OD&D New toD&D 5thEd - Ftr>Eldritch Knight - questions, help, advice

[Mort]

I will consider defense instead of protection style. Not sure.

One of my players has a character near identical to yours (down to the dragonborn). I've run two sessions so far (not Dragon heist but urban adventures so far) and the protection fighting style has been invaluable.

Keep in mind, one of the main points of a tank is to not be unhittable but to encourage enemies to swing at you vs. Squishier targets.

 

[clearstream]

One of my players has a character near identical to yours (down to the dragonborn). I've run two sessions so far (not Dragon heist but urban adventures so far) and the protection fighting style has been invaluable.

Keep in mind, one of the main points of a tank is to not be unhittable but to encourage enemies to swing at you vs. Squishier targets.

I think you're right that this can be campaign dependent. I've seen Protection in a campaign under one DM, and Defense in a different campaign under a different DM. Defense has seemed stronger to me mechanically, but that is not the only concern players should have!

I generally play tanking or supporting characters, and crucial to their role seems to me to be their own ability to sustain incoming attacks. There's usually a few ways to do that. For a tier 1 Eldritch Knight, Defense +Shield covers it well.

 

[ccs]

Don't think I will switch scores to make charisma higher. Group already has 2 PC's with decent face skills.

That's fine. Just don't fall into the trap of not participating in social encounters because some other character has a higher bonus. And remember, not everything will even require dice rolls.

 

[S'mon]

Keep in mind, one of the main points of a tank is to not be unhittable but to encourage enemies to swing at you vs. Squishier targets.

Yeah - my reckless attacking glaive wielding Primeval Thule Slayer Barbarian made an excellent tank - I did tons* of damage so a threat, I was a tempting target since granting advtg, but closing to attack me gave me a free opp att and I had tons of hp + Rage to soak it up. Loved that PC. Meanwhile the Protection-style Fighter beside me (well, usually 5' in front of me & to the right) had AC 5 points higher but did about 1/8 the damage - monsters didn't want to attack her because she wasn't threatening enough.

*+10 damage/hit at level 4 for Greatweapon Master didn't hurt either... I'd be attacking 3/round (action, bonus action, reaction) for around 65 damage in total (if I -5/+10'd with the opp att, only vs low AC foes since no reckless advtg on opp att) while the Protection Fighter was still getting one attack for d8+3... two with Action Surge.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I have found abilities like Protection and Sentinel problematic in play. They put the DM in a difficult position where they have to judge if a foe who is experienced in combat, and whose life depends on it, reasonably would attack the bard when they know that will trigger the knight's protection?!

If the attacker chooses not to attack the protected target, then the ability has worked without any dice rolls necessary. Job done.

This only becomes a problem if the party includes other targets of opportunity (i.e. squishy characters).

A couple of other things to consider:

Use cantrips and spells to appear more threatening. e.g. Minor Illusion, Enlarge (can also enable you to block a passage).

Have a poor charisma. Try to negotiate with the hostiles and accidently insult them instead.

 

[clearstream]

If the attacker chooses not to attack the protected target, then the ability has worked without any dice rolls necessary. Job done.

I see what you are getting at - the idea is that either the target is harder to hit, or the EK becomes the target - yet at the table I found how the mechanics unfolded, leaned toward wanting Defense. Before I got my Plate, I didn't have the strongest AC, so being targeted all too quickly depleted my hit points. Or I would throw Shield, but an EK is limited in casts, only 2 or 3 for a big chunk of their career in the average campaign (tier 1 and 2). Fortunately my DM allowed me to switch to Defense fighting after a few sessions made the shortcomings clear. Again, this is at our table with our specific party. Once I had stacked Plate, Shield and Defense, I was being hit rarely enough that Shield become really telling, and I could stay in the fight and continue to hold back foes. I felt like I presented as appealing a target without Protection, as with it.

In our other game, I saw our Fighter having a better time. He had Protection and the DM largely ignored it, meaning that every so often he'd happen to be in the right position to use it, and it counted. "Every so often". What I observed is that always-on +1 AC would mechanically have served him better.

A couple of other things to consider:

Use cantrips and spells to appear more threatening. e.g. Minor Illusion, Enlarge (can also enable you to block a passage).

Good idea, but aren't you then protecting by actually blocking access? So Protection can't help you, and Defense would be great! (In that scenario.)

Have a poor charisma. Try to negotiate with the hostiles and accidently insult them instead.

When I DM this does not work, because if a player wants to use their words to shape foe actions, they need to succeed, not fail, in the appropriate social skill. For me, to do the opposite devalues the abilities in question.

I would allow this scenario, but the EK will need to succeed at a Charisma (Deception) ability check, contesting the target's Insight. I would likely give the target advantage in most situations, or +5, to account for their hostility and suspicion.

 

[gyor]

Advice:

Get some ranged weapons, Javelin use STR, which you have a bunch of. And you can never have enough rope.

I have not played Dragon Heist, but it is my understanding that the adventure is some kind of urban "bank robbery" scenario. Which would imply that you are going to need some stealth and/or schmoozing prowess. It's not that a party won't need some muscle, but the muscle should be able to wander around in a city somewhat inconspicuously. Going with intimidate isn't bad per-say, but you aren't going to be applying it with that low CHA.

AL allows using different ability scores for skills then usual, so I suggest using Intelligence for Persuasion checks,, using a mix of logical and informed arguments instead of reallying on emotional pleas.

 

[S'mon]

When I DM this does not work, because if a player wants to use their words to shape foe actions, they need to succeed, not fail, in the appropriate social skill. For me, to do the opposite devalues the abilities in question.

So to get what they want, the player has to fool you as GM, not the monster? They need to make you think they honestly desired the other result?

 

[clearstream]

So to get what they want, the player has to fool you as GM, not the monster? They need to make you think they honestly desired the other result?

No, as that assumes I am going to automatically make what the creature do the opposite of what the player articulates. That isn't the case.

Say the player "tricks me" and gets me to think they want the foe to flee when in fact they want it to attack. They try Charisma (Intimidation) failing. The foe might neither flee, nor attack: it might do something else. Buff itself or an ally perhaps, or try a Charisma (Intimidation) check of its own.

That said, my baseline is an expectation of honesty, in terms of what players tell me about their intentions. I don't rely on how they characterise their actions, but what they choose to do, and I try to be creative in the world's response to that.

 

[clearstream]

So to get what they want, the player has to fool you as GM, not the monster? They need to make you think they honestly desired the other result?

I just realised what else was nagging me about this: the baseline for the outcome of a failed skill is that the current situation continues, right? So if a Charisma (Intimidation), or whatever, check is failed, the baseline is that the creature does what it was going to do anyway i.e. the character failed to influence them.

So to get what they want, in your example, the character can choose to do nothing at all... assuming the creature intends to attack them. If the creature does not intend to attack them, failing a Charisma (Intimidation) check doesn't make it attack them. It continues not attacking just as it was intending to. That said, if I felt the creature should respond to the player's RP - and I might - then it would be mistaken of a player to try and trick their DM, or to think I would work in simple polarities.