellcasting character is entitled to proficiency in those con saving throws.
Yes EXACTLY a character should be provided saving throws by what they choose to do. Yes EXACTLY a character should have to make some sacrifice to get that proficiency.
It might be an interesting house rule to change proficiencies based on the class you have the most levels in (including other starting proficiencies), but this is a rule that is more complex than most of 5e's base rules. You make a valid point that an artificer1/wizard11 should probably look more like a wizard than an artificer. Maybe they should lose con saving throws and armor proficiencies.
This entire argument sounds like a spellcasting character is entitled to proficiency in those con saving throws.
How do you get to that?
I started by saying that, "I'd have thought that saving throw proficiencies might be dependent on a range of issues in a character's background" and just went on to mention things I personally thought, at the time of writing the OP, were reasonable.
I've admitted, for instance, "... that it could be hard particularly to justify swapping any cleric's saving throw proficiency away from wisdom which seems typically to be central to their training."
...a character should be provided saving throws by what they choose to do. ...
But the problem is they don't "choose".
If, say, an experienced player plans to build a sorcerer/warlock they will always start with sorcerer. This will ALWAYS happen. Even in the case of my theorised hardy Lizardfolk character with the marine background, there wouldn't be a role-playing option that would permit starting with warlock in a way that would be as strong as if the Lizardfolk marine had started with sorcerer. Storytelling be damned!
You make a valid point that an artificer1/wizard11 should probably look more like a wizard than an artificer. Maybe they should lose con saving throws and armor proficiencies.
I could imagine a change in regard to their saving throws. In what way do you think they'd lose their armour proficiency?
I mostly think you are talking from the assumption that you should get con saving throws for no reason other than "because you want it." That is absolutely an argument from entitlement. Sure con proficiency is good, but that actually makes better game design if you have to make some sort of choice about your character to achieve it.
And you do absolutely choose as long as your DM hasn't told you what class you have to play. Any statement presumed that you haven't chosen your class is a non-starter. If you are discussing an optimized character constructed by a seasoned player, they may choose to make the optimal mechanical decision, that doesn't make it any less of a decision. Deciding to make your character optimal in some way is a decision. Deciding not to, or deciding to get the same result in a different way (such as resilient feats) is equally valid in 5e (published adventures are *not* generally balanced toward optimized characters).
And finally, if you are talking about the limitations of starting profciencies for classes and propose a solution of changing proficiencies, then why the heck wouldn't you include proficiency changes other than the ones that make your character more mechanically optimal? That, again, is an argument from a position of "I want this so I should get it." The fact that you only ever argue for improving your character for free in this thread is telling enough.
Most importantly, what it is telling me is that my continued participation in this thread will not be a valuable use of my time. Good day, sir.
I keep talking about proficiency as being the preset and unchangeable way to be good at saving throws as pushed on each first level character regardless of race, background or character focus regarding progression after level 1.
And that's completely wrong, because proficiency is not the only only to be good at saving throws
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I keep talking about proficiency as being the preset and unchangeable way to be good at saving throws as pushed on each first level character regardless of race, background or character focus regarding progression after level 1.
And that's completely wrong, because proficiency is not the only only to be good at saving throws
RAW, you are stuck with preset and unchangeable saving throw proficiencies that are pushed on each character at the point of first level.
My plan for my next character is genuinely to build an Artificer 3/Wizard 5 and up/Fighter 2 as a base for Don-Jean, Papa Svirfneblin.
My plan, in any case, is to start with artificer which suits the build fine. My plan within the character is to start with inheritor background to give a rationalisation for an acquisition of a spellbook.
If however, for some story-driven reason or if I wanted to avoid the contrivance or having an immensely valuable spellbook simply beam down on me, I wanted to start with wizard, I'd be stuck with the preset and unchangeable saving throw proficiencies that were pushed on the character at the point of the first level of the initial adventuring class.
It wouldn't matter even if a character had a background that had lasted over half a lifetime to that point or that the character was later set to initiate two classes with constitution saving throws. The character would be stuck with the imposed preset from the first class attained.
And finally, if you are talking about the limitations of starting profciencies for classes and propose a solution of changing proficiencies, then why the heck wouldn't you include proficiency changes other than the ones that make your character more mechanically optimal?
Fair point. An idea that has been growing on me through this discussion is that perhaps, at DMs discretion, it would be possible for characters to put their saving throw proficiencies on hold until reaching a character class that fitted either the proficiencies or once their character had developed to a majority of classes in with desired saving throw proficiencies which also fitted the theme of the character.
In other cases, characters might need to develop in sequences that don't fit a preferred story arc, just for the sake of mechanics. It could be a bit like that old Morcombe and Wise sketch, "I'm playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order".
It's not entitlement for a player to ask a question of a DM.
My plan, in any case, is to start with artificer which suits the build fine. My plan within the character is to start with inheritor background to give a rationalisation for an acquisition of a spellbook.
If however, for some story-driven reason or if I wanted to avoid the contrivance or having an immensely valuable spellbook simply beam down on me, I wanted to start with wizard, I'd be stuck with the preset and unchangeable saving throw proficiencies that were pushed on the character at the point of the first level of the initial adventuring class.
I mean, more power to you if you can talk your DM into all that, but the idea of an artificer starting with a wizard's spellbook as an inheritance to set up a future MC is, umm, well, let's call it audacious.
How many 5th-level spells are you planning to put in the spellbook?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I indicated that "I wanted to avoid the contrivance of having an immensely valuable spellbook simply beam down on me".
This was in context that I'd commented, "It's weird enough that the fighter turned wizard gets a 50 gp spellbook with 600 gp worth of (non specialist) inscription dropped in their lap upon level up."
I'm not planning to put any 5th-level spells in the spellbook.
I'm giving up my background to try to make some sense of a bit of oft. typical 5e nonsense.
I indicated that "I wanted to avoid the contrivance of having an immensely valuable spellbook simply beam down on me".
Actually, what you said is that IF you wanted to avoid that contrivance, you'd start at Wizard 1
Are you? Seemed like you were starting at Artificer 1, and only for the CON save proficiency
Look my dude, from my perspective you have yet to provide a remotely compelling reason why your saving throw proficiencies should be uncoupled from your starting class, or indeed why saving throw proficiencies (but not any other proficiency -- only the saving throws) are so vitally important to a character conception in the first place that you should have that flexibility
All I've really seen is you really, really wanting your wizard to have better concentration saves, and deciding for whatever reason that simply giving the character a higher CON score to accomplish that isn't good enough
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"My plan, in any case, is to start with artificer which suits the build fine. My plan within the character is to start with inheritor background to give a rationalisation for an acquisition of a spellbook.
If however, for some story-driven reason or if I wanted to avoid the contrivance or having an immensely valuable spellbook simply beam down on me, I wanted to start with wizard, I'd be stuck with the preset and unchangeable saving throw proficiencies that were pushed on the character at the point of the first level of the initial adventuring class."
In my presentations of ideas, I genuinely try my best to straightforwardly work towards something that makes something akin to real world sense.
In a previous thread, I argued that artificers should have less than the provision of RAW so as to deny them ability to infuse spellwrought tattoos on the basis of arguments that the presence of this ability would radically change the contexts of 5e worlds.
In this thread, I've argued for changes that have been in favour of character strengths but on grounds of what I see as best logical realism regarding character development.
If a would-be mage went to some kind of wizard school and understood various options of wizard future development, many would pursue options to secure their physical resistance so as to support their future ability to maintain their spells. Sure some of them might go to some philosophy classes to work on their (from a typically neglected wizard stat) wisdom-related resilience - but most wizards, with an eye on their future, would more likely head for the gym.
When I make proposals that just go as far as to relate to a question that might be posed to a DM, I get accused of entitlement.
It gets reflected back with suggestions of a starting artificer "losing" saving throw proficiencies as well as losing armour proficiencies.
I then get you insinuating that I'm trying to nab extra spells for a spellbook.
"Are you?" Sure the con save proficiency granted at the one time opportunity of level 1 is definitely one major reason to start with artificer.
For the sake of completeness, other reasons are: armour, practical skills and ability, at level 2, to profitably infuse magic items. It's not something that I think should be in the game but, if an artificer infusion of spellwrought tattoos were possible, few but the foolish or the very rich would start with wizard.
But what I don't like in relation to save throw proficiencies is the storytelling limitation that pushes character development according to prescribed sequences.
What I don't accept is the contrivance, storytelling limitation that a sorcerer/warlock will end up being disadvantaged if they started their adventuring careers as warlocks, that an artificer/wizard will end up being disadvantaged if they start their careers as a wizard or that a druid/barbarian will end up being disadvantaged if they start their careers as druids.
I then get you insinuating that I'm trying to nab extra spells for a spellbook.
Well, it's a natural assumption, because otherwise there would seem to be zero reason to start with a spellbook when you're not a wizard, as opposed to cobbling one together when you actually take that first wizard level, same as every other first-level wizard does.
In this thread, I've argued for changes that have been in favour of character strengths but on grounds of what I see as best logical realism regarding character development.
If a would-be mage went to some kind of wizard school and understood various options of wizard future development, many would pursue options to secure their physical resistance so as to support their future ability to maintain their spells. Sure some of them might go to some philosophy classes to work on their (from a typically neglected wizard stat) wisdom-related resilience - but most wizards, with an eye on their future, would more likely head for the gym.
Then you would give them a higher CON score to represent them being in better physical condition. You've still offered no reason why save proficiencies, specifically, should be dragged into it.
But what I don't like in relation to save throw proficiencies is the storytelling limitation that pushes character development according to prescribed sequences.
What I don't accept is the contrivance, storytelling limitation that a sorcerer/warlock will end up being disadvantaged if they started their adventuring careers as warlocks, that an artificer/wizard will end up being disadvantaged if they start their careers as a wizard or that a druid/barbarian will end up being disadvantaged if they start their careers as druids.
Maybe you're fine with this. It's OK to differ.
There are no "storytelling limitations" from certain saving throw proficiencies, and those class combos aren't "disadvantaged" -- unless you are approaching this from the perspective that wizards are entitled to CON save proficiency, of course.
If you want your wizard to be good at CON saves because they hit the gym at wizard school instead of taking philosophy classes, you don't need to homebrew new rules or multiclass to do it. Just give them a higher CON score. Why is that so absolutely inconceivable to you? You even get more hit points out of the deal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Class-based saving throw proficiencies contribute less than nothing to a role-playing game as they produce an artificial channelling of player choices.
It would give more freedom in character development if these proficiencies did not exist outside of access to the resilient feat.
I know that I said I was done with this argument, but I really feel bad for people who might read this and think "Oh yeah, it is an artificial channeling of player choices, so that poster is right, we should create a false choice in our games instead." I really hope that no one gets fooled into bad game design adjustments from this thread.
There is no channeling of choice in the current system. You get what you get. If you multiclass (which is an optional rule), you may have some options as to which class levels you take first, but if you aren't multiclassing, you don't get a choice. On that note if you are multiclassing, level 1 proficiencies are exactly designed for it to matter which levels you take first. You get a choice, but you are tied to that choice by something. If you think that there is some mechanical advantage to starting in one class first, but can't find a story reason to do it, then fine. Figure it out. Either come up with a story reason ("I've had this book for years, but I could never unlock its potential or understand it until I took those first steps toward learning to be a wizard") or resign yourself to the actual mechanics of the game. It is a game after all; it needs some limits on what players can do.
In a system where you chose your saving throws, you get no choice either. Handing players a false choice where there is an obvious best answer makes for more restrictive character creation under the illusion of less restriction (or simply shifts the power level of all the characters).
You may think that you're not just begging for con saves, but more and more, that is what you're turning this thread into. Maybe your DM will bite on one of the terrible arguments you made. I hope it isn't the one about choice though, because you aren't increasing choice by letting players decide between some options and other obviously better options.
There is no channeling of choice in the current system.
You get a choice, but you are tied to that choice by something. If you think that there is some mechanical advantage to starting in one class first, but can't find a story reason to do it, then fine. Figure it out. Either come up with a story reason ...
If you want to build a barbarian/druid, knowledgeable players will typically tend to start with barbarian even if their story inclinations might have preferred a start with druid.
If you want to build a sorcerer/warlock, knowledgeable players will typically tend to start with sorcerer even if their story inclinations might have preferred a start with warlock.
If you want to build an artificer/wizard or a fighter/wizard, knowledgeable players will typically tend to start with artificer or fighter even if their story inclinations might have preferred a start with wizard.
How can you say, "There is no channelling of choice in the current system"?
Class-based saving throw proficiencies contribute less than nothing to a role-playing game as they produce an artificial channelling of player choices.
It would give more freedom in character development if these proficiencies did not exist outside of access to the resilient feat.
It would also give more freedom in character development if I could just say my axe is extra big and does 2d10 damage. But there are certain restrictions put on the game mechanics for the sake of balance. ST proficiencies are one of those.
Yes, multi-classing can be used to get around this. There's not really a better way to do it, so mechanics needs to make a less-than-ideal concession. In a game where roleplaying is allegedly as important as you claim, a wizard/fighter starting out as a wizard would actually be a very different character than one starting out as a fighter. That the game reflects this is a point for roleplaying over mechanics.
Why are you guys so argumentative?
Because there's subtext here. You're not a Fey Wanderer ranger wanting CHA saves instead of STR, which would have little impact on the game and most DMs would probably be fine with. You are a wizard that wants better CON saves. It comes off as you wanting a mechanical boost and trying to hide your reasoning behind "I need freedom to roleplay."
The real kicker is, you have the freedom. If you want to be a dwarven wizard who has trained to be tough - training being different from natural aptitude - then start out as a fighter and MC to wizard. Yes, that choice has a cost to it when it comes to your spellbook. That's the game working as intended. Choices have costs. Many choices available in character building are terrible mechanical choices. That's just the cost of the game maintaining a semblance of balance in the face of an infinite number of game element combinations. It's the game in the roleplaying game and it's what separates D&D from pure unflitered make-believe.
I'd idealise a system that could accommodate an academic who was a health fanatic and a sniper type character that may be a physical slob but who had other personal strengths. Why the jump from 18 to 14?
Why does a character, with a background and racial traits that suit certain strengths, instead get the benefit for other strengths just because they gained a single level in one character class? Why is this then set? Why is it possible for a character you toughen up as a fighter to prepare to become a wizard and why is it only possible for a third level wizard to toughen up by taking another level in wizardry rather than by taking a level in fighter?
It makes no sense.
I'd think it would be more logical if saving throw proficiencies gravitated around those of the majority of a character's class levels with some additional leeway in accordance to what players had to say about their character's lifestyles. This might have an additional effect of helping characters to exhibit more of the behaviours that would make them what they are.
Because D&D is a class-based game
You keep talking like proficiency is the only way to be good at saving throws, and like saving throws are the only way a character can be considered 'strong' in that stat
Frankly, it's very weird
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you start with a class, it provides proficiencies. If you think that you have developed a proficiency via leveling in a class, that is exactly what resilient feats are for.
In a stated context of d&d being "a class-based game", please explain this:
I keep talking about proficiency as being the preset and unchangeable way to be good at saving throws as pushed on each first level character regardless of race, background or character focus regarding progression after level 1.
I neither see why 5e adds saving throw proficiencies into the game or why they get slapped on in such a monolithic way.
But, given that 5e has chosen to use a system of saving throws, I can understand a desire for simplistic addition.
However, I can't understand, if I want to construct a wizard build, why I am encouraged to take one of perhaps two levels in fighter first.
Frankly, that's really weird.
It's weird enough that the fighter turned wizard gets a 50 gp spellbook with 600 gp worth of (non specialist) inscription dropped in their lap upon level up. It's even weirder to have an in-game reward for choosing an odd route of character progression choices like this.
In character generation, the player starts with a character concept and then typically a class.
In-game a character starts with a race, an upbringing and, typically, a background. Races and backgrounds also give some proficiencies and present ideas of the focuses of characters by way of their abilities.
Characters then face being fixed into a format of base saving throw proficiencies because of their initial choice of adventuring class.
A spellcaster who doesn't start with sorcerer or artificer may then have to sacrifice possibilities of other feat choices for something they could have got at level one if they had, say, chosen to start with, say, one of two levels in fighter. I don't see why, for instance, new players should potentially be left to regret starting their wizards as wizards.
This entire argument sounds like a spellcasting character is entitled to proficiency in those con saving throws.
Yes EXACTLY a character should be provided saving throws by what they choose to do. Yes EXACTLY a character should have to make some sacrifice to get that proficiency.
It might be an interesting house rule to change proficiencies based on the class you have the most levels in (including other starting proficiencies), but this is a rule that is more complex than most of 5e's base rules. You make a valid point that an artificer1/wizard11 should probably look more like a wizard than an artificer. Maybe they should lose con saving throws and armor proficiencies.
How do you get to that?
I started by saying that, "I'd have thought that saving throw proficiencies might be dependent on a range of issues in a character's background" and just went on to mention things I personally thought, at the time of writing the OP, were reasonable.
I've admitted, for instance, "... that it could be hard particularly to justify swapping any cleric's saving throw proficiency away from wisdom which seems typically to be central to their training."
But the problem is they don't "choose".
If, say, an experienced player plans to build a sorcerer/warlock they will always start with sorcerer. This will ALWAYS happen. Even in the case of my theorised hardy Lizardfolk character with the marine background, there wouldn't be a role-playing option that would permit starting with warlock in a way that would be as strong as if the Lizardfolk marine had started with sorcerer. Storytelling be damned!
I could imagine a change in regard to their saving throws. In what way do you think they'd lose their armour proficiency?
I mostly think you are talking from the assumption that you should get con saving throws for no reason other than "because you want it." That is absolutely an argument from entitlement. Sure con proficiency is good, but that actually makes better game design if you have to make some sort of choice about your character to achieve it.
And you do absolutely choose as long as your DM hasn't told you what class you have to play. Any statement presumed that you haven't chosen your class is a non-starter. If you are discussing an optimized character constructed by a seasoned player, they may choose to make the optimal mechanical decision, that doesn't make it any less of a decision. Deciding to make your character optimal in some way is a decision. Deciding not to, or deciding to get the same result in a different way (such as resilient feats) is equally valid in 5e (published adventures are *not* generally balanced toward optimized characters).
And finally, if you are talking about the limitations of starting profciencies for classes and propose a solution of changing proficiencies, then why the heck wouldn't you include proficiency changes other than the ones that make your character more mechanically optimal? That, again, is an argument from a position of "I want this so I should get it." The fact that you only ever argue for improving your character for free in this thread is telling enough.
Most importantly, what it is telling me is that my continued participation in this thread will not be a valuable use of my time. Good day, sir.
And that's completely wrong, because proficiency is not the only only to be good at saving throws
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
RAW, you are stuck with preset and unchangeable saving throw proficiencies that are pushed on each character at the point of first level.
My plan for my next character is genuinely to build an Artificer 3/Wizard 5 and up/Fighter 2 as a base for Don-Jean, Papa Svirfneblin.
My plan, in any case, is to start with artificer which suits the build fine. My plan within the character is to start with inheritor background to give a rationalisation for an acquisition of a spellbook.
If however, for some story-driven reason or if I wanted to avoid the contrivance or having an immensely valuable spellbook simply beam down on me, I wanted to start with wizard, I'd be stuck with the preset and unchangeable saving throw proficiencies that were pushed on the character at the point of the first level of the initial adventuring class.
It wouldn't matter even if a character had a background that had lasted over half a lifetime to that point or that the character was later set to initiate two classes with constitution saving throws. The character would be stuck with the imposed preset from the first class attained.
Fair point. An idea that has been growing on me through this discussion is that perhaps, at DMs discretion, it would be possible for characters to put their saving throw proficiencies on hold until reaching a character class that fitted either the proficiencies or once their character had developed to a majority of classes in with desired saving throw proficiencies which also fitted the theme of the character.
In other cases, characters might need to develop in sequences that don't fit a preferred story arc, just for the sake of mechanics. It could be a bit like that old Morcombe and Wise sketch, "I'm playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order".
It's not entitlement for a player to ask a question of a DM.
I mean, more power to you if you can talk your DM into all that, but the idea of an artificer starting with a wizard's spellbook as an inheritance to set up a future MC is, umm, well, let's call it audacious.
How many 5th-level spells are you planning to put in the spellbook?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
All 1st level wizards start with a spellbook.
I indicated that "I wanted to avoid the contrivance of having an immensely valuable spellbook simply beam down on me".
This was in context that I'd commented, "It's weird enough that the fighter turned wizard gets a 50 gp spellbook with 600 gp worth of (non specialist) inscription dropped in their lap upon level up."
I'm not planning to put any 5th-level spells in the spellbook.
I'm giving up my background to try to make some sense of a bit of oft. typical 5e nonsense.
Why are you guys so argumentative?
Actually, what you said is that IF you wanted to avoid that contrivance, you'd start at Wizard 1
Are you? Seemed like you were starting at Artificer 1, and only for the CON save proficiency
Look my dude, from my perspective you have yet to provide a remotely compelling reason why your saving throw proficiencies should be uncoupled from your starting class, or indeed why saving throw proficiencies (but not any other proficiency -- only the saving throws) are so vitally important to a character conception in the first place that you should have that flexibility
All I've really seen is you really, really wanting your wizard to have better concentration saves, and deciding for whatever reason that simply giving the character a higher CON score to accomplish that isn't good enough
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I said:
"My plan, in any case, is to start with artificer which suits the build fine. My plan within the character is to start with inheritor background to give a rationalisation for an acquisition of a spellbook.
If however, for some story-driven reason or if I wanted to avoid the contrivance or having an immensely valuable spellbook simply beam down on me, I wanted to start with wizard, I'd be stuck with the preset and unchangeable saving throw proficiencies that were pushed on the character at the point of the first level of the initial adventuring class."
In my presentations of ideas, I genuinely try my best to straightforwardly work towards something that makes something akin to real world sense.
In a previous thread, I argued that artificers should have less than the provision of RAW so as to deny them ability to infuse spellwrought tattoos on the basis of arguments that the presence of this ability would radically change the contexts of 5e worlds.
In this thread, I've argued for changes that have been in favour of character strengths but on grounds of what I see as best logical realism regarding character development.
If a would-be mage went to some kind of wizard school and understood various options of wizard future development, many would pursue options to secure their physical resistance so as to support their future ability to maintain their spells. Sure some of them might go to some philosophy classes to work on their (from a typically neglected wizard stat) wisdom-related resilience - but most wizards, with an eye on their future, would more likely head for the gym.
When I make proposals that just go as far as to relate to a question that might be posed to a DM, I get accused of entitlement.
It gets reflected back with suggestions of a starting artificer "losing" saving throw proficiencies as well as losing armour proficiencies.
I then get you insinuating that I'm trying to nab extra spells for a spellbook.
"Are you?" Sure the con save proficiency granted at the one time opportunity of level 1 is definitely one major reason to start with artificer.
For the sake of completeness, other reasons are: armour, practical skills and ability, at level 2, to profitably infuse magic items. It's not something that I think should be in the game but, if an artificer infusion of spellwrought tattoos were possible, few but the foolish or the very rich would start with wizard.
But what I don't like in relation to save throw proficiencies is the storytelling limitation that pushes character development according to prescribed sequences.
What I don't accept is the contrivance, storytelling limitation that a sorcerer/warlock will end up being disadvantaged if they started their adventuring careers as warlocks, that an artificer/wizard will end up being disadvantaged if they start their careers as a wizard or that a druid/barbarian will end up being disadvantaged if they start their careers as druids.
Maybe you're fine with this. It's OK to differ.
Well, it's a natural assumption, because otherwise there would seem to be zero reason to start with a spellbook when you're not a wizard, as opposed to cobbling one together when you actually take that first wizard level, same as every other first-level wizard does.
Then you would give them a higher CON score to represent them being in better physical condition. You've still offered no reason why save proficiencies, specifically, should be dragged into it.
There are no "storytelling limitations" from certain saving throw proficiencies, and those class combos aren't "disadvantaged" -- unless you are approaching this from the perspective that wizards are entitled to CON save proficiency, of course.
If you want your wizard to be good at CON saves because they hit the gym at wizard school instead of taking philosophy classes, you don't need to homebrew new rules or multiclass to do it. Just give them a higher CON score. Why is that so absolutely inconceivable to you? You even get more hit points out of the deal.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Class-based saving throw proficiencies contribute less than nothing to a role-playing game as they produce an artificial channelling of player choices.
It would give more freedom in character development if these proficiencies did not exist outside of access to the resilient feat.
I know that I said I was done with this argument, but I really feel bad for people who might read this and think "Oh yeah, it is an artificial channeling of player choices, so that poster is right, we should create a false choice in our games instead." I really hope that no one gets fooled into bad game design adjustments from this thread.
There is no channeling of choice in the current system. You get what you get. If you multiclass (which is an optional rule), you may have some options as to which class levels you take first, but if you aren't multiclassing, you don't get a choice. On that note if you are multiclassing, level 1 proficiencies are exactly designed for it to matter which levels you take first. You get a choice, but you are tied to that choice by something. If you think that there is some mechanical advantage to starting in one class first, but can't find a story reason to do it, then fine. Figure it out. Either come up with a story reason ("I've had this book for years, but I could never unlock its potential or understand it until I took those first steps toward learning to be a wizard") or resign yourself to the actual mechanics of the game. It is a game after all; it needs some limits on what players can do.
In a system where you chose your saving throws, you get no choice either. Handing players a false choice where there is an obvious best answer makes for more restrictive character creation under the illusion of less restriction (or simply shifts the power level of all the characters).
You may think that you're not just begging for con saves, but more and more, that is what you're turning this thread into. Maybe your DM will bite on one of the terrible arguments you made. I hope it isn't the one about choice though, because you aren't increasing choice by letting players decide between some options and other obviously better options.
If you want to build a barbarian/druid, knowledgeable players will typically tend to start with barbarian even if their story inclinations might have preferred a start with druid.
If you want to build a sorcerer/warlock, knowledgeable players will typically tend to start with sorcerer even if their story inclinations might have preferred a start with warlock.
If you want to build an artificer/wizard or a fighter/wizard, knowledgeable players will typically tend to start with artificer or fighter even if their story inclinations might have preferred a start with wizard.
How can you say, "There is no channelling of choice in the current system"?
It would also give more freedom in character development if I could just say my axe is extra big and does 2d10 damage. But there are certain restrictions put on the game mechanics for the sake of balance. ST proficiencies are one of those.
Yes, multi-classing can be used to get around this. There's not really a better way to do it, so mechanics needs to make a less-than-ideal concession. In a game where roleplaying is allegedly as important as you claim, a wizard/fighter starting out as a wizard would actually be a very different character than one starting out as a fighter. That the game reflects this is a point for roleplaying over mechanics.
Because there's subtext here. You're not a Fey Wanderer ranger wanting CHA saves instead of STR, which would have little impact on the game and most DMs would probably be fine with. You are a wizard that wants better CON saves. It comes off as you wanting a mechanical boost and trying to hide your reasoning behind "I need freedom to roleplay."
The real kicker is, you have the freedom. If you want to be a dwarven wizard who has trained to be tough - training being different from natural aptitude - then start out as a fighter and MC to wizard. Yes, that choice has a cost to it when it comes to your spellbook. That's the game working as intended. Choices have costs. Many choices available in character building are terrible mechanical choices. That's just the cost of the game maintaining a semblance of balance in the face of an infinite number of game element combinations. It's the game in the roleplaying game and it's what separates D&D from pure unflitered make-believe.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm