D&D 5E Cheesy or Meaty?

[rgoodbb]

May one suggest an axe if it is splitting ye want

 

[Yunru]

But a scimitar lacks the heaviness of splitting your enemies head to toe and make a nice totem of their remains to inspire fear into the hearts of their comrades.

Ah, but no two-handed weapon has the finesse to slip between the neck bones are wrench their 'eads off!

 

[rgoodbb]

Khopesh. Shaped like a scimitar used like an axe

 

[FrogReaver]

Would it? Shoving is specifically a 'special melee attack', and Reckless requires you to make your 'first attack', so it seems like Reckless could trigger off a shove.

But on the flip side, Reckless also says it gives benefits on 'melee weapon attack rolls'. So it would trigger, but not give you any benefit on the shove, since you're not making a weapon attack roll. I think? Hrrm.

Well at least you got to the same place: You will have to reckless attack before you know if the shove worked...

 

[Seramus]

As for the barb/rogue combo itself, seems like a pretty straightforward Conan build (books, not movie) with a shield fetish.

As for cheesy or meaty, that entirely depends upon the player in question. Mechanical gimmicks can be really fun to discover and play, so you don't want to shoot someone down for having fun like that. But it comes down to how well the player can roleplay. Some do it well, and some do it poorly, regardless of the quality of their build.

 

[TwoSix]

Well at least you got to the same place: You will have to reckless attack before you know if the shove worked...

So what you're saying is you wouldn't allow the bonus action shove until the Attack Action has already occurred? Certainly not how I would rule it. I don't do that for any bonus action triggered by an action type. The only thing I do is if you take a bonus action before the triggering action, you can't change the action to something else if it somehow becomes invalid, you simply lose the action.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That sounds even more unkillable! But I lose the iconic (in my mind) shield cuff to knock someone down. Hmmff. I'm now looking at the Grappler and Tavern Brawler feats but they don't seem to offer much that I couldn't already do.

Tavern Brawler has kind of a nice synergy for shield-based grappler builds in that if you're beating the other guy to death with your shield anyway, you might as well get proficiency on your attacks. It probably doesn't justify taking the feat in the first place, but it is kind of a nice fringe benefit. I have a paladin in one party who likes to grapple/prone enemies in chokepoints--as long as the party isn't outnumbered or anything, so novas aren't needed--to take an enemy out of the fight, and then he beats that enemy with his shield. The advantage from having a prone target offsets lack of proficiency with shield bashing, so it works out okay, but he'd benefit from having Tavern Brawler if he somehow magically had it.

It probably wouldn't be worth the feat cost though because the point of that tactic is to cheaply take an enemy out of the equation and also use that enemy to physically block an approach vector (i.e. chokepoint). The shield bashing is just to pass the time--most of the damage gets done by the ranged attackers in the party. The only time it would be really worthwhile to have shield bashing proficiency is in a solo scenario.

 

[rgoodbb]

Tavern Brawler has kind of a nice synergy for shield-based grappler builds in that if you're beating the other guy to death with your shield anyway, you might as well get proficiency on your attacks. It probably doesn't justify taking the feat in the first place, but it is kind of a nice fringe benefit. I have a paladin in one party who likes to grapple/prone enemies in chokepoints--as long as the party isn't outnumbered or anything, so novas aren't needed--to take an enemy out of the fight, and then he beats that enemy with his shield. The advantage from having a prone target offsets lack of proficiency with shield bashing, so it works out okay, but he'd benefit from having Tavern Brawler if he somehow magically had it.

It probably wouldn't be worth the feat cost though because the point of that tactic is to cheaply take an enemy out of the equation and also use that enemy to physically block an approach vector (i.e. chokepoint). The shield bashing is just to pass the time--most of the damage gets done by the ranged attackers in the party. The only time it would be really worthwhile to have shield bashing proficiency is in a solo scenario.

Does sound fun. I have never seen a brawler in play, and though it does intrigue me, it's probably not for me this time because of the sneak attack.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Does sound fun. I have never seen a brawler in play, and though it does intrigue me, it's probably not for me this time because of the sneak attack.

That's why in your case I'd recommend Defensive Duelist, if you have a spare ASI. You can grapple/prone with one hand and sneak attack with the other, while still gaining an AC benefit comparable to a shield (and sometimes better), plus have the option of going full-on rapier + shield for maximum defense against foes too large to push around.


Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[guachi]

So what you're saying is you wouldn't allow the bonus action shove until the Attack Action has already occurred? Certainly not how I would rule it. I don't do that for any bonus action triggered by an action type. The only thing I do is if you take a bonus action before the triggering action, you can't change the action to something else if it somehow becomes invalid, you simply lose the action.

No, I think they are saying that the bonus action Shove is an attack. If it's an attack you must declare Reckless before you make the Shove even if the benefits of Reckless don't apply to Shove.

We know that you can "take the Attack action", bonus action Shove, and then make your Attack action attacks. The issue is that Shove is an attack and, therefore, requires Reckless declaration beforehand.