D&D (2024) 13 Attacks a Round the Most You Can Get?

[Bedrockgames]

Lol. This is great

 

[mellored]

Bonus Action is still included in my build used. You can just use dual wielding to get Bonus action attack.

Right, Hew
But you can still swap to a light weapon for Nick.

You lose the great weapon damage bump that way, as well as any magic greataxe. But it's doable.

 

[ThrorII]

And this, class, is why I play B/X-OSE.

 

[bedir than]

And this, class, is why I play B/X-OSE.

This thread is about whiteboarding rather than actual play.
It requires enemies to be static and do nothing, ever

 

[DrJawaPhD]

13 attacks per round?

Think I might move to running Shadowdark.

And this, class, is why I play B/X-OSE.

Why do people go into a threads labeled as D&D 2024 to post nothing helpful except that they prefer other games or editions that no one here is talking about? Shouldn't you go post in threads about whatever edition you enjoy instead of putting others down for liking something that isn't what you like?

 

[Seramus]

And this, class, is why I play B/X-OSE.

So 14 attacks against opponents with less than 1 HD?

 

[James Gasik]

I used to see this on the old WotC Char Op forums all the time. Someone would come up with some wacky, complicated build that required access to 17 different books, some obscure lore dug out of a long-forgotten or esoteric supplement, with the assumption that a DM would nod and OK everything, from Savage Species to Unearthed Arcana to Web Supplements and half-baked variant rules.

Then they would present their findings, the kind of thing no one would ever allow in a game (and even if they did, it probably wouldn't even function until late levels), and instantly you'd have people not even involved in the Char Op community going "see! I told you 3.5 is the worst thing ever! It allows for [insert ridiculous thing here]".

Examples including: King of Smack, Jack B Quick, Cheater of Mystra, That Build We Don't Talk About, Jumplomancers, Hulking Hurlers and so on.

Never mind the vastly easier to break the game builds that already existed, like Snow Cone Wish Machine, Druids with Fleshraker Dinosaurs on acid (literally!), Persist Clerics, UberChargers, Omnificiers, Archivists, Spell-to-Power Erudites, and the ultimate in stanky cheese, Planar Shepherd Druids.

Even now, decades later, you'll hear people scoff at 3.5 because it allowed for The Build That We Don't Talk About, despite the fact that it was a theoretical exercise at best.

If we'd had more people online in the 90's, I assure you, 2e Char Op would have been just as bad, if not worse, lol.

It just seems that if someone doesn't like a thing, rather than just leave it at "yeah, it's not for me", they have to find increasingly more hyperbolic reasons to denounce it's existence.

It's the whole "Star Wars is ruined because...Ewoks, Greedo/Han Shot First, Special Editions, Prequel Trilogy, George Lucas, Disney, Kathleen Kennedy, Solo Movie, Disney Plus Series, etc., etc." all over again.

Nothing is perfect, everything has flaws. Some things, are, in fact, more flawed than other things, but no matter how good or bad something is, there's going to people who will defend and attack it to their dying breath.

And honestly, some of it is insane. "See, if I take this race, with this class, and this multiclass, and these archetypes, and these feats, with this weapon mastery, and that spell, I'll be able to one-shot Dragons!".

Ignoring all the moments along the chain where the other players or the DM could ask you to please stop trying to break his game (or force the issue), right up until the fight with said Dragon, who might be played with an ounce of common sense instead of just being a raw stat block run by an AI bot!

 

[Zardnaar]

I used to see this on the old WotC Char Op forums all the time. Someone would come up with some wacky, complicated build that required access to 17 different books, some obscure lore dug out of a long-forgotten or esoteric supplement, with the assumption that a DM would nod and OK everything, from Savage Species to Unearthed Arcana to Web Supplements and half-baked variant rules.

Then they would present their findings, the kind of thing no one would ever allow in a game (and even if they did, it probably wouldn't even function until late levels), and instantly you'd have people not even involved in the Char Op community going "see! I told you 3.5 is the worst thing ever! It allows for [insert ridiculous thing here]".

Examples including: King of Smack, Jack B Quick, Cheater of Mystra, That Build We Don't Talk About, Jumplomancers, Hulking Hurlers and so on.

Never mind the vastly easier to break the game builds that already existed, like Snow Cone Wish Machine, Druids with Fleshraker Dinosaurs on acid (literally!), Persist Clerics, UberChargers, Omnificiers, Archivists, Spell-to-Power Erudites, and the ultimate in stanky cheese, Planar Shepherd Druids.

Even now, decades later, you'll hear people scoff at 3.5 because it allowed for The Build That We Don't Talk About, despite the fact that it was a theoretical exercise at best.

If we'd had more people online in the 90's, I assure you, 2e Char Op would have been just as bad, if not worse, lol.

It just seems that if someone doesn't like a thing, rather than just leave it at "yeah, it's not for me", they have to find increasingly more hyperbolic reasons to denounce it's existence.

It's the whole "Star Wars is ruined because...Ewoks, Greedo/Han Shot First, Special Editions, Prequel Trilogy, George Lucas, Disney, Kathleen Kennedy, Solo Movie, Disney Plus Series, etc., etc." all over again.

Nothing is perfect, everything has flaws. Some things, are, in fact, more flawed than other things, but no matter how good or bad something is, there's going to people who will defend and attack it to their dying breath.

And honestly, some of it is insane. "See, if I take this race, with this class, and this multiclass, and these archetypes, and these feats, with this weapon mastery, and that spell, I'll be able to one-shot Dragons!".

Ignoring all the moments along the chain where the other players or the DM could ask you to please stop trying to break his game (or force the issue), right up until the fight with said Dragon, who might be played with an ounce of common sense instead of just being a raw stat block run by an AI bot!

Fairly simple build tbh.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I used to see this on the old WotC Char Op forums all the time. Someone would come up with some wacky, complicated build that required access to 17 different books, some obscure lore dug out of a long-forgotten or esoteric supplement, with the assumption that a DM would nod and OK everything, from Savage Species to Unearthed Arcana to Web Supplements and half-baked variant rules.

There's nothing complicated here it is just a Level 20 Fighter with a Greataxe and a contrived scenario with multiple enemies lined up like bowling pins. The only "complicated" part is you need a friend to cast Haste on you, but that's just outside help, not part of the character build.

It's not even all that amazing compared to what a Level 20 Wizard can do, so I don't see why people think it's some big failing of 5e that a Fighter can swing an axe around a bunch of times

 

[Zardnaar]

There's nothing complicated here it is just a Level 20 Fighter with a Greataxe and a contrived scenario with multiple enemies lined up like bowling pins. The only "complicated" part is you need a friend to cast Haste on you, but that's just outside help, not part of the character build.

It's not even all that amazing compared to what a Level 20 Wizard can do, so I don't see why people think it's some big failing of 5e that a Fighter can swing an axe around a bunch of times

Idea came up looking at a level 3-5 barbarian and commanders strike via BM fighter.