Search results

A relatively simple Vengeance Paladin. Level 1 - Pike (Push Mastery) and Greatsword (Graze Mastery). Halbred/Greataxe (Cleave Mastery is also a good option). Level 2 - Defensive Fighting Style. Level 3 - Vengance Subclass. Retrain Greatsword (Graze Mastery). Level 4 - Great Weapon Master Feat...

IMO. Truly Effective melee characters are mostly about finding a solid combination of damage, durability, stickiness and mobility. Add in a backup ranged option as well. IMO Vengance as your subclass really shines here. That would be my recommendation. Vengance grants the option of...

I don’t build using non-2024 options. So Elven accuracy is out.

What subclass of Rogue do you all think for the Battlemaster / Rogue? I'm thinking either Assassian for a bit extra combat goodies or Soulknife for the out of combat utility. I'm not opposed to arcane trickster or thief either, but i don't see as strong of a case for either.

Precision will probably increase DPR the most, especially given how vex works. But you'll probably still be better off with the +damage maneuvers and a strong effect like menacing.

I agree, but Sharpshooter fixes that. By Fighter 6 you get both Crossbow Expertise and Sharpshooter. Rogue cunning action for dash/disengage can be used as needed, but it's not something you should need most every turn.

I was thinking Battlemaster.

I’m currently thinking about dual hand crossbow fighter 6 rogue X Haven’t crunched all the numbers but seems fairly promising.

They were a much needed martial vs caster balancing feature IMO.

More important is sap mastery, disadvantage on hit and if players spread sap attacks across the ogres or concentrate them on 1.

@Maxperson Bottom of this post lists concentrated attacks.

I mean the tactics seemed reasonable to me. Everything focus fired and PCs apply probably the best weapon masteries for the situation. I can see other reasonable ways to do it but that seems reasonable.

That’s the part I live for!!!

I have a sneaking suspicion that since he’s not simulating (his words) that he’s doing something closer to allocating average DPR per turn based on initiative. If so that methodology will tend to produce very skewed results, often amplifying small differences based on discrete breakpoints.

Got it. The correct test shows ‘pretty close’ so we must use an incorrect test to get the results you want. I do agree that looking at the fully paralyzed case can give some context as an upper bound. If paralyzed is 25% reduction in party effectiveness then showing a 20% reduction in party...

The effectiveness of the player is how much he decreases the party effectiveness with only him having 1 less mod…. Changing the rest of the party nullifies that test. You are no longer testing player effectiveness but party effectiveness. That’s what you are doing with your tests.

Missing 1 mod is now equivalent to paralyzed? I still don’t understand why you don’t just run the proper test through your simulator.

That’s everything. That’s what your entire claim was and what the whole disagreement is all about. In actual play having your PC not be fully optimized (by taking 1 lower mod) will barely register anywhere. You don’t get to control the other PCs. So they need to be treated as constants...

Strictly speaking my claim wasn’t that you’ll win 100% of the time either way so it doesn’t matter. There’s obviously some effect. The question is how much. In a typical encounter where you already have a very high win rate (whatever the number) it matters very little to your win rate. In the...

IMO totally unrealistic examples don’t show anything except that in totally non-realistic circumstances it could do something.