D&D General Good min-maxes (no multiclass)

[mellored]

There are no hard aggro abilities. There are soft one, like making yourself more threatening (higher offense or control are the most common, having more damaging OA’s, etc.).

As an example a once made a swashbuckler rogue with a dip in barbarian so I could get a high damage OA and have the movement to close in on and isolate a target using cunning action. He held aggro very well due to the soft ability of a high OA and high mobility.

Blade singers have to trade survivability for becoming a threat, aka soft aggro.

Take Warcaster, and you have powerful OA's.
Like Levitate, Suggestion, Banishment, Cloud of Daggers.
Also Disintegrate or Finger of Death for just pure damage.
Or maybe snag Command for non-concentration, but that's "next turn".

 

[Zardnaar]

Considering there are virtually no aggro/control abilities available for any tanks in 5e, it's not a knock against the bladesinger to point out that they can't hold aggro.

It's also possible for both of these things to be true:
1) The bladesinger would be stronger if they wizarded more and melee'd less.
2) The bladesinger is a better defensive tank than a fighter.

That's because the bladesinger is just really strong.

Being a dedicated tank is a bit useless though.

I've seen tanks n 5.5. They're not maxing the AC (its generally 2-4 points higher than say GWM).

They're adding a bit of control or support t9 thr game though. Generally via Sentinel or shieldmaster, piercer or sone combination of all of the above.

Bladesingers not going to take those feats probably. I've seen smart Bladesingers focus more on the wizard part. They're using it to boost concentration saves and not get hit.

Ironically that makes them a better wizard than most of the other wizards.

Bad bladesinger players blow all their spells on beng useless and run out fast. My games dont do the 5MWD more 3-5 combats. They're like 5.0 Paladin players who use their spells on smites and run out in 3 or 4 rounds.

Players are often allergic to danage. If I have shield spell as a player I dont care as much until I've run out of hit dice or the damage has rider effects eg ghouls.

Internet vastly over rates Bladesingers imho. At least as a weapon using wizard. Outside the forums few players know the "required" spells as well.

 

[TwoSix]

Being a dedicated tank is a bit useless though.

Trying to control aggro in 5e, to somehow "tank" and absorb hits for the rest of the party, is definitely a fool's errand. (If you want to absorb damage for the party, play a twilight cleric.)

Being extremely hard to hit and damage is not useless, though. Survivability is its own form of utility.

Internet vastly over rates Bladesingers imho. At least as a weapon using wizard. Outside the forums few players know the "required" spells as well.

The core problem with Bladesinger is that doing wizard stuff is game-altering, whereas being a melee warrior is pretty straightforward.

But, if you want to be a melee warrior, Bladesinger is right at the top of powerful, versatile options.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Trying to control aggro in 5e, to somehow "tank" and absorb hits for the rest of the party, is definitely a fool's errand. (If you want to absorb damage for the party, play a twilight cleric.)

Being extremely hard to hit and damage is not useless, though. Survivability is its own form of utility.

Exactly. "Tanking" in 4e actually meant controlling enemy attention, because controlling enemy attention was a thing you could meaningfully do, and the mechanics made it both worthwhile and necessary.

In 5e, it just means being extremely survivable. And if your features have intimidated the GM into ignoring your character, congratulations, you've just proven that your technique is overpowered for the narrow thing you've chosen to specialize in, and now you can take advantage of this unwise decision on your GM's part.

The core problem with Bladesinger is that doing wizard stuff is game-altering, whereas being a melee warrior is pretty straightforward.

But, if you want to be a melee warrior, Bladesinger is right at the top of powerful, versatile options.

Precisely.

Though I must admit, it's really funny to hear Zardnaar assuring us that being a good Wizard makes you strictly better, stronger, more powerful than trying to be a highly-defensive combatant. Because he's spent quite a long time insisting to me, personally, that the Wizard is actually one of the weakest spellcasters in 5e, while Fighters are (supposedly) really really really strong all on their own.

Like...if a Wizard can personally elect to just strictly outclass the Fighter at one of the core things Fighters do, namely, being really well-defended.....and everything else the Wizard can do is strictly stronger than that...it seems like a pretty unavoidable conclusion that the Wizard class is, simply, better than the Fighter.

 

[Zardnaar]

Exactly. "Tanking" in 4e actually meant controlling enemy attention, because controlling enemy attention was a thing you could meaningfully do, and the mechanics made it both worthwhile and necessary.

In 5e, it just means being extremely survivable. And if your features have intimidated the GM into ignoring your character, congratulations, you've just proven that your technique is overpowered for the narrow thing you've chosen to specialize in, and now you can take advantage of this unwise decision on your GM's part.


Precisely.

Though I must admit, it's really funny to hear Zardnaar assuring us that being a good Wizard makes you strictly better, stronger, more powerful than trying to be a highly-defensive combatant. Because he's spent quite a long time insisting to me, personally, that the Wizard is actually one of the weakest spellcasters in 5e, while Fighters are (supposedly) really really really strong all on their own.

Like...if a Wizard can personally elect to just strictly outclass the Fighter at one of the core things Fighters do, namely, being really well-defended.....and everything else the Wizard can do is strictly stronger than that...it seems like a pretty unavoidable conclusion that the Wizard class is, simply, better than the Fighter.

I actually pkay the game. Warlocks realky front loaded in 5E most of the wizards are recycled from 5.0.

Sorcerer twin spell is super strong now and cheap. Twin tashas mind whip just saying.
Druids and clerics also got major buffs. New emanations.

Wizards got the Illusionist and some tweaked summoning spells for the most part.

Big power disparity until level 10 or so.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I actually pkay the game.

So do I. Casting aspersions isn't going to help you on that front.

 

[Zardnaar]

So do I. Casting aspersions isn't going to help you on that front.

From DM PoV if a player is dancing around wasting spells as a blade dancer Im fine with that. I woukd actually feed them a decent magic weapon.

At level 12 I handed out this

Sword of Chaos - bg3.wiki

Sword of Chaos is a very rare +2 greatsword which deals additional Necrotic damage and also restores a portion of the wielder's health on each successful hit.

bg3.wiki

So you would get something decent. Legendary rappier, frost tongue etc. Probably custom item probably legendary.

In 6.5 the feat selection would get you as thr nice weapon feats do not boost intelligence.

 

[ECMO3]

Hello, I enjoy creating characters and I have been trying to figure out OP subclass/class stuff for every class. If anyone has any good ones, especially for ranger, please post them here. I currently have:

1. Bard: College of Eloquence
2. Fighter: Echo Knight
3. Artificer: Artillerist

Using 2014 rules and point buy I think a Goblin Enchantment Wizard is the most powerful single class character possible for a game covering levels 1-20.

There are better builds for some levels, and a campaign that has a lot of enemies immune to charm could change this to a different Wizard. But if you are looking over 20 levels in a common campaign and weighing each level equally, I don't think any other 2014 single class character beats this in general.

 

[Zardnaar]

Using 2014 rules and point buy I think a Goblin Enchantment Wizard is the most powerful single class character possible for a game covering levels 1-20.

There are better builds for some levels, and a campaign that has a lot of enemies immune to charm could change this to a different Wizard. But if you are looking over 20 levels in a common campaign and weighing each level equally, I don't think any other 2014 single class character beats this in general.

Heh I would look at Bard, Druid, Paladin and Cleric.

Enchanted 10 is the bees knees. Long way to go. I've seen that get used. Free twin spell essentially.

 

[Seramus]

Using 2014 rules and point buy I think a Goblin Enchantment Wizard is the most powerful single class character possible for a game covering levels 1-20.

There are better builds for some levels, and a campaign that has a lot of enemies immune to charm could change this to a different Wizard. But if you are looking over 20 levels in a common campaign and weighing each level equally, I don't think any other 2014 single class character beats this in general.

It's usually far too late to come online, but a 14th level Illusionist with Illusory Reality and the feat to take Misty Visions is absolutely brutal. It's not unplayable before that either, with Misty Visions being such a workhorse, and Malleable Illusions coming online at 6th.