Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Of note that you can get a lot out of the Fighting Style of the 1st level Fighter. Two Weapon Fighting gives you a second attack/round which, as @Havocfett points out allows you to do some pushing/disarming/grappling and still get off your attack.

The Protection Style is an excellent combo with the Battlemaster because you can stand next to your Rogue/Caster and impose Disadvantage on enemies trying to hit them, then use stuff like Goading Attack and Rally.

And don't discount Feats. Dual Wielder gives you a nice AC bonus to combine with the Two Weapon Fighting style to make up for not having a shield. Inspiring Leader is free HP before every combat. Martial Adept is basically just "I get to be a better Battlemaster" which is really nice.
 
You should not be proud of this, especially with the amount of homebrewed freebies you needed to ruin a game for other people.

To be honest I'm not. I did get some freebies, but so did everyone else. One guy had an army marching into the city we we were in and after enough time....

Yeah. He had a pretty bad start though.

As for the fight I was talking about, I just got really good rolls and they somehow kept on getting bad rolls.

We all admitted that I should have lost the fight.

How would you suggest fixing that sort of thing?
 
Oh, man, then doing cool stuff is easy.

Disclaimer: I'm assuming you're melee for this, if you're ranged my recommendations change.

Fundamentally, as a Fighter you're serving as a direct, single target damage dealer, even in a ranged build. If you want a more mobile combatant, Monk and Rogue are both bigger on darting around the battlefield. Combat fun generally comes from making your role interesting.

Once you hit L3 that's pretty easy, but before then you're relatively limited. Your big options before then are Grappling, Shoving, and Disarming. All three options, in practical terms, rely on teamwork.

Disarming an enemy is a solid option, as your relevant modifier tends to be way better than enemies skill checks and it can massively reduce the lethality of a foe to remove their primary weapon (Go for Arcane Focuses if fighting casters, Casters tend to be terrible at resisting disarm attempts, go for dextrous enemies if you can't reach casters, they tend to have lower Acrobatics than Strong enemies have Athletics). An Orog without its greataxe is swinging a far less dangerous Javelin at you, a Yuan-ti with no poisoned weapons loses half their DPR and Casters that use staves and staffs can be crippled if you get it away from them. This may be a two-person job, depending on if your DM lets you kick disarmed weapons away as your Item Interaction/Bonus Action.

Shoving is nice, but only if you have other melee characters in your party (And don't have too many ranged characters). Prone enemies are way easier to hit in melee, so a stabby rogue, Paladin, transforming Druid, Cleric, or similar specialist will thank you profusely for knocking them down. Grappling is super situational, you use it when you want an enemy to not move, or when you really want the ability to move an enemy. Both Shoving and Grappling get the same caveats as Disarming regarding your bonus vs the enemies bonuses.

All of these become way better once you start getting extra attacks, as each shove/grapple/disarm attempt only uses one of those attacks. So you can, in theory, Shove->Action Surge and swing three times with advantage on a prone foe at L5. Or, one of my favorites, grab an enemy and shove them off a nearby ledge. While casters can, in theory, do these the combination of encouraged stats, attacks per round, and action surge lets the fighter do these incredibly efficiently.

Note: Your DM may not use Disarms/may mechanize opponents in a way that makes Disarms questionably useful.

When it comes to maneuvers, pick things you think would be cool to do to people. Pushing Attack and Trip Attack are both great, Maneuvering Attack lets you get allies out of sticky situations, Menacing Attack makes people terrified of you and is therefore amazing, Commander's Strike can be useful depending heavily on your team comp (Sharpshooter Archers and high single-attack damage characters are great targets for it. Give your Rogue a free Sneak Attack on a prone enemy, for example) and once you've passed L5 (So you can use a maneuver on your first attack and then give up your second to an ally. Shoving and then Commander's Strike with the aforementioned rogue, fr'ex), Distracting falls under similar rules to Commander's Strike, Goading is a nice aggro ability, Feinting/Piercing attack are both simple but very practical options that increase DPR.

If it's an option, go for Feats (Especially Chargen feats with Variant Human). Great Weapon Fighting and Sharpshooter are both amazing, and in general Feats give you new and interesting options for combat. They are competing with precious stat bonuses, though.


The playstyle isn't for everyone, but me and my brother both tend to play Battlemaster Fighters in this manner and enjoy it, so I recommend giving it a shot.



You should not be proud of this, especially with the amount of homebrewed freebies you needed to ruin a game for other people.
I thought the only 5e rules for disarming were in Battlemaster? Did I miss a bit in the combat chapter?
 
you don't need to be a fighter to use that feat that i can see.

also, as amusing as Kool-Ade man is, Imperious Command is still overall a better stunlock.
It the principle of the thing. Big dude with weapon smashing his way through walls.

Well why not enter a room while screaming at the top of your lungs?

whynotboth.jpg
 
Feats were invented as a way to help make things more interesting, but really were far too mild for the job.

Rage powers, vigilante specialties, and the like are a bit closer to what's needed, but they still come thinner and fewer than spells and the really cool stuff, be it feats or powers, often each requires a different chain- spellcasters don't have to work from level 1 with each spell school!


IMO, more specialized magic classes like the summoner and kineticist make more sense, most magic users really should be focused. You summon or you blast or you mind zap, with only minor and lower-level access to other areas. The Bard, not the wizard, should be the all around class.
That's why I like the homebrew classes this guy makes for 3.5. They take martial classes like the barbarian and fight, and attempt to bring them up to about 2nd tier classes.

[3.5 Base Class] "I want to live inside a castle built of your agony!"
 
Last edited:
Ah, I applogize if this seems like the wrong place to ask.

Is there any D&D games starting soon on SV that I could take part in?

I am still learning, but I know enough to get by.
 
That's why I like the homebrew classes this guy makes for 3.5. They take martial classes like the barbarian and fight, and attempt to bring them up to about 2nd tier classes.

[3.5 Base Class] "I want to live inside a castle built of your agony!"
why do people keep making these "fix 3.5 Martial" heartbreakers? They never live up to the hype.

That one is better than average (it acknowledges that martial classes still have to be supernatural), but still suffers from compexity bloat, while not, despite your tier 2 claim, standing up to full casters at all, and also, thanks to multi-active defense implementation (something canon 3.5 refused to do), being OP against weapon focused classes and monsters.

It's not unusable design as a standalone, but it does not mesh with the official classes at all.
 
...

(enters thread by talking about how he pissed off and ruined an entire game for multiple people)

(asks for new games starting soon)

Alright, I can take a hint.

To be fair, I was playing with 3 people who dislike me in real life (we have a mutual friend) and decided they wanted to kill off my character before we even started the game.

But I do understand why no one here would want to allow me to play after that.
 
why do people keep making these "fix 3.5 Martial" heartbreakers? They never live up to the hype.

That one is better than average (it acknowledges that martial classes still have to be supernatural), but still suffers from compexity bloat, while not, despite your tier 2 claim, standing up to full casters at all, and also, thanks to multi-active defense implementation (something canon 3.5 refused to do), being OP against weapon focused classes and monsters.

It's not unusable design as a standalone, but it does not mesh with the official classes at all.

It's important to point out that that class is part of an entire homebrew subsystem called the Mythos classes. It's not really meant to be a replacement for the 3.5 martial so much as being basically Exalted in 3.5 D&D.
 
It's just an action, if your DM allows it (Tell them before the session so they can look over the rules) you can do it as a Pally. You still get basically all the benefits as a fighter, you just aren't as Action-Efficient as a fighter is.
Well yeah, but the replacement character is already built around grappling and shoving, so it fits him perfectly. It's more niche for my paladin.
 
It's important to point out that that class is part of an entire homebrew subsystem called the Mythos classes. It's not really meant to be a replacement for the 3.5 martial so much as being basically Exalted in 3.5 D&D.
Then people should stop shilling it as such.

as a standalone it actially works okay. I don't think they did nearly enough to comepensate for how multi-shot defensive agency changes the action economy, but otherwise it'd probably a pretty playable 3.5alted
 
Really, even getting to tier 3 would be quite impressive for Martials, unless you go really radical. Most good martials are tier 4. Mixing them up with tier 3 casters is about as close to a 'balanced' party as one gets.
 
Of note that you can get a lot out of the Fighting Style of the 1st level Fighter. Two Weapon Fighting gives you a second attack/round which, as @Havocfett points out allows you to do some pushing/disarming/grappling and still get off your attack.
Uh, you don't need to take Two-Weapon Fighting for that. Dual-attacking like that is baked into the system; all TWF does is allow you to add your Str/Dex modifier to the damage of the second attack.

From page 195 of the PHB:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
 
Uh, you don't need to take Two-Weapon Fighting for that. Dual-attacking like that is baked into the system; all TWF does is allow you to add your Str/Dex modifier to the damage of the second attack.

From page 195 of the PHB:
On this note, this is why Two-Weapon Fighting suffers from diminishing returns for Fighters at higher levels: You can make a solitary additional attack as a bonus action when you choose to use the Attack action.

When you have only a single attack? It is a modest boost to your single-round damage output. Especially if you have the Dual Wielding feat (which lets neither of your weapons be Light, along with +1 AC). It's still moderately decent when you have only two attacks / round, since it's still a 50% damage increase per round. But when you begin to hit three and four attacks, you can generally get more from either investing in a single weapon and Dueling (courtesy of its +2 AC combined with +2 damage per attack, or +6 to +8 depending on if you get 3 or 4 attacks / round) or focusing on Great Weapon Mastery (the -5 to hit at this point potentially being negligible, especially when combined with +10 damage per attack meaning your 10-30 extra damage a round becomes vastly more impressive than an additional attack with a +1 or +2 one-handed weapon).

If you don't think your campaign's going to run up to level 11+ it's a very solid choice, but if it most probably will / does you'll start seeing less returns at higher levels (barring, of course, getting your hands on something like a magical artifact for both hands) than you would for other options.
 
On this note, this is why Two-Weapon Fighting suffers from diminishing returns for Fighters at higher levels: You can make a solitary additional attack as a bonus action when you choose to use the Attack action.

When you have only a single attack? It is a modest boost to your single-round damage output. Especially if you have the Dual Wielding feat (which lets neither of your weapons be Light, along with +1 AC). It's still moderately decent when you have only two attacks / round, since it's still a 50% damage increase per round. But when you begin to hit three and four attacks, you can generally get more from either investing in a single weapon and Dueling (courtesy of its +2 AC combined with +2 damage per attack, or +6 to +8 depending on if you get 3 or 4 attacks / round) or focusing on Great Weapon Mastery (the -5 to hit at this point potentially being negligible, especially when combined with +10 damage per attack meaning your 10-30 extra damage a round becomes vastly more impressive than an additional attack with a +1 or +2 one-handed weapon).

If you don't think your campaign's going to run up to level 11+ it's a very solid choice, but if it most probably will / does you'll start seeing less returns at higher levels (barring, of course, getting your hands on something like a magical artifact for both hands) than you would for other options.
I've found that it's fairly decent for Assassination Rogues. Who, coincidentally, also don't get Two-Weapon Fighting, and have to multiclass if they want to get it, which is an odd decision for the class with the typical class fantasy of the rogue wielding two daggers. That's why I always houserule that Rogues have TWF baked into their class abilities. Mind, the ability is still fairly underwhelming, and if it was actually a choice between sacrificing it and sacrificing something else, you'd never sacrifice anything else for it.

It's largely decent for them because the Assassination Rogue is based entirely around surprising enemies and getting off devastating first-round hits. An averagely built Rogue (let's say one with 16 Dexterity- easily achievable at level 1 even using the standard array given at character creation) who surprises an enemy will automatically gain advantage on their attack roll, and have their damage automatically critical. Because their attack is made with advantage, this automatically activates sneak attack as well. Because they critted, all damage dice are doubled- at level 3 (when you can take Assassinate), this means you're rolling 2d6+3 (average 10) for your scimitar damage, and 4d6 (average 14) damage for your sneak attack damage. You then make a bonus action to attack again, giving you another 2d6+3 (average 10) damage (but sadly not activating Sneak Attack again), for a total of an average of 34 damage in a surprise round at level 3.

You can then potentially deal roughly half that damage again if you roll initiative higher than the enemy (3d6+3/average 13 plus 1d6+3/average 6 for a rough average of 19), but that's a crapshoot dependent on INIT rolls.

Sadly, around level 8, the extra 3 damage a round starts becoming negligible, which is why I don't recommend actually taking TWF ever. It's nice as a feature baked into Rogues, but yeah, literally never ever take it if you have any other choice.
 
Back
Top