D&D 5E Dealing with a Heavily Armored Paladin?

[RulesJD]

That's not a bad move, but the cost is high and the payoff is only moderate. Against a Str 20 Paladin, he's got a 62% chance of success per contest (assuming Blur instead of Foresight). Against a Str 16 Paladin, 70% chance of success per contest (w/ Blur). If he uses both attacks to grapple/prone the paladin, he has a 49% chance of having a grappled/prone paladin at the end of his turn**, which will raise his chances of hitting at least once on his following turn from 1% up to around 10%. The Storm Giant has improved his physical attacks from "totally futile" to merely "hopelessly outclassed."

If the Paladin is using Foresight as mentioned originally instead of Quickened Blur, it's even worse. Odds go down to 56%^2 = 31% against the Str 16 Paladin, or 46% = 21% against the Str 20 Paladin. That's practically back in the "totally futile" bucket.

Yes, Levitate and Lightning Strike are better, but if you have to give up on physical attacks and switch to magic, that means you've already conceded the point about AC.

** I'm sure you know that technically, it is illegal for a RAW Storm Giant to grapple/prone in the same turn, because it doesn't have Extra Attack. (Multiattack only specifically allows you to make two Greatsword attacks--not two grapples, or a grapple and a push, or two boulders, or anything else. Only two greatsword attacks.) I think most DMs including myself would ignore that technicality and allow the Storm Giant to grapple/prone as if it did have two attacks, but it would technically be a customization.

1. Yes I know that RAW ruling and it's one of the more stupid ones, so I ignore that.

2. Okay wait, stop.

In what world is he facing a SINGLE Storm Giant (CR 13) when someone in the party has access to Foresight, a level 9 spell??? Level 17 characters would be facing 10+ Storm Giants to even be a moderate fight, in which case those Lighting Bolts will fry the Paladin before anything else happens.

3. You had the Paladin casting Blur. That means the Paladin is concentrating on it. Lightning Strike (if the Paladin fails the Dex save it is statistically likely to fail) means a DC 27 Con save to maintain concentration. Even with Aura + Resiliency (Con) that's terribly unlikely. So round 1, the Paladin's Blur goes poof.

4. I'm sorry, but the question wasn't how to beat the AC of the Paladin. I couldn't care less that I'm "switching" to spell casting. Hell the Paladin itself in your build has to rely on spell casting (Blur/Foresight) so why wouldn't the enemy? The OP wanted to know how to deal with high AC/decent save characters like the Paladin. The answer is almost always going to be creative spell casting (Dispel Magic, Heat Metal, save or half damage to break concentration, etc.) or Grapple mechanics that ignore both AC and Saves.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In what world is he facing a SINGLE Storm Giant (CR 13) when someone in the party has access to Foresight, a level 9 spell??? Level 17 characters would be facing 10+ Storm Giants to even be a moderate fight, in which case those Lighting Bolts will fry the Paladin before anything else happens.

Something is very wrong with your math. The Medium threshold for four 17th level PCs is 15,600 XP, and Deadly is 35,200. Ten Storm Giants is 250,000 XP, which is 7x Deadly, not Medium.

3. You had the Paladin casting Blur. That means the Paladin is concentrating on it. Lightning Strike (if the Paladin fails the Dex save it is statistically likely to fail) means a DC 27 Con save to maintain concentration. Even with Aura + Resiliency (Con) that's terribly unlikely. So round 1, the Paladin's Blur goes poof.

Quickened Blur is one of two scenarios I mentioned. We just mentioned the other, remember? Foresight.

In the Quickened Blur scenario, when the Storm Giant casts his Lightning Bolt, the Paladin can just re-cast Quickened Blur before the Storm Giant gets to attack, and then do whatever with his action (e.g. attack)--so blown concentration is a non-factor. Even if he doesn't re-cast, I've already pointed out that the Storm Giant's chances to hit are extremely low even without disadvantage. You're really reaching here, but you're not scoring.

4. I'm sorry, but the question wasn't how to beat the AC of the Paladin. I couldn't care less that I'm "switching" to spell casting. Hell the Paladin itself in your build has to rely on spell casting (Blur/Foresight) so why wouldn't the enemy? The OP wanted to know how to deal with high AC/decent save characters like the Paladin. The answer is almost always going to be creative spell casting (Dispel Magic, Heat Metal, save or half damage to break concentration, etc.) or Grapple mechanics that ignore both AC and Saves.

You seem to have lost track of the question. The assertion I responded to was that no one, not even a Paladin loaded down with magical loot, is unhittable in 5E. That turns out not to be the case.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not in front of my books, I know 5e doesn't reverse spells, but most formerly reversible spells are now spells in their own right.

Did Enlarge make the cut for/as a reversible spell? A Reduce cast on either the armor or individual inside, separately, would probably make for a rather bad day for them.

Heat Metal, as already mentioned, is the old standby for screwing people in their tin cans. I'd suspect a constant or repeated striking with Burning Hands, Fireballs, Scorching Rays, et al...a swarm of kobolds (or fire giants) with glowing red hot pokers/brands, consistent attacks from salamanders with their flaming spears/polearms, a swarm of magmins (they just have to touch him), etc... would all have a similar effect.

Rust monster or metal-dissolving oozes/puddings would be if you really wanted to just destroy the armor, would only set the guy back for a minute until he found/bought some new plate.

PS: FREEZING metal could work just as well as heating it. Ongoing cold damage for the guy inside. Perhaps even better...super-magic-freeze it and make it brittle. One successful hit from a goblin chucking a pebble at him and the whole suit cracks and shatters into a million pieces.

 

[jgsugden]

Just as a reminder, we're talking about a 20th level paladin dealing with a CR 13 monster here. For a solo PC, that is a deadly encounter, but just barely. As part of a party encounter, this is a typical foe that would be a small part of an easy encounter for a 20th level party.

Regardless: If defense is a priority, the PC should be hard to hurt. If they hyperfocus on defense, they should be nearly impossible to hurt. Seems to be working.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure but there are not even a single monster with this ability IIRC.

There seem to be no shortage of monsters that grant eachother advantage just for hanging around.

 

[RulesJD]

Just for fun: if that paladin takes the Defensive Duelist feat, he gets an extra +6 to AC. Throw in a few levels of Sorcerer for Quickened Blur, or a Foresight spell from a fellow PC, and now your storm giant has disadvantage to hit. He needs to roll either double 20s for a crit (0.25% chance) or he needs to roll 16+ on his first attack to use up Defensive Duelist, and then 16+ again on the second attack (0.4% chance). Either way, his odds of hitting per turn are on the order of 1%, which in actual play is almost indistinguishable from "not getting hit at all."

I'm responding to this one to point out numerous fallacies in the AC calculation.

1. The original AC 30 relied on using Bracers of Defense.

Bracers of Defense don't work if you're wearing OTHER armor, so right away -2 to the AC calculation.

2. You rely on using the feat Defensive Duelist. For starters, that requires having your Dexterity be 13 or higher. Plate armor requires 15 Str or higher. Considering he's adding +4 to Cha, you are now in a situation where you either have broken stats (which is why rolling for stats is dumb) or you have something like 10 Con and will die in 2-3 hits because you have been using your ASI to boost CHA/pickup a feat.

Secondly, it only works against ONE attack. So against Storm Giants with Multiattack, (who at this point would have Regular/Advantage once Blur goes away) you're going to be getting hit on 14+ vs AC. Aka really, really easily. Even with the Storm Giant "wasting" their turn Grapple/Knocking prone for the first round, the Paladin is now at Disadvantage to hit, while also burning spell slots/bonus action each round to try and keep Blur up. Storm Giant will still win easily, especially given that your Paladin has pathetically low HP.



The entire point of this is to show that stacking AC is pointless against a DM who is cognizant of the rules. Anything AC 25+ is generally pointless as DMs will start shifting tactics/monsters to counter the player with that much AC, which makes sense. Just as players know about their enemies, enemies would know about the players. At least enough to recognize that the standard Swing Axe -> Miss tactics aren't the best bet.

 

[CapnZapp]

There seem to be no shortage of monsters that grant eachother advantage just for hanging around.

I do not understand what this mean. So I am going to assume you are not actually contesting what I said, and leave it at that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm responding to this one to point out numerous fallacies in the AC calculation.

1. The original AC 30 relied on using Bracers of Defense.

Bracers of Defense don't work if you're wearing OTHER armor, so right away -2 to the AC calculation.

Fine. I was relying on the other poster's AC numbers anyway--I don't usually do magic item calculations in the first place.

You can replace the Bracers of Defense with a Rapier of Defense +2.

2. You rely on using the feat Defensive Duelist. For starters, that requires having your Dexterity be 13 or higher. Plate armor requires 15 Str or higher. Considering he's adding +4 to Cha, you are now in a situation where you either have broken stats (which is why rolling for stats is dumb) or you have something like 10 Con and will die in 2-3 hits because you have been using your ASI to boost CHA/pickup a feat.

Dude, that's not a fallacy, that's just backseat driving. Plate armor doesn't even require Str 15 in the first place. For all you know or care it could be a Str 10 Dex 13 Paladin with the Defensive Duelist and Mounted Combatant feats, using his steed to provide the mobility he would otherwise lack in plate armor.

Secondly, it only works against ONE attack. So against Storm Giants with Multiattack, (who at this point would have Regular/Advantage once Blur goes away) you're going to be getting hit on 14+ vs AC. Aka really, really easily. Even with the Storm Giant "wasting" their turn Grapple/Knocking prone for the first round, the Paladin is now at Disadvantage to hit, while also burning spell slots/bonus action each round to try and keep Blur up. Storm Giant will still win easily, especially given that your Paladin has pathetically low HP.

Duh, it only works against one attack. 60% of the math in my first post was illustrating what that does to the Storm Giant's to-hit chances, since Defensive Duelist negates his first non-crit every round. You even quoted that section before ignoring it!

he needs to roll 16+ on his first attack to use up Defensive Duelist, and then 16+ again on the second attack (0.4% chance)

It's really strange to hear you bringing this point up as if it were something new, when in fact it's been explicitly called out and accounted for in the numbers all along. So your "numerous fallacies" amount to one mistake in someone else's magic item calculations which can be accounted for by switching around the gear (not to mention other AC boosters like a Crown Paladin casting Warding Bond on himself for a free +1 to AC, or better Defense weapons, or Shield of Faith) and two spurious objections.

 

[auburn2]

Wasnt there almost the exact same thread, except for bladesingers? Stop giving out powerful magic items and rolling for stats if you dont know how to run a montyhaul campaign......

Yes, I posted that. To be clear I am not the DM, I posted because my DM got upset after one session and threatened to impose a house rule to debuff my character. He really did not like the idea of a wizard boldly walking straight into a horde of men, kobolds and lizardmen and going completely unscathed for many (15?) rounds despite being surrounded while everyone else in the party got wounded pretty bad during the course of that battle.

I would argue it is not a monty haul campaign, at level 9 she has one magic item - bracers of defense which is also the best magic item owned by the party of 4 and which the DM did not expect her to take (she has had potions and scrolls in the past too). Most of the WOTC modules will give you more magic than that party has gotten.

She is hands down the hardest character to hit in the party, and was be even without the bracers. She has not been hit with a damaging melee attack since 5th level, despite going into melee contact most battles (often using spells though and not weapons for her attacks). Since I posted that thread the the DM has damaged her more though, mostly with AOE spells/abilitities or save cantrips; even forcing a Dex save at +9 (resilient) to avoid sacred flame is better than trying to hit with an attack or attack cantrip. Thing is he could have hit her with that stuff anyhow even if she was not on the front line.

 

[auburn2]

which is why rolling for stats is dumb

Rolling for stats is not dumb. You could argue it is unfair or unbalanced but I would argue picking stats is boring and unrealistic.

Rolling stats adds an element of realism to the game. I know in real life I did not choose to be so darn intelligent and good looking ... it just turned out that way.