Search results

To put this in perspective the shillelagh EK might do something like Round 1: Web + Shillelagh Reaction PAM attack Round 2: Attack, bonus action attack, truestrike Round 3: Attack, bonus action attack, truestrike I don't see the Wrathful Smite focused EK matching turns like that at all. If...

IMO. If one takes True Strike, Shillelagh, and Polearm Master on an EK by level 7 then I think that version of EK can do very good damage. At that point just let your first spell be a control spell along with Shillelagh and forget wrathful. Then follow up with PAM attack routine the rest of...

Can you outline your level 7 character?

The spamming of which comes with other potential consequences.

I'd note there is one incorrect assumption, that 60% chance to hit applies to the rapier rogue. One attack will be 5% lower chance to hit. But otherwise, I agree with your basic sentiment - for most of the game shileleagh isn't adding alot of damage to an EK over one that just uses...

That's a really weird way to count. Normally being within 30 ft means you would need to move 30ft to end up adjacent to the enemy.

Thought I'd share an update. I'm now down to 198.

Such a weird path to get right back to one of the exact points i raised in my post just a bit earlier. Yes. Having a Drill Sergeant or Warlord or whatever Class forces other players to accept that narrative as part of the game. That's something to be mindful of for sure, and it's certainly...

Are you saying 100% of all players will say no to that narrative? Because if not then doesn't that mean we can have that narrative?

Do you mean PC's or players?

Okay. And why does any of that mean we can't have the narrative of a Drill Sergeant benefiting the party?

I've seen a Battlemaster with good charisma using Inspiring Leader feat and Rally Manuever for cha based temp hp on allies regularly. He was definitely played more leadery.

I don't see a problem with either narrative.

But some Fighters are just that, veterans with high charisma. Mechanically sure. Narratively you've done nothing to address the issues I explained above.

As a really narrow example. Let's make a Drill Sergant class. Fluff is something like "The Drill Sergant is a dedicated trainer of groups of fighting men. They know how to get the most out of them, how to push them past their limits, how to forge your unit into a cohesive whole." Now I know...

My thinking is more, Herald - why can't a fighter do shouts/cries, especially if the required fluff is that these are totally mundane shouts/cries. Tactician - what is happening narratively that lets the tactician allow someone to do X? Banneret - again, what is happening narratively to justify...

Okay, so maybe I should have elaborated more. The reason it's bad fluff is because 1) it forces other players to go along with a narrative they may not want for their PC 2) it limits other players ability to roleplay their fighter or barbarian as a drill sergeant

You keep trying to support your claims with rules that don't actually say anything remotely close to what you claim. I mean, what the heck does being able to move it have to do with it dodging attacks? (dodging attacks being the actual claim we are discussing) Another prime example of the...

To me that sounds like a bad attempt at justifying the mechanics you want with terrible fluff. I think the fluff issue is even bigger than the mechanical ones.

You apparently really like web. I think you are overrating web for most classes. It costing an action is rough. Sorlocks get around that because they can fuel more attacks/rerolls. But I don't think Ranger or Eldritch Knight will. Ranger's Ensnaring Strike is a bonus action that does the...