But what if somehow you get into a scuffle in the campaign with one of your team mates then wouldn't having a strong character be necessary because I heard there have been some cases that team members attacked each other because of a disagreement
One of the major rules is to create a character that WANTS to be together with the rest of the party for one reason or another. IF there's a fight between the player characters it's best resolved via roleplaying, not via all-out combat. If combat between player characters is allowed in the first place. Many groups forbid PvP because that's not why we come together to play the game and because the game is absolutely not balanced with PvP in mind.
Sure there might be some players that go around attacking other player characters for some reason, but without a REALLY good reason those players usually get kicked out of the group rather quickly.
ok thanks for clearing that up, I guess I don't have to worry that much about getting attacked by my own team mates, because of a disagreement like say whether to kill an npc or not kill
oh, so DnD in some way is a team game, your character has to benefit the team, some characters you create maybe good, but if they do not benefit the team then they are no good for the campaign your team is playing in, am I right is that what you all are saying ?
And because Battle Master is versatile that's why its favored by players, but ultimately the character a DnD player creates should fit the story you created for the character and that whatever it is should benefit the team right ?
But what if somehow you get into a scuffle in the campaign with one of your team mates then wouldn't having a strong character be necessary because I heard there have been some cases that team members attacked each other because of a disagreement
D&D is, in my opinion, every way a team game. You're not competing against the other players, you're competing against the challenges the DM throws your way, whether they be physical, social, or even moral.
There will be points during campaigns where different characters will have conflicting opinions about how to proceed, and that's a natural part of the game that you can resolve via role-playing.
These conflicts should almost never result in out and out combat, and if you feel your character disagrees so strongly with a decision that they would resort to combat, always discuss with your DM other options first. Even better would be to get all the other players on board beforehand about what sort of game you want to play, if you want to play an actual hero and not a murderous lunatic, let everyone know. If everyone else wants to be a murderous lunatic either shelve your character for a new one, or reconsider the group you're playing with and find a new one (which sadly is more difficult).
but just in case that unlikely scenario does happen and one team mate of mine and I do get into a disagreement and it comes to blows in the campaign, will Battle Master be good enough to survive such a situation ? (I apologize in advance if this question is annoying)
also thank you all for your wise input into my question, I guess I will have to experiment first before I'm fully satisfied with a character I create, but I guess that is necessary since you all say this is DnD
Seems like what you're really concerned about is PvP and if that's the case then a Fighter probably isn't your best bet for survival. Unless you're guaranteed to both go first and be within range of your target, you're likely never going to beat a spellcaster. Also you'd pretty much have to knock them out in the first round because most spellcasters with a brain will have Misty Step or some other way to get out of melee without getting hurt. So, right off the bat, if you're a Fighter you'd need to prioritize ranged combat or be an Eldritch Knight who has access to Counterspell because even if a melee Battlemaster can do more damage and maybe even outright kill an opponent in the first turn, any other time you can't do it you'd be at the mercy of the far more powerful spellcaster.
Alternatively you could try becoming a Paladin who'd have just as much, or higher, damage output than the Fighter in short bursts but Paladins have earlier access to spells and are better at resisting magical effects (especially Oath of Ancients). Double alternatively, be a Monk and lock your opening in a neverending stun with Stunning Fist and have enough movement speed to ensure that it's more difficult for your opponent to flee from (double points if you're an Aarokocra or some other flying race).
Fighter is my favorite class but against any smart spellcaster, they've really got few options to fight back. But I suppose if you end up in a fight against the party Rogue or Ranger (and maybe even against a Barbarian), then yeah. They're probably toast.
At the end of the day though, prep time and winning initiative are the things that make the most difference in a 1v1 fight.
how do you all know that pvp won't happen, with the alignment system in DnD what if there is an evil character in the team regardless of neutral, lawful, or chaotic, won't that increase likelihood of pvp happening because good and neutral characters are likely to collide with evil characters ?
I'm not looking for pvp, but I like to be ready for anything and any situation, although I just started playing I saw a game where characters were going on a murder spree and this was conflicting with neutral and good characters views who were in that team, and it looked like conflict amongst the team was going to happen, I didn't get to see the rest of the game though,
I think you call this murder spree, murder hoboism or something like that
how do you all know that pvp won't happen, with the alignment system in DnD what if there is an evil character in the team regardless of neutral, lawful, or chaotic, won't that increase likelihood of pvp happening because good and neutral characters are likely to collide with evil characters ?
I'm not looking for pvp, but I like to be ready for anything and any situation, although I just started playing I saw a game where characters were going on a murder spree and this was conflicting with neutral and good characters views who were in that team, and it looked like conflict amongst the team was going to happen, I didn't get to see the rest of the game though,
I think you call this murder spree, murder hoboism or something like that
While it is theoretically possible, pvp is exceedingly rare. It’s usually the kind of thing you work out as session 0, and if it concerns you, it is perfectly reasonable to bring it up and discuss with the group and say you aren’t into it.
Alignment is a whole other thing. But I can say usually parties have varying alignments. Part of the role playing facet of the game is figuring out how to work together in spite of different world views.
In general, people understand that D&D is a team game, and all the players are on the same team. Yes, there are asshats out there, but they usually end up get booted from the table.
how do you all know that pvp won't happen, with the alignment system in DnD what if there is an evil character in the team regardless of neutral, lawful, or chaotic, won't that increase likelihood of pvp happening because good and neutral characters are likely to collide with evil characters ?
I'm not looking for pvp, but I like to be ready for anything and any situation, although I just started playing I saw a game where characters were going on a murder spree and this was conflicting with neutral and good characters views who were in that team, and it looked like conflict amongst the team was going to happen, I didn't get to see the rest of the game though,
I think you call this murder spree, murder hoboism or something like that
We don't know it won't happen, but it shouldn't. If you're expecting it because you know other people at the table are predisposed to it, then I question whether it will be a fun experience, and would reconsider joining it. Better yet, discuss with the DM your concerns, and if they are going to allow it (barring special circumstances), or worse yet actively promote it, definitely reconsider. D&D is meant to be a fun experience for all, and constantly worrying about being killed by your team is not often fun, unless you've specifically signed up for it, in which case you do you.
I'm going to upset some people and say that alignment should only be used as a guide, and you're much better basing your character off your ideals/bonds/flaws and creative roleplaying. However, if you are diving into alignment I strongly suggest against anyone playing an evil character, it isn't cool, it isn't fun for other people, and the dynamic of having good and evil characters in a group just doesn't work for most people/parties.
As Xalthu says, most people understand D&D is a team game, just avoid those who don't.
I'm going to upset some people and say that alignment should only be used as a guide, and you're much better basing your character off your ideals/bonds/flaws and creative roleplaying. However, if you are diving into alignment I strongly suggest against anyone playing an evil character, it isn't cool, it isn't fun for other people, and the dynamic of having good and evil characters in a group just doesn't work for most people/parties.
Basing your character around ideals/bonds/flaws is definitely better than deciding on an alignment first. Ideally the alignment follows the personality of your character not the other way around. However I heavily disagree with your notion about not playing an evil character. It's not that hard to play an evil character that works together with the party and is fun to have around. Playing an evil character is the same as playing a chaotic character. Just don't play them like a stupid one-dimensional cliché and you're good.
Of course this is based on my personal experience, but the majority of players I have played with who have decided to be evil have always done it as a stupid one dimensional cliché, and have invariably been a disruptive influence on the game. For a lot of people it seems to be that hard. It can be done well, but most of the time, in my experience, it isn't, so I'd rather just avoid it altogether, especially if it is a person who I haven't played with before, and/or is just starting the game.
Definitely a big fan of building your personality and then aligning around that rather than the other way.
Of course this is based on my personal experience, but the majority of players I have played with who have decided to be evil have always done it as a stupid one dimensional cliché, and have invariably been a disruptive influence on the game. For a lot of people it seems to be that hard. It can be done well, but most of the time, in my experience, it isn't, so I'd rather just avoid it altogether, especially if it is a person who I haven't played with before, and/or is just starting the game.
Sounds like you've been unlucky with the players who've chosen to be evil in your groups! To me though this sounds like it might be more of an issue of the players not thinking about why the character is in the group or thinking through their motivation enough; this can just as easily happen with a lawful good character in a chaotic neutral group though. I've also seen "good" characters who have to be argued down to neutral because of the way they act etc., it's the same basic problem.
I'm currently playing a neutral evil character and while he can be arrogant, or sarcastically insulting, his goals and those of the party are currently aligned; while there's probably a cut-off to how far he would risk himself to help an ally, he'd still prefer to have allies than not. In my case the character isn't intended to be long term, he'll likely part ways after the current quest (as in terms of his personality and back-story he doesn't have a lot in common with the group beyond being stuck in the same domain of dread), but for as long as he's with the party he wants it to succeed because otherwise he'd be doing it alone and most likely fail instead. He's intelligent, rational and reasonable, being evil just means you might not agree with his reasons.
Really when it comes down to it, evil characters tend to be selfish, but they don't need to be cruel; they can delight in horrible things without needing to be the cause of them and so-on. The key issue isn't that they are evil and the others aren't, it's whether the group has anything in common at all; if they don't have anything then it makes no sense for the character to be there. A party really needs a good reason to want to stay together beyond "we just happened to be in the same bar that one time", whether that's a common goal (take down the lich that stole your lunch money) or a common ideal, or after a few quests together it might be loyalty, but there needs to be something for it work narratively.
On the issue of PvP, I have actually thought about what my neutral evil character would do if it came to a really severe disagreement about his being there, but that's mostly just for fun/theory-crafting; if it actually came down to it he'd try Intimidation to avoid it entirely, maybe command and/or geas to force the issue, or just use invisibility and leave, as even a fight he'd be confident of winning is a risk not worth taking if there's nothing to be gained from it. Thinking about what your character might do in PvP is fine, it can be a fun thought experiment, and it may even be useful to have considered in case you ever get charmed into doing it against your will; but for actual internal party conflict the goal shouldn't be to "win" mechanically, it should be to resolve the problem somehow, it's a perfect time to use improvised combat (e.g- you declare you're going to try and get the wizard in a chokehold to stop them from casting and force them to yield, so you do an opposed check to keep it simple).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Of course this is based on my personal experience, but the majority of players I have played with who have decided to be evil have always done it as a stupid one dimensional cliché, and have invariably been a disruptive influence on the game. For a lot of people it seems to be that hard. It can be done well, but most of the time, in my experience, it isn't, so I'd rather just avoid it altogether, especially if it is a person who I haven't played with before, and/or is just starting the game.
Sounds like you've been unlucky with the players who've chosen to be evil in your groups! To me though this sounds like it might be more of an issue of the players not thinking about why the character is in the group or thinking through their motivation enough; this can just as easily happen with a lawful good character in a chaotic neutral group though. I've also seen "good" characters who have to be argued down to neutral because of the way they act etc., it's the same basic problem.
I'm currently playing a neutral evil character and while he can be arrogant, or sarcastically insulting, his goals and those of the party are currently aligned; while there's probably a cut-off to how far he would risk himself to help an ally, he'd still prefer to have allies than not. In my case the character isn't intended to be long term, he'll likely part ways after the current quest (as in terms of his personality and back-story he doesn't have a lot in common with the group beyond being stuck in the same domain of dread), but for as long as he's with the party he wants it to succeed because otherwise he'd be doing it alone and most likely fail instead. He's intelligent, rational and reasonable, being evil just means you might not agree with his reasons.
Really when it comes down to it, evil characters tend to be selfish, but they don't need to be cruel; they can delight in horrible things without needing to be the cause of them and so-on. The key issue isn't that they are evil and the others aren't, it's whether the group has anything in common at all; if they don't have anything then it makes no sense for the character to be there. A party really needs a good reason to want to stay together beyond "we just happened to be in the same bar that one time", whether that's a common goal (take down the lich that stole your lunch money) or a common ideal, or after a few quests together it might be loyalty, but there needs to be something for it work narratively.
On the issue of PvP, I have actually thought about what my neutral evil character would do if it came to a really severe disagreement about his being there, but that's mostly just for fun/theory-crafting; if it actually came down to it he'd try Intimidation to avoid it entirely, maybe command and/or geas to force the issue, or just use invisibility and leave, as even a fight he'd be confident of winning is a risk not worth taking if there's nothing to be gained from it. Thinking about what your character might do in PvP is fine, it can be a fun thought experiment, and it may even be useful to have considered in case you ever get charmed into doing it against your will; but for actual internal party conflict the goal shouldn't be to "win" mechanically, it should be to resolve the problem somehow, it's a perfect time to use improvised combat (e.g- you declare you're going to try and get the wizard in a chokehold to stop them from casting and force them to yield, so you do an opposed check to keep it simple).
I have definitely seen the same with people playing lawful good godawfully, but on a lesser scale. That may be a case of it being in a mostly good party vs evil in a mostly good party, where their over the top attitudes tend to at least align in some way towards party goals etc.
I have definitely seen the same with people playing lawful good godawfully, but on a lesser scale. That may be a case of it being in a mostly good party vs evil in a mostly good party, where their over the top attitudes tend to at least align in some way towards party goals etc.
Yeah, at the other end of the scale I played a lawful good cleric/monk in a Frostmaiden campaign, and that proved challenging because one player was straight up on the verge of torturing an NPC to death after they'd already told us everything they knew (and we'd confirmed it); that was a good example of PvP almost breaking out, as if they wouldn't be talked down I was going to have to throw sanctuary on the NPC and then try to incapacitate the aggressor if they kept trying anyway, because there was just nothing else that made sense for that character.
That said, we're a group that's fairly comfortable with that kind of thing; we enjoy pushing at characters' moral compasses, plus I didn't play lawful good for an easy ride, and we've done "pseudo PvP" (simplified rolls to represent a struggle) before, as well as the occasional nonsense like a character gut-punching a party member who was being stubborn about handing over the key to a puzzle, or slapping someone awake way too hard (both times with a minotaur doing it… 🤔). PvP definitely shouldn't be something to expect in a new group, and there are usually better ways to resolve character conflicts.
On the other hand, I've been considering running a mini no-stakes battle royale session next time we're too low on players for a proper one…
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Why is there no love for the samurai? It's such a beautiful subclass!
When people talk about DPR and battle master, it usually revolves around their usage of precision attack. This uses a superiority die, and therefore means an average of 4.5 when used. Advantage generated as will from fighting spirit has been compared to +5! Not only does the samurai get similar benefits from fighting spirit, but they get temp HP to top it all off. Now the samurai is tankier than the battlemaster.
But wait, there's more! You get elegant courtier! You can be of some use in social situations and know you're not just shooting your party in the foot by doing so. The opportunity for roleplay is then richer, and you get free WIS save proficiency.
The samurai can do just as good damage (or better, thanks EA+SS!) , but has better staying power. Why isn't this being talked about more?!
Experience. I’ve been playing D&D for a long time, about 30 years, as well as other TTPRG games, and I can count on one hand the number of times PC Vs PC combat has happened.
ok thanks for clearing that up, I guess I don't have to worry that much about getting attacked by my own team mates, because of a disagreement like say whether to kill an npc or not kill
D&D is, in my opinion, every way a team game. You're not competing against the other players, you're competing against the challenges the DM throws your way, whether they be physical, social, or even moral.
There will be points during campaigns where different characters will have conflicting opinions about how to proceed, and that's a natural part of the game that you can resolve via role-playing.
These conflicts should almost never result in out and out combat, and if you feel your character disagrees so strongly with a decision that they would resort to combat, always discuss with your DM other options first. Even better would be to get all the other players on board beforehand about what sort of game you want to play, if you want to play an actual hero and not a murderous lunatic, let everyone know. If everyone else wants to be a murderous lunatic either shelve your character for a new one, or reconsider the group you're playing with and find a new one (which sadly is more difficult).
but just in case that unlikely scenario does happen and one team mate of mine and I do get into a disagreement and it comes to blows in the campaign, will Battle Master be good enough to survive such a situation ? (I apologize in advance if this question is annoying)
also thank you all for your wise input into my question, I guess I will have to experiment first before I'm fully satisfied with a character I create, but I guess that is necessary since you all say this is DnD
Seems like what you're really concerned about is PvP and if that's the case then a Fighter probably isn't your best bet for survival. Unless you're guaranteed to both go first and be within range of your target, you're likely never going to beat a spellcaster. Also you'd pretty much have to knock them out in the first round because most spellcasters with a brain will have Misty Step or some other way to get out of melee without getting hurt. So, right off the bat, if you're a Fighter you'd need to prioritize ranged combat or be an Eldritch Knight who has access to Counterspell because even if a melee Battlemaster can do more damage and maybe even outright kill an opponent in the first turn, any other time you can't do it you'd be at the mercy of the far more powerful spellcaster.
Alternatively you could try becoming a Paladin who'd have just as much, or higher, damage output than the Fighter in short bursts but Paladins have earlier access to spells and are better at resisting magical effects (especially Oath of Ancients). Double alternatively, be a Monk and lock your opening in a neverending stun with Stunning Fist and have enough movement speed to ensure that it's more difficult for your opponent to flee from (double points if you're an Aarokocra or some other flying race).
Fighter is my favorite class but against any smart spellcaster, they've really got few options to fight back. But I suppose if you end up in a fight against the party Rogue or Ranger (and maybe even against a Barbarian), then yeah. They're probably toast.
At the end of the day though, prep time and winning initiative are the things that make the most difference in a 1v1 fight.
how do you all know that pvp won't happen, with the alignment system in DnD what if there is an evil character in the team regardless of neutral, lawful, or chaotic, won't that increase likelihood of pvp happening because good and neutral characters are likely to collide with evil characters ?
I'm not looking for pvp, but I like to be ready for anything and any situation, although I just started playing I saw a game where characters were going on a murder spree and this was conflicting with neutral and good characters views who were in that team, and it looked like conflict amongst the team was going to happen, I didn't get to see the rest of the game though,
I think you call this murder spree, murder hoboism or something like that
While it is theoretically possible, pvp is exceedingly rare. It’s usually the kind of thing you work out as session 0, and if it concerns you, it is perfectly reasonable to bring it up and discuss with the group and say you aren’t into it.
Alignment is a whole other thing. But I can say usually parties have varying alignments. Part of the role playing facet of the game is figuring out how to work together in spite of different world views.
In general, people understand that D&D is a team game, and all the players are on the same team. Yes, there are asshats out there, but they usually end up get booted from the table.
We don't know it won't happen, but it shouldn't. If you're expecting it because you know other people at the table are predisposed to it, then I question whether it will be a fun experience, and would reconsider joining it. Better yet, discuss with the DM your concerns, and if they are going to allow it (barring special circumstances), or worse yet actively promote it, definitely reconsider. D&D is meant to be a fun experience for all, and constantly worrying about being killed by your team is not often fun, unless you've specifically signed up for it, in which case you do you.
I'm going to upset some people and say that alignment should only be used as a guide, and you're much better basing your character off your ideals/bonds/flaws and creative roleplaying. However, if you are diving into alignment I strongly suggest against anyone playing an evil character, it isn't cool, it isn't fun for other people, and the dynamic of having good and evil characters in a group just doesn't work for most people/parties.
As Xalthu says, most people understand D&D is a team game, just avoid those who don't.
Of course this is based on my personal experience, but the majority of players I have played with who have decided to be evil have always done it as a stupid one dimensional cliché, and have invariably been a disruptive influence on the game. For a lot of people it seems to be that hard. It can be done well, but most of the time, in my experience, it isn't, so I'd rather just avoid it altogether, especially if it is a person who I haven't played with before, and/or is just starting the game.
Definitely a big fan of building your personality and then aligning around that rather than the other way.
Sounds like you've been unlucky with the players who've chosen to be evil in your groups! To me though this sounds like it might be more of an issue of the players not thinking about why the character is in the group or thinking through their motivation enough; this can just as easily happen with a lawful good character in a chaotic neutral group though. I've also seen "good" characters who have to be argued down to neutral because of the way they act etc., it's the same basic problem.
I'm currently playing a neutral evil character and while he can be arrogant, or sarcastically insulting, his goals and those of the party are currently aligned; while there's probably a cut-off to how far he would risk himself to help an ally, he'd still prefer to have allies than not. In my case the character isn't intended to be long term, he'll likely part ways after the current quest (as in terms of his personality and back-story he doesn't have a lot in common with the group beyond being stuck in the same domain of dread), but for as long as he's with the party he wants it to succeed because otherwise he'd be doing it alone and most likely fail instead. He's intelligent, rational and reasonable, being evil just means you might not agree with his reasons.
Really when it comes down to it, evil characters tend to be selfish, but they don't need to be cruel; they can delight in horrible things without needing to be the cause of them and so-on. The key issue isn't that they are evil and the others aren't, it's whether the group has anything in common at all; if they don't have anything then it makes no sense for the character to be there. A party really needs a good reason to want to stay together beyond "we just happened to be in the same bar that one time", whether that's a common goal (take down the lich that stole your lunch money) or a common ideal, or after a few quests together it might be loyalty, but there needs to be something for it work narratively.
On the issue of PvP, I have actually thought about what my neutral evil character would do if it came to a really severe disagreement about his being there, but that's mostly just for fun/theory-crafting; if it actually came down to it he'd try Intimidation to avoid it entirely, maybe command and/or geas to force the issue, or just use invisibility and leave, as even a fight he'd be confident of winning is a risk not worth taking if there's nothing to be gained from it. Thinking about what your character might do in PvP is fine, it can be a fun thought experiment, and it may even be useful to have considered in case you ever get charmed into doing it against your will; but for actual internal party conflict the goal shouldn't be to "win" mechanically, it should be to resolve the problem somehow, it's a perfect time to use improvised combat (e.g- you declare you're going to try and get the wizard in a chokehold to stop them from casting and force them to yield, so you do an opposed check to keep it simple).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I have definitely seen the same with people playing lawful good godawfully, but on a lesser scale. That may be a case of it being in a mostly good party vs evil in a mostly good party, where their over the top attitudes tend to at least align in some way towards party goals etc.
Yeah, at the other end of the scale I played a lawful good cleric/monk in a Frostmaiden campaign, and that proved challenging because one player was straight up on the verge of torturing an NPC to death after they'd already told us everything they knew (and we'd confirmed it); that was a good example of PvP almost breaking out, as if they wouldn't be talked down I was going to have to throw sanctuary on the NPC and then try to incapacitate the aggressor if they kept trying anyway, because there was just nothing else that made sense for that character.
That said, we're a group that's fairly comfortable with that kind of thing; we enjoy pushing at characters' moral compasses, plus I didn't play lawful good for an easy ride, and we've done "pseudo PvP" (simplified rolls to represent a struggle) before, as well as the occasional nonsense like a character gut-punching a party member who was being stubborn about handing over the key to a puzzle, or slapping someone awake way too hard (both times with a minotaur doing it… 🤔). PvP definitely shouldn't be something to expect in a new group, and there are usually better ways to resolve character conflicts.
On the other hand, I've been considering running a mini no-stakes battle royale session next time we're too low on players for a proper one…
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Why is there no love for the samurai? It's such a beautiful subclass!
When people talk about DPR and battle master, it usually revolves around their usage of precision attack. This uses a superiority die, and therefore means an average of 4.5 when used. Advantage generated as will from fighting spirit has been compared to +5! Not only does the samurai get similar benefits from fighting spirit, but they get temp HP to top it all off. Now the samurai is tankier than the battlemaster.
But wait, there's more! You get elegant courtier! You can be of some use in social situations and know you're not just shooting your party in the foot by doing so. The opportunity for roleplay is then richer, and you get free WIS save proficiency.
The samurai can do just as good damage (or better, thanks EA+SS!) , but has better staying power. Why isn't this being talked about more?!
Experience. I’ve been playing D&D for a long time, about 30 years, as well as other TTPRG games, and I can count on one hand the number of times PC Vs PC combat has happened.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting