D&D 5E Vs Vecna battle simulations.

[Mistwell]

His maths is off, and he white rooms it (Vecna could teleport behind full cover after the first bit), and he ignores Vecnas Int of 24 and Scrying abilities.

His math is not off (you can't just declare math is off without showing the math is off) and he's not white rooming it he's using the room Vecna is in for the adventure and the tactics WOTC published in their Vecna video! Nor does Vecna get a turn to teleport, he's dead. But even if he did, the tactics WOTC state in the video is that he doesn't do that.

 

[Stalker0]

Treeantmonk recognized a serious weakness in the build yes. But my point was they WERE optimized-ish enough to exploit it, they didn't need further. And the high initiative and assuming a 20+ (so about 50% chance by the build) was generous and necessary for the stomping to occur.

With respect, if you think that all you need at 20th level to optimize is a 20 in your prime stat and one feat....you have never seen a truly optimized 20th level character

Yes Treantmonk made a few mistakes in his analysis but the result was telling...after all, he only used 2 characters!....TWO!!!! And no magic items at 20th level!

So going back to the Monk/Pillar thing....I am genuinely confused as to why the monk felt he needed to attack the pillar in the first place....was it to get a flurry attack against Vecna without triggering his reaction on the first attack?


Is it perhaps time we made a thread commenting on this thread, so we leave this thread clean for the people to actually run their simulation, and all of our debate noise gets pushed to the side? I do feel bad reading the last 3 pages and its nothing but commentary as opposed to the actual simulation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

His math is not off (you can't just declare math is off without showing the math is off)

It is off (slightly) because of his assumption about using Lucky and that he adds full 14 damage for arcane shot (instead of multiplying it by the 0.55 hit probability). The DPR is closer to 129-130, his was too high. Regardless, the point stands that such damage would be close to defeating Vecna by two fighters, and with a bit of good damage rolls, would defeat him.

So going back to the Monk/Pillar thing....I am genuinely confused as to why the monk felt he needed to attack the pillar in the first place....was it to get a flurry attack against Vecna without triggering his reaction on the first attack?

Yes. That is why I did it. People have claimed it is a bit cheesy (which it is LOL), but it is no different than if a skeleton or zombie minion was next to Vecna and I had the monk hit the minion to activate Flurry first before using it on Vecna.

Also, in doing some more rule research after the fact I posted how it was something I didn't even need to do: he could have grappled Vecna without triggering Fell Rebuke (which requires a "hit" and grappling is not a hit). In the same respect, Leon in round one, post #162, (who grappled Vecna) would have been able to attack to smite since Venca should not have used Fell Rebuke then, either. So, that was my error in not realizing a grapple is not a hit.

Depending on how you want to rule the attack requirement of Flurry of Blows, you get a couple variants here as well.

1. Grapple (Attack), Flurry, Flurry, Strike (Extra Attack)
You have taken the attack action, so my use Flurry prior to finishing the attack action.

2. Grapple (Attack), Knock Prone (Extra Attack), Flurry, Flurry.
You must complete attack action, including Extra Attack, prior to Flurry.

From what I have found, JC rules along with option 2, although I would DM option 1 is fine. Regardless, it all works out to the same result in the end: Vecna -- grappled, prone, and no reactions until the end of Hjalman's next turn.

I do feel bad reading the last 3 pages and its nothing but commentary as opposed to the actual simulation.

I am waiting on others to chime in on ruling whether or not Leon's Improved Divine Smite will work in the Antimagic Field... I asked for others to give their views, and nothing on that.

Sage Advice is IDS should work, but that means he can make melee weapon attacks (as "magical" enough???) to deal damage to Vecna... I think?

 

[MarkB]

I am waiting on others to chime in on ruling whether or not Leon's Improved Divine Smite will work in the Antimagic Field... I asked for others to give their views, and nothing on that.

Sage Advice is IDS should work, but that means he can make melee weapon attacks (as "magical" enough???) to deal damage to Vecna... I think?

Improved Divine Smite certainly feels magical, but it's a borderline case. I'd probably let it work. That way the paladin at least gets to deal some damage, since his weapons are now mundane rather than magical and will deal no piercing, bludgeoning or slashing damage to Vecna.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Improved Divine Smite certainly feels magical, but it's a borderline case. I'd probably let it work. That way the paladin at least gets to deal some damage, since his weapons are now mundane rather than magical and will deal no piercing, bludgeoning or slashing damage to Vecna.

So, I was thinking it would be 1d8 for the IDS but also 1d8 for his sword and +3 for Strength. It sounds like you are thinking just the 1d8 for IDS and nothing else??

 

[MarkB]

So, I was thinking it would be 1d8 for the IDS but also 1d8 for his sword and +3 for Strength. It sounds like you are thinking just the 1d8 for IDS and nothing else??

I don't think there's any case for making physical weapons count as magical while in an antimagic field. The rules are pretty straightforward on that - they become mundane. The monk's Ki-Empowered Strikes would probably still work, though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think there's any case for making physical weapons count as magical while in an antimagic field. The rules are pretty straightforward on that - they become mundane.

So, just 1d8 for IDS then, or add Strength for 1d8+3?

The monk's Ki-Empowered Strikes would probably still work, though.

Actually, they don't (officially???). JC ruled firmly on that one because the are "magical" and the magic is suppressed.

 

[MarkB]

So, just 1d8 for IDS then, or add Strength for 1d8+3?

Just the 1d8. The strength bonus is the same damage type as the weapon's base damage.

Actually, they don't (officially???). JC ruled firmly on that one because the are "magical" and the magic is suppressed.

Weird. The exact wording of the ability is that they count as magical for one specific purpose, not that they are magical.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just the 1d8. The strength bonus is the same damage type as the weapon's base damage.

Gotcha! Ok, thanks for clarifying... If I can get at least 1 or 2 more people, Smythe can take Leon's turn finally.

Weird. The exact wording of the ability is that they count as magical for one specific purpose, not that they are magical.

Yeah, I kind of get it, but ki is represented as mystic, not magical. I would see that as gray area myself. I am fine either way, so let's see how others feel.

 

[Greg Benage]

Again, I'd just use a strict reading of the ruling in the Sage Advice Compendium. Otherwise, if you just try to use common sense about what feels "magical," Vecna can just collapse into a pile of bones.

• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?

That's it.