D&D (2024) "Sword" and Board Build?

[FrogReaver]

Because you are to hard to hit and you can't react anymkre.

And the reasons for why not still hit the tank:

1. Focus fire on tank might still be better due to other enemies may can only reach tank with their attacks.
2. Tank ally may be out of move range.
3. Any kind of actual roleplay for the enemies may also keep them on you. (Running to the squishy may mean the enemy does more damage but may also mean he becomes primary target and will be the first to die. Then there’s taunting, basic warrior idea to prove he’s the superior warrior, etc).

In short running to the squishy isn’t a clearly better tactic, it’s not something an enemy should clearly be doing. Etc.

I would prefer heavy armor mastery. Especially since I prefer str on melee characters.
But if you are dex based, like melored's tanky ranger, defensive duellist is top.

I agree here. Though I think ac is better than damage reduction from heavy armor master, but your primary stat consideration is even more important IMO.

 

[ECMO3]

There is a lot of white room talk about enemies ignoring PCs with high AC, but I don't see that happening very often in play.

I do see enemies purposely going out of their way to target casters and as a DM I do that myself. I also see enemies fighting PCs who are side-by-side target the guy who is perceived to be easier to hit.

But just ignoring the heavily armored guy, or walking past him because he is armored and already used his reaction - I play a lot of D&D with a lot of different players and DMs and I just don't really see that happen very often.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And the reasons for why not still hit the tank:

1. Focus fire on tank might still be better due to other enemies may can only reach tank with their attacks.

Against +4 to 6 extra AC... especially if they don't deal a lot of damage... if there are targets that can be way more easily hit? No thanks. Even if you just move 30ft closer and throw a spear... still better than using the disengage action to move around the one person.

2. Tank ally may be out of move range.

Yes.

3. Any kind of actual roleplay for the enemies may also keep them on you.

Or not.

(Running to the squishy may mean the enemy does more damage but may also mean he becomes primary target and will be the first to die. Then there’s taunting, basic warrior idea to prove he’s the superior warrior, etc).

Depends. If you can reach the wizard. Go for the wizard. Tried and proven tactics.

In short running to the squishy isn’t a clearly better tactic, it’s not something an enemy should clearly be doing. Etc.

Depends.

I agree here. Though I think ac is better than damage reduction from heavy armor master, but your primary stat consideration is even more important IMO.

Depends. HAM leaves your reaction free.

 

[DarkCrisis]

AC barely matters anymore. Gone are the days when AC was king (unless playing OSR)

Thanks to tons of HP and easy access to healing, AC isn't that important.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is a lot of white room talk about enemies ignoring PCs with high AC, but I don't see that happening very often in play.

I do see enemies purposely going out of their way to target casters and as a DM I do that myself. I also see enemies fighting PCs who are side-by-side target the guy who is perceived to be easier to hit.

But just ignoring the heavily armored guy, or walking past him because he is armored and already used his reaction - I play a lot of D&D with a lot of different players and DMs and I just don't really see that happen very often.

Same. Maybe if the caster hit the enemy with a fireball earlier or the enemy is extremely cunning. I’ve seen those kinds of things used by the dm to justify ignoring heavy armor guy right in front of them, but even then it’s fairly rare.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, but what you said about it was obvious. It’s always added AC. It’s always been a reaction. It’s always cost a feat.

But given the changes, how would we know it still does any of those things?

You know what, you are right. Sorry for being rude.

But there also was no reason for you to be rude either by quoting a post that you only responded to with a few obvious points, and none of which had any actual bearing on what I actually said in the post you quoted.

Can I get an apology now too?

Sorry back at you. I had engaged earlier with a different post of yours in this thread suggesting a Barbarian, with reasons, and you didn't respond. I thought my next engagement would be briefer since maybe I had posted too much in the prior post. I didn't think "cost seems high" was not relevant to what you posted.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd go Barbarian, Berserker or Zealot. The extra damage will make up for the single handed weapon. Probably Zealot. as the self-healing will come in handy as will the save benefit. Goliath likely makes the most sense, though Gnome can give you either advantage or proficiency in every save I believe.

Sorry if you were expecting a response earlier here. I was in agreement with the post. If going barbarian then zealot or berserker is great for sword and shield. Personally im a big fan of orc for the move speed. But all those are good choices.

 

[Horwath]

I can't figure out why the blowgun exsists.

It's a way to separate Str and Dex builds. Which i think is good.

that is an idea for sure.

dagger has no STR score.

shortsword is min STR 8 for d6 damage

huge 2Handed greateaxe is min STR 20 for 2d8 damage

use either STR or DEX for melee attacks. IF you have STR to use it.

otherwise it's only STR attack with disadvantage

offhand weapon has +4 STR requirement, min of 10(for dagger)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There is a lot of white room talk about enemies ignoring PCs with high AC, but I don't see that happening very often in play.

If the high AC target poses a threat, then of course not. But if it does not (just stands there defending himself mostly), igniring them is not out of line. PCs ignore heavy armored guys a lot to reach the boss/spellcaster.

I do see enemies purposely going out of their way to target casters and as a DM I do that myself. I also see enemies fighting PCs who are side-by-side target the guy who is perceived to be easier to hit.

Same.

But just ignoring the heavily armored guy, or walking past him because he is armored and already used his reaction - I play a lot of D&D with a lot of different players and DMs and I just don't really see that happen very often.

Because I have rarely seen high armored guys that only defend themselfs. Usually they go out of their way to protect their own casters.

 

[Zardnaar]

Would you consider wand and shield? That opens up some options.

Because they have a -20 move speed from whip and slasher (with damage from sneak attack / Smite).

Add in spiritual guardians, plant growth, or other difficult terrain to immobilize.
Or Ensnaring Stike.
Or Guardian Artificer.
Or world tree barbarian.

Even without an OA there are plenty of ways to keep them close.

And then the bard can drop Cloud of Daggers on top of them since they can't move.

Most people think Shield a top tier spell. I've seen people use a feat to get it.
So why wouldn't Defensive Duelist be bad?

Reminder that it's not just 1 attack anymore.

Wand and shield not so much. But you've got me intrigued so let's hear it.