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

[CapnZapp]

So I've never had a problem with heavy armor. Sure, it's high AC, but it normally means at least a subpar Dex save. Problem is, is the Paladin.

Meet Mr. Tank. He's got a +4 Charisma modifier, +2 plate mail, and a shield. Nothing I throw at him hits(/affects) him (90% of the time). Where a weakness in saving throws would be, it's covered by his aura. Where a weakness in output would be, it's covered by his smiting and/or channel divinity.

Asides from throwing Magic Missiles at him, how can I stop this juggernaut from being such a... juggernaut?

Hit him where his great stats don't matter. His allies. His family. His plans and items.

If your player enjoys being nigh-invulnerable, let him. He did pick the right class for that concept after all.

Don't get bothered about not being able to touch him. You can't. Not without hosing his build or by throwing so dangerous monsters at him that you critically endanger the other members of the party.

Your best bet is to just wait. Most players will eventually become bored when they never feel any danger. Perhaps he'll play a clothie with 8 CON the next time, just for funsies.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

1. Storm Giant gets +14 Athletics, so it uses both of its attacks to Grapple -> Prone the Paladin. Cancels out the Blur.

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.

 

[Dausuul]

Make encounters in which there's a horde of weenies and a boss monster with a high attack bonus. After a few of the weenies attack the paladin and fail to accomplish anything, the boss comes storming up to duel him one-on-one, while the weenies stream past to swarm the other PCs. The player gets to feel bad-ass and still enjoys the benefits of his high AC (since the boss would likely auto-hit anyone else in the party), but is still challenged by a dangerous foe.

 

[brad_nm]

Okay okay, without dicking over said player [emoji14]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

It sounds like you're trying to 'dick over said player' without being caught 'dicking over said player'. You could always use common sense with you hostile npc's. If they come across a tank, take out its support (other PC's).

 

[Valdier]

The horde of monsters should just assist each other for Advantage on attack rolls. Problem solved.

 

[Onussen]

...And the idea that cursed items can't be taken off is ridiculous imo. A person enclosed in plate 24/7 would die of an assortment of ailments within weeks. What about defecation? What about sores from having the armor on all the time? What about sweat not having the normal benefits? Sleep deprivation?

You seem to misunderstand the concept of 'cursed item' I enjoy the irony of the armor-- the thing meant to save the character's life-- slowly killing the character. All the *discomforts* you mention fit right in with a cursed item.

I think the exhaustion table would work well here. Every 3 consecutive days wearing the cursed armor, pick up an exhaustion level. Character is dead in 15 days, unless it does something about the curse. Only magical means can remove the exhaustion level(s) while the armor is worn. A long rest won't do it. it could be more or less than 3 days. But a ~2 weeks to die seems about right.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Of course that is true, but if we are talking about what can happen if the DM wants it to and is going to change the rules to make it happen... we might as well just skip the intermediate steps and have the DM be upfront and honest about it; "Hey [paladin player], your character doesn't have that plate mail +2 anymore." and be done with it.

Change what rules? Creating new monsters, magic items, dungeon etc.. is not changing the rules, it's what DM does! It's part of the fun of challenging the players i find!

Its true that the better thing to do is not give a problematic item, but too many times you do so and experience the consequences after. After which you either strip it, find better way to hit the juggernault or pit it against creatures or trap what will waste it or steal it.

 

[CapnZapp]

then he got bored because they were ignoring him

Then you will only have to wait a little while longer - until he asks to play a character less well armored.

 

[CapnZapp]

The horde of monsters should just assist each other for Advantage on attack rolls. Problem solved.

An emphatic no to this. That's just bad math.

Example:

You have eight Grues surrounding the tin can. They can either all attack, or half of them can spend their action on Help instead.

In the first case, the tin can gets 8 d20 rolled against him.

In the second case, the tin can gets... 4 pairs of d20 rolled against him.

There's no difference - in both cases the DM rolls 8 times.

Except there is, since if all eight rolls should actually hit, there is 8 hits in the first case, but only four in the last case.

Talking the help action is not the great idea it looks like. In fact there are only two general cases where it's worthwhile:
a) when your own attack is much weaker than the friend's your helping. Signature case: a familiar helping the party Rogue
b) when you're swarming the foe, and the DM decides you can't all make an effective attack. For example: if there was two dozen grues, perhaps 8 could attack and 8 more could help the first 8.

But in general, thinking that the Help action is actually adding to the DPR of the attacker is a fallacy in 5th edition.

This is because it doesn't actually give a bonus to the attack. Had it granted, say, a +4 to hit bonus instead of the Advantage mechanism (like in previous editions) your thinking would still have been sound.

 

[Yunru]

An emphatic no to this. That's just bad math.

Example:

You have eight Grues surrounding the tin can. They can either all attack, or half of them can spend their action on Help instead.

In the first case, the tin can gets 8 d20 rolled against him.

In the second case, the tin can gets... 4 pairs of d20 rolled against him.

There's no difference - in both cases the DM rolls 8 times.

Except there is, since if all eight rolls should actually hit, there is 8 hits in the first case, but only four in the last case.

Talking the help action is not the great idea it looks like. In fact there are only two general cases where it's worthwhile:
a) when your own attack is much weaker than the friend's your helping. Signature case: a familiar helping the party Rogue
b) when you're swarming the foe, and the DM decides you can't all make an effective attack. For example: if there was two dozen grues, perhaps 8 could attack and 8 more could help the first 8.

But in general, thinking that the Help action is actually adding to the DPR of the attacker is a fallacy in 5th edition.

This is because it doesn't actually give a bonus to the attack. Had it granted, say, a +4 to hit bonus instead of the Advantage mechanism (like in previous editions) your thinking would still have been sound.

Or if they can do it as a bonus action a la Mastermind.

Hmm...