It impresses me that this thread is going on 55 pages lol.
Especially since if the wizard wins initiative, they can cast Invulnerability with immunity to all damage for ten minutes. I would then kill the fighter with firebolt, just because I could. :)
Pages 146-147 don't relate to the Samurai build because the Samurai doesn't wear armor and the weapon isn't included here. If you're talking about the Strength Before Death cheese, is a well-honored white-room tradition for 1 hp Samurais to go out and attack themselves, which would lead to ~277 damage instead of ~294. Still enouhg.
P146 talks about donning and doffing armour. Why is that important? Look at what is on the list. Shields. Shields are strapped to the arm and carried in one hand. They take an action to take off, which means that they cannot be simply dropped. What does disarming do? Forces the target to drop a item they are holding or knocks an item from their hand. Can you drop a shield? No, it's strapped on. Can you knock a shield from a hand? No, it's strapped on. Can you disarm a shield? No, it's strapped to the arm. What does stupid sniper build rely on to work? Oh dear.
2 ac doesn’t actually account for that much compared to strength before death. That’s 1 or 2 attacks turned from hit to miss, and neither crits. It weakens the setup a bit, but it doesn’t rely on it. We can now also add something else to replace disarming attack, adding some of the lost damage back. And sage advice is the source I’d use for this, the Phb isn’t that clear on the topic in comparison.
Not true. That 2AC loss is what tips the average damage over the upper limit of the Dread build with 265HP. There is no single attack that a fighter can make that adds enough average damage at AC 25.
Use disarming attack on the spell focus, then they can't cast spells, at all, unless they were smart enough to have multiple spell foci. ;) lol
This only applies to spells with material components. Invulnerability begone, but no effect on wish. Still a valid strategy though, other than the fact that the wizard can just pick it up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
It impresses me that this thread is going on 55 pages lol.
Especially since if the wizard wins initiative, they can cast Invulnerability with immunity to all damage for ten minutes. I would then kill the fighter with firebolt, just because I could. :)
You really think the whole thing was who would win and not “wizard wins but I have a problem with how they win”? How cute.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Not true. That 2AC loss is what tips the average damage over the upper limit of the Dread build with 265HP. There is no single attack that a fighter can make that adds enough average damage at AC 25.
That is true. It's worth noting that the Sage Advice doesn't actually apply here, because we aren't using the disarm maneuver, but we are instead using the optional generic disarm attack which uses different wording (Sage Advice states it doesn't work because the maneuver requires the object to be "held", however the Disarm Attack instead uses "grasp").
However, I assume that this ruling was supposed to apply to both, since you know, both revolve around disarming and unless you have a really convincing argument, I'm pretty sure grasp and hold mean the same thing in this context.
And it is true that AC 25 is enough to push Samurai down to 231.7205. Even replacing Mounted Combatant with Martial Adept won't make up being ~33 damage under, when your average damage per attack is ~22.
So as far as I can tell Samurai would need modern/futuristic weaponry to make that gap, and even then, initiative wizard still exists.
We stopped arguing about which class would win a while back, initiative wizard beats all fighter builds. We've mostly been arguing about if it's possible to make a strategy where fighter has even less of a chance of winning, or if there's certain situations where a fighter could possibly win (such as the fighter is 300 ft away thing).
Pages 146-147 don't relate to the Samurai build because the Samurai doesn't wear armor and the weapon isn't included here. If you're talking about the Strength Before Death cheese, is a well-honored white-room tradition for 1 hp Samurais to go out and attack themselves, which would lead to ~277 damage instead of ~294. Still enouhg.
P146 talks about donning and doffing armour. Why is that important? Look at what is on the list. Shields. Shields are strapped to the arm and carried in one hand. They take an action to take off, which means that they cannot be simply dropped. What does disarming do? Forces the target to drop a item they are holding or knocks an item from their hand. Can you drop a shield? No, it's strapped on. Can you knock a shield from a hand? No, it's strapped on. Can you disarm a shield? No, it's strapped to the arm. What does stupid sniper build rely on to work? Oh dear.
2 ac doesn’t actually account for that much compared to strength before death. That’s 1 or 2 attacks turned from hit to miss, and neither crits. It weakens the setup a bit, but it doesn’t rely on it. We can now also add something else to replace disarming attack, adding some of the lost damage back. And sage advice is the source I’d use for this, the Phb isn’t that clear on the topic in comparison.
Not true. That 2AC loss is what tips the average damage over the upper limit of the Dread build with 265HP. There is no single attack that a fighter can make that adds enough average damage at AC 25.
Use disarming attack on the spell focus, then they can't cast spells, at all, unless they were smart enough to have multiple spell foci. ;) lol
This only applies to spells with material components. Invulnerability begone, but no effect on wish. Still a valid strategy though, other than the fact that the wizard can just pick it up.
Not if the fighter disarms the wizard, then just picks it up. Wouldn't that just be a free item interaction? Wizard drops it, fighter picks it up.
Pages 146-147 don't relate to the Samurai build because the Samurai doesn't wear armor and the weapon isn't included here. If you're talking about the Strength Before Death cheese, is a well-honored white-room tradition for 1 hp Samurais to go out and attack themselves, which would lead to ~277 damage instead of ~294. Still enouhg.
P146 talks about donning and doffing armour. Why is that important? Look at what is on the list. Shields. Shields are strapped to the arm and carried in one hand. They take an action to take off, which means that they cannot be simply dropped. What does disarming do? Forces the target to drop a item they are holding or knocks an item from their hand. Can you drop a shield? No, it's strapped on. Can you knock a shield from a hand? No, it's strapped on. Can you disarm a shield? No, it's strapped to the arm. What does stupid sniper build rely on to work? Oh dear.
2 ac doesn’t actually account for that much compared to strength before death. That’s 1 or 2 attacks turned from hit to miss, and neither crits. It weakens the setup a bit, but it doesn’t rely on it. We can now also add something else to replace disarming attack, adding some of the lost damage back. And sage advice is the source I’d use for this, the Phb isn’t that clear on the topic in comparison.
Not true. That 2AC loss is what tips the average damage over the upper limit of the Dread build with 265HP. There is no single attack that a fighter can make that adds enough average damage at AC 25.
Use disarming attack on the spell focus, then they can't cast spells, at all, unless they were smart enough to have multiple spell foci. ;) lol
This only applies to spells with material components. Invulnerability begone, but no effect on wish. Still a valid strategy though, other than the fact that the wizard can just pick it up.
Not if the fighter disarms the wizard, then just picks it up. Wouldn't that just be a free item interaction? Wizard drops it, fighter picks it up.
That requires being right there and having a free hand. The sniper was made to operate from far away and if we start in melee there is no point in making a ranged build.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
That requires being right there and having a free hand. The sniper was made to operate from far away and if we start in melee there is no point in making a ranged build.
The sniper was actually meant for close range combat, hence why it involves knocking people prone.
The gunner feat removes the disadvantage at 5ft.
The reason why we don't do a melee build is because Elven Accuracy & Archery fighting style (but mostly because firearms).
I mean, if you want to bet on the wizard only having 1 focus and you being able to disarm it, and that doing so is a win for the fighter, then ig it doesn't really matter too much if you lose some dps or not.
Guys the starting distance is approximately 20ft since it is a whiteroom and it has to be FAIR to ALL of EVERYTHING. The closest distance the 2 combatants can be 15ft because polearms exist and you can't just start in the range of the opponent while you can't be farther than 25ft because that means a creature can't close the distance to melee (halflings have 25ft speed).
So that leaves you with a type of goldilocks zone of starting distances 25, 20, 15 and the absolute in-between fair option is the 20ft therefore starting distance is 20ft.
As for the Don/Doffing of a shield even with Sage Advice it still doesn't make sense since Shields are referred to being Put on (Doffed) in addition to being Wielded as seen with this quote "Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2." Additionally the PHB has like 10+ different terms for items like: Use, Wear, Equip, Wield, Hold, Don (Put on), Doff (Take off), and so much more (Think of how prone has Drop, Fall, and knocked prone but they all do the same thing). And since Shields are items/objects that are wielded it makes sense you would be able to Disarm a target of that Item.
As for the Mounted Combatant feat not working I guess my bad but doesn't change anything as you can just use switch out Mounted Combatant for Athlete so you can get advantage with Flanking. To do so you must mount the Horse move with 5ft, drop prone/fall off/dismount off the horse (no movement) falling prone then use Athlete to stand up using only 5ft of movement then use the last 10ft to rotate around the wizard so that your allied mount and the fighter are opposite of each other.
Do tell if I missed something there was a lot posted so I wouldn't be surprised If something was overlooked.
Guys the starting distance is approximately 20ft since it is a whiteroom and it has to be FAIR to ALL of EVERYTHING. The closest distance the 2 combatants can be 15ft because polearms exist and you can't just start in the range of the opponent while you can't be farther than 25ft because that means a creature can't close the distance to melee (halflings have 25ft speed).
So that leaves you with a type of goldilocks zone of starting distances 25, 20, 15 and the absolute in-between fair option is the 20ft therefore starting distance is 20ft.
As for the Don/Doffing of a shield even with Sage Advice it still doesn't make sense since Shields are referred to being Put on (Doffed) in addition to being Wielded as seen with this quote "Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2." Additionally the PHB has like 10+ different terms for items like: Use, Wear, Equip, Wield, Hold, Don (Put on), Doff (Take off), and so much more (Think of how prone has Drop, Fall, and knocked prone but they all do the same thing). And since Shields are items/objects that are wielded it makes sense you would be able to Disarm a target of that Item.
As for the Mounted Combatant feat not working I guess my bad but doesn't change anything as you can just use switch out Mounted Combatant for Athlete so you can get advantage with Flanking. To do so you must mount the Horse move with 5ft, drop prone/fall off/dismount off the horse (no movement) falling prone then use Athlete to stand up using only 5ft of movement then use the last 10ft to rotate around the wizard so that your allied mount and the fighter are opposite of each other.
Do tell if I missed something there was a lot posted so I wouldn't be surprised If something was overlooked.
You aren't just holding a shield though, they are usually on your arm, more than in your hand. There is usually a strap on your forearm and another held in your hand. So I would argue against being able to disarm a shield from somebody. But RAW is it's held in the hand. I doubt RAW was thinking about somebody using a disarm attack on it. RAI gives us a more reasonable the shield isn't merely held, but donned (which I take as equipped as armor). Donning and doffing a shield isn't a free item interaction and can't just be dropped (as in held in hand), but is listed a full action to put on or take off. So I think it makes the most sense that you can't disarm a shield.
But as with all things, the DM will have to sort this out, since there is some contradiction and need for the DM to interpret it all. So prepare your arguments and plead your case for the DM to judge. :)
Guys the starting distance is approximately 20ft since it is a whiteroom and it has to be FAIR to ALL of EVERYTHING. The closest distance the 2 combatants can be 15ft because polearms exist and you can't just start in the range of the opponent while you can't be farther than 25ft because that means a creature can't close the distance to melee (halflings have 25ft speed).
So that leaves you with a type of goldilocks zone of starting distances 25, 20, 15 and the absolute in-between fair option is the 20ft therefore starting distance is 20ft.
As for the Don/Doffing of a shield even with Sage Advice it still doesn't make sense since Shields are referred to being Put on (Doffed) in addition to being Wielded as seen with this quote "Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2." Additionally the PHB has like 10+ different terms for items like: Use, Wear, Equip, Wield, Hold, Don (Put on), Doff (Take off), and so much more (Think of how prone has Drop, Fall, and knocked prone but they all do the same thing). And since Shields are items/objects that are wielded it makes sense you would be able to Disarm a target of that Item.
As for the Mounted Combatant feat not working I guess my bad but doesn't change anything as you can just use switch out Mounted Combatant for Athlete so you can get advantage with Flanking. To do so you must mount the Horse move with 5ft, drop prone/fall off/dismount off the horse (no movement) falling prone then use Athlete to stand up using only 5ft of movement then use the last 10ft to rotate around the wizard so that your allied mount and the fighter are opposite of each other.
Do tell if I missed something there was a lot posted so I wouldn't be surprised If something was overlooked.
You aren't just holding a shield though, they are usually on your arm, more than in your hand. There is usually a strap on your forearm and another held in your hand. So I would argue against being able to disarm a shield from somebody. But RAW is it's held in the hand. I doubt RAW was thinking about somebody using a disarm attack on it. RAI gives us a more reasonable the shield isn't merely held, but donned (which I take as equipped as armor). Donning and doffing a shield isn't a free item interaction and can't just be dropped (as in held in hand), but is listed a full action to put on or take off. So I think it makes the most sense that you can't disarm a shield.
But as with all things, the DM will have to sort this out, since there is some contradiction and need for the DM to interpret it all. So prepare your arguments and plead your case for the DM to judge. :)
This
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
You aren't just holding a shield though, they are usually on your arm, more than in your hand. There is usually a strap on your forearm and another held in your hand. So I would argue against being able to disarm a shield from somebody. But RAW is it's held in the hand. I doubt RAW was thinking about somebody using a disarm attack on it. RAI gives us a more reasonable the shield isn't merely held, but donned (which I take as equipped as armor). Donning and doffing a shield isn't a free item interaction and can't just be dropped (as in held in hand), but is listed a full action to put on or take off. So I think it makes the most sense that you can't disarm a shield.
But as with all things, the DM will have to sort this out, since there is some contradiction and need for the DM to interpret it all. So prepare your arguments and plead your case for the DM to judge. :)
Answer: Well the PHB contradicts itself since it says that you have to wield it while also shoving it into a type of pseudo armor category since you also don it as well.
For a compromise it could that yes a shield is strapped to your arm but to use it you must wield it so doesn't hang loose uselessly on the bearers arm. With that compromise it would mean when you Disarm a shield it rids the shield from their grasp (making them lose the +2 to AC) but when it is dropped to the ground it is still strapped onto your arm as it is worn. If we do this compromise it techniqually uses all the relevant wording is still rather realistic.
Now as for general common sense one would assume that the intended spirit of Disarm-ing a creature would be removing a object that occupies that creature's hand but that is neither here no there.
But then again since the PHB is worded weirdly and the sage advice goes against RAW in fact the PHB's own wording goes against itself. Since 5e is plagued with horrible wording and vague undefined terms it leaves so much to the DM's ruling it is rather saddening that we even need to have this discussion (honestly DnD should make a dictionary then use that dictionary as a basis just for uniformity, and clarities sake).
Either way I stand by the "general common sense" interpretation although I could definably move toward the "compromise" interpretation but honestly I don't see myself ever really subscribing to the Disarm doesn't work on shields interpretation.
Answer: Well the PHB contradicts itself since it says that you have to wield it while also shoving it into a type of pseudo armor category since you also don it as well
While it is true that weapons are wielded and armor donned, I am unaware of any rule in the book which says that anything wielded is a weapon and anything donned is armor. In fact, staves can be wielded and fine clothes donned.
Answer: Well the PHB contradicts itself since it says that you have to wield it while also shoving it into a type of pseudo armor category since you also don it as well
While it is true that weapons are wielded and armor donned, I am unaware of any rule in the book which says that anything wielded is a weapon and anything donned is armor. In fact, staves can be wielded and fine clothes donned.
Answer: Nothing says (to my knowledge) that only a weapon must be wielded all I know is that a thing that is held or equipped doesn’t mean it is wielded as you can hold a tankard of ale but not wield but you can also hold and wield that same tankard (I hope this makes sense). While everything with the Donned word prescribed to it is seen as Armor or in the Shield case a type of pseudo Armor thingy either way Armor and shields aren’t considered the same thing or otherwise they would just say Armor and not “Armor and Shield” so whatever the case maybe be the PHB is terrible as it uses like 10+ words just for equipping/holding/using/etc an object (Think of how prone has Knock Prone, Fall Prone, Drop Prone).
Either way it is highly confusing with the multitude of undefined generally vague terms that are used to such a point I think if they ever do 6e in like 15+ years I think they should make a Dictionary and cite that dictionary so they keep everything definable and concise without so much need for in depth research and need for interpretation.
Answer: Well the PHB contradicts itself since it says that you have to wield it while also shoving it into a type of pseudo armor category since you also don it as well
While it is true that weapons are wielded and armor donned, I am unaware of any rule in the book which says that anything wielded is a weapon and anything donned is armor. In fact, staves can be wielded and fine clothes donned.
Answer: Nothing says (to my knowledge) that only a weapon must be wielded all I know is that a thing that is held or equipped doesn’t mean it is wielded as you can hold a tankard of ale but not wield but you can also hold and wield that same tankard (I hope this makes sense). While everything with the Donned word prescribed to it is seen as Armor or in the Shield case a type of pseudo Armor thingy either way Armor and shields aren’t considered the same thing or otherwise they would just say Armor and not “Armor and Shield” so whatever the case maybe be the PHB is terrible as it uses like 10+ words just for equipping/holding/using/etc an object (Think of how prone has Knock Prone, Fall Prone, Drop Prone).
Either way it is highly confusing with the multitude of undefined generally vague terms that are used to such a point I think if they ever do 6e in like 15+ years I think they should make a Dictionary and cite that dictionary so they keep everything definable and concise without so much need for in depth research and need for interpretation.
It doesn't matter if a shield is armor or not, it more matters that shields are equipped in the same way armor is, as you state it's not called the "armor and only armor rules" it's the "armor and shield" rules. They follow the same rules and terms for equipping and unequipping, after all a player could be considered to be holding their gauntlets and stuff like that.
It is true that both weapons & shields refer to the keyword "wielded", however weapons are also mentioned as "held" while shields are only mentioned as "wielded" or "donned". It is this term "held" that matters. An item can have multiple keywords, and a rule that references one specific keyword could be referring just to that one keyword.
I do agree 5E could organize their terms a lot better, and honestly this whole wielded vs held thing seems more like an accident they found that they used to not have to make errata then it does an actual organic part of the system.
Wield generally refers to using a item, and is usually applied to weapons or tools. So you can wield a tankard of ale as an improvised weapon, which is when you'd use the word. You would not wield a tankard to drink from it. That being said, wielding generally presupposes holding, because to use a weapon or tool you'd usually need to hold it (There will be edge cases, for example you could wield a shoe knife, which you don't hold because it's sticking out of your footwear). So it's perfectly valid to wield a shield, because it's being held and used.
It's only confusing if you choose to believe that donning and wielding are mutually exclusive. Clearly, that isn't the case with shields. With 5e, the rule of most specific rule wins, thus whilst held items can be dropped (and is the effect of the successful outcome of both disarm rules), donned items can't, ergo a donned and held item cannot be dropped, because that's a more specific description than just a held item. Not hard when you step through it logically.
Flanking requires the use of miniatures and so I don't think a rule that only applies to a specific way of playing the game should be used in a white room scenario. In fact, I am of the opinion that it's just wrong as it's deliberately dictating the play environment to get a clear advantage, much in the same way that choosing extreme range favours an archer.
Incidentally, flanking can also be shut down by the wizard taking allies too, then using them to block movement (the meat shield tactic). The wizard would also use the optional diagonal on squares rule to mess with attacker movement too. Making arbitrary rules that restrict what can and can't be taken just so these sort of tactics work would be wrong too, as again it's deliberately adjusting fight rules to be in favour of the fighter.
You don't need to try to twist and abuse falling off a mount rules to avoid the can't mount and dismount in the same turn rule because Strength after Death interrupts your current turn and gives you another turn, which just means you do things in a different order (die before attacking) so you dismount in the bonus turn. (Note that I think the whole Strength after Death thing is just plain wrong, so I am not endorsing it at all. It violates basic rules regarding object interactions and claiming that any weapon does minimum 104 hp damage when used on yourself, far in excess of what any other weapon can do when used normally, specifically so that an ability activates is the worst kind of bad homebrew. Sure you can commit suicide, but it causes instant death, not damage, like Power Word Kill is written).
If using miniatures, the facing rule could be abused to get advantage. It's possible to meat shield the wizard to prevent this too, but then it's starting to get a bit silly.
I also think that stipulating starting distances of say 20ft so that a mount could be used in this way is wrong yet again, yada yada. I'd suggest that the minimum distance apart would need to be the maximum distance any combatant could move and still melee attack. For mounts, that's a dash distance.
To be honest, I think this is all moot, because I don't think either party should be taking allies in any way shape or form into class vs class white room unless it's a class ability (like a familiar). It's class vs class, not class and their allies vs.
I think the AC25 Tank Wizard can be beaten by a fighter built to get initiative on average, Charm and persuade.
If you can charm the wizard, you get advantage on persuasion to convince them to do all sorts of things, like, oh I don't know, waste their spell slots, dispel any effects they have running, take off their armour and shield (with your help of course), test to see how many vials of Malice it would take to blind them, get them to go prone...
With WIS and CHA 10, you just need to get to a DC of 18 to have them fail normal saving throws more than they pass on average. Thing is, wizard gets advantage against spells, but what if I told you it's possible, as an elf, to get a charm racial ability that is an innate ability, uses INT, WIS or CHA for DC, is tied to a 30 ft teleport bonus action, has a range of 10ft, isn't cast and so isn't a spell, can't be counterspelled and can be cast 6 times ? That certainly changes things doesn't it?
However, I'm not sure if it could beat the original Dread build due to Lucky, but if it could get enough charms off it might be workable. So the question is, what's the least number of turns a wizard needs to reduce a fighter to 0hp (assuming Con 10 and average hp), and what would they use to do it?
I think the AC25 Tank Wizard can be beaten by a fighter built to get initiative on average, Charm and persuade.
If you can charm the wizard, you get advantage on persuasion to convince them to do all sorts of things, like, oh I don't know, waste their spell slots, dispel any effects they have running, take off their armour and shield (with your help of course), test to see how many vials of Malice it would take to blind them, get them to go prone...
With WIS and CHA 10, you just need to get to a DC of 18 to have them fail normal saving throws more than they pass on average. Thing is, wizard gets advantage against spells, but what if I told you it's possible, as an elf, to get a charm racial ability that is an innate ability, uses INT, WIS or CHA for DC, is tied to a 30 ft teleport bonus action, has a range of 10ft, isn't cast and so isn't a spell, can't be counterspelled and can be cast 6 times ? That certainly changes things doesn't it?
However, I'm not sure if it could beat the original Dread build due to Lucky, but if it could get enough charms off it might be workable. So the question is, what's the least number of turns a wizard needs to reduce a fighter to 0hp (assuming Con 10 and average hp), and what would they use to do it?
I think charmed probably isn't a great idea to be honest since the charm effect (Eladrin, right?) ends as soon as you deal damage to the creature. So I guess you could stab them a bunch of times and then bonus action teleport and try to charm but even so it seems very high risk for damage prevention. Plus the wizard can just True Polymorph into a charm immune creature cause you can still do that when charmed RAW (the text says only no damage/harmful effects targeting the charmer). I'm thinking the Drow Matron Mother? Plus that way you can get a Yochlol/Glabrezu ally for your bonus action. Or various things tbh but the Drow option is probably most appealing to me. Also elf wizards will get advantage on the saves as will the probably better gnome wizards. But it's a cool idea, especially because I love charm effects in RPGs.
I might also add with the build consideration that you're getting advantage on persuasion checks, but it's still going to be pretty hard at most tables to persuade someone you just stabbed nearly to death to waste their spells (and many DMs would rule it to be in that special zone where even a Nat 20 won't make it possible). The DC is probably going to be almost impossibly high at my table, anyway. I can't speak for anyone else. You're going to need quite the investment in Cha and at least one related skill and your DPR will suffer even if your DM does allow you to persuade an enemy to hurt themself in the middle of life or death combat.
The Eldritch Knight, if he wins initiative, can grab a bow and cast Fear on the Wizard, then shoot the Wizard in the back until the spell ends or the Wizard is dead.
By your rules, the battlefield is wide open. The Wizard will have to keep taking the Dash action and has dropped everything in his hands. So, he can't fight back.
The Eldritch Knight, if he wins initiative, can grab a bow and cast Fear on the Wizard, then shoot the Wizard in the back until the spell ends or the Wizard is dead.
By your rules, the battlefield is wide open. The Wizard will have to keep taking the Dash action and has dropped everything in his hands. So, he can't fight back.
That's assuming that the wizard fails the save.
Also the wizard could true Poly into something immune to fear as well
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Especially since if the wizard wins initiative, they can cast Invulnerability with immunity to all damage for ten minutes. I would then kill the fighter with firebolt, just because I could. :)
This only applies to spells with material components. Invulnerability begone, but no effect on wish. Still a valid strategy though, other than the fact that the wizard can just pick it up.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
You really think the whole thing was who would win and not “wizard wins but I have a problem with how they win”? How cute.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
That is true. It's worth noting that the Sage Advice doesn't actually apply here, because we aren't using the disarm maneuver, but we are instead using the optional generic disarm attack which uses different wording (Sage Advice states it doesn't work because the maneuver requires the object to be "held", however the Disarm Attack instead uses "grasp").
However, I assume that this ruling was supposed to apply to both, since you know, both revolve around disarming and unless you have a really convincing argument, I'm pretty sure grasp and hold mean the same thing in this context.
And it is true that AC 25 is enough to push Samurai down to 231.7205. Even replacing Mounted Combatant with Martial Adept won't make up being ~33 damage under, when your average damage per attack is ~22.
So as far as I can tell Samurai would need modern/futuristic weaponry to make that gap, and even then, initiative wizard still exists.
We stopped arguing about which class would win a while back, initiative wizard beats all fighter builds. We've mostly been arguing about if it's possible to make a strategy where fighter has even less of a chance of winning, or if there's certain situations where a fighter could possibly win (such as the fighter is 300 ft away thing).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Not if the fighter disarms the wizard, then just picks it up. Wouldn't that just be a free item interaction? Wizard drops it, fighter picks it up.
That requires being right there and having a free hand. The sniper was made to operate from far away and if we start in melee there is no point in making a ranged build.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
The sniper was actually meant for close range combat, hence why it involves knocking people prone.
The gunner feat removes the disadvantage at 5ft.
The reason why we don't do a melee build is because Elven Accuracy & Archery fighting style (but mostly because firearms).
I mean, if you want to bet on the wizard only having 1 focus and you being able to disarm it, and that doing so is a win for the fighter, then ig it doesn't really matter too much if you lose some dps or not.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Guys the starting distance is approximately 20ft since it is a whiteroom and it has to be FAIR to ALL of EVERYTHING. The closest distance the 2 combatants can be 15ft because polearms exist and you can't just start in the range of the opponent while you can't be farther than 25ft because that means a creature can't close the distance to melee (halflings have 25ft speed).
So that leaves you with a type of goldilocks zone of starting distances 25, 20, 15 and the absolute in-between fair option is the 20ft therefore starting distance is 20ft.
As for the Don/Doffing of a shield even with Sage Advice it still doesn't make sense since Shields are referred to being Put on (Doffed) in addition to being Wielded as seen with this quote "Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2." Additionally the PHB has like 10+ different terms for items like: Use, Wear, Equip, Wield, Hold, Don (Put on), Doff (Take off), and so much more (Think of how prone has Drop, Fall, and knocked prone but they all do the same thing). And since Shields are items/objects that are wielded it makes sense you would be able to Disarm a target of that Item.
As for the Mounted Combatant feat not working I guess my bad but doesn't change anything as you can just use switch out Mounted Combatant for Athlete so you can get advantage with Flanking. To do so you must mount the Horse move with 5ft, drop prone/fall off/dismount off the horse (no movement) falling prone then use Athlete to stand up using only 5ft of movement then use the last 10ft to rotate around the wizard so that your allied mount and the fighter are opposite of each other.
Do tell if I missed something there was a lot posted so I wouldn't be surprised If something was overlooked.
You aren't just holding a shield though, they are usually on your arm, more than in your hand. There is usually a strap on your forearm and another held in your hand. So I would argue against being able to disarm a shield from somebody. But RAW is it's held in the hand. I doubt RAW was thinking about somebody using a disarm attack on it. RAI gives us a more reasonable the shield isn't merely held, but donned (which I take as equipped as armor). Donning and doffing a shield isn't a free item interaction and can't just be dropped (as in held in hand), but is listed a full action to put on or take off. So I think it makes the most sense that you can't disarm a shield.
But as with all things, the DM will have to sort this out, since there is some contradiction and need for the DM to interpret it all. So prepare your arguments and plead your case for the DM to judge. :)
This
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
Answer: Well the PHB contradicts itself since it says that you have to wield it while also shoving it into a type of pseudo armor category since you also don it as well.
For a compromise it could that yes a shield is strapped to your arm but to use it you must wield it so doesn't hang loose uselessly on the bearers arm. With that compromise it would mean when you Disarm a shield it rids the shield from their grasp (making them lose the +2 to AC) but when it is dropped to the ground it is still strapped onto your arm as it is worn. If we do this compromise it techniqually uses all the relevant wording is still rather realistic.
Now as for general common sense one would assume that the intended spirit of Disarm-ing a creature would be removing a object that occupies that creature's hand but that is neither here no there.
But then again since the PHB is worded weirdly and the sage advice goes against RAW in fact the PHB's own wording goes against itself. Since 5e is plagued with horrible wording and vague undefined terms it leaves so much to the DM's ruling it is rather saddening that we even need to have this discussion (honestly DnD should make a dictionary then use that dictionary as a basis just for uniformity, and clarities sake).
Either way I stand by the "general common sense" interpretation although I could definably move toward the "compromise" interpretation but honestly I don't see myself ever really subscribing to the Disarm doesn't work on shields interpretation.
While it is true that weapons are wielded and armor donned, I am unaware of any rule in the book which says that anything wielded is a weapon and anything donned is armor. In fact, staves can be wielded and fine clothes donned.
PHB not clear, follow sage advice RAI I guess.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
Answer: Nothing says (to my knowledge) that only a weapon must be wielded all I know is that a thing that is held or equipped doesn’t mean it is wielded as you can hold a tankard of ale but not wield but you can also hold and wield that same tankard (I hope this makes sense). While everything with the Donned word prescribed to it is seen as Armor or in the Shield case a type of pseudo Armor thingy either way Armor and shields aren’t considered the same thing or otherwise they would just say Armor and not “Armor and Shield” so whatever the case maybe be the PHB is terrible as it uses like 10+ words just for equipping/holding/using/etc an object (Think of how prone has Knock Prone, Fall Prone, Drop Prone).
Either way it is highly confusing with the multitude of undefined generally vague terms that are used to such a point I think if they ever do 6e in like 15+ years I think they should make a Dictionary and cite that dictionary so they keep everything definable and concise without so much need for in depth research and need for interpretation.
It doesn't matter if a shield is armor or not, it more matters that shields are equipped in the same way armor is, as you state it's not called the "armor and only armor rules" it's the "armor and shield" rules. They follow the same rules and terms for equipping and unequipping, after all a player could be considered to be holding their gauntlets and stuff like that.
It is true that both weapons & shields refer to the keyword "wielded", however weapons are also mentioned as "held" while shields are only mentioned as "wielded" or "donned". It is this term "held" that matters. An item can have multiple keywords, and a rule that references one specific keyword could be referring just to that one keyword.
I do agree 5E could organize their terms a lot better, and honestly this whole wielded vs held thing seems more like an accident they found that they used to not have to make errata then it does an actual organic part of the system.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Wield generally refers to using a item, and is usually applied to weapons or tools. So you can wield a tankard of ale as an improvised weapon, which is when you'd use the word. You would not wield a tankard to drink from it. That being said, wielding generally presupposes holding, because to use a weapon or tool you'd usually need to hold it (There will be edge cases, for example you could wield a shoe knife, which you don't hold because it's sticking out of your footwear). So it's perfectly valid to wield a shield, because it's being held and used.
It's only confusing if you choose to believe that donning and wielding are mutually exclusive. Clearly, that isn't the case with shields. With 5e, the rule of most specific rule wins, thus whilst held items can be dropped (and is the effect of the successful outcome of both disarm rules), donned items can't, ergo a donned and held item cannot be dropped, because that's a more specific description than just a held item. Not hard when you step through it logically.
Flanking requires the use of miniatures and so I don't think a rule that only applies to a specific way of playing the game should be used in a white room scenario. In fact, I am of the opinion that it's just wrong as it's deliberately dictating the play environment to get a clear advantage, much in the same way that choosing extreme range favours an archer.
Incidentally, flanking can also be shut down by the wizard taking allies too, then using them to block movement (the meat shield tactic). The wizard would also use the optional diagonal on squares rule to mess with attacker movement too. Making arbitrary rules that restrict what can and can't be taken just so these sort of tactics work would be wrong too, as again it's deliberately adjusting fight rules to be in favour of the fighter.
You don't need to try to twist and abuse falling off a mount rules to avoid the can't mount and dismount in the same turn rule because Strength after Death interrupts your current turn and gives you another turn, which just means you do things in a different order (die before attacking) so you dismount in the bonus turn. (Note that I think the whole Strength after Death thing is just plain wrong, so I am not endorsing it at all. It violates basic rules regarding object interactions and claiming that any weapon does minimum 104 hp damage when used on yourself, far in excess of what any other weapon can do when used normally, specifically so that an ability activates is the worst kind of bad homebrew. Sure you can commit suicide, but it causes instant death, not damage, like Power Word Kill is written).
If using miniatures, the facing rule could be abused to get advantage. It's possible to meat shield the wizard to prevent this too, but then it's starting to get a bit silly.
I also think that stipulating starting distances of say 20ft so that a mount could be used in this way is wrong yet again, yada yada. I'd suggest that the minimum distance apart would need to be the maximum distance any combatant could move and still melee attack. For mounts, that's a dash distance.
To be honest, I think this is all moot, because I don't think either party should be taking allies in any way shape or form into class vs class white room unless it's a class ability (like a familiar). It's class vs class, not class and their allies vs.
I think the AC25 Tank Wizard can be beaten by a fighter built to get initiative on average, Charm and persuade.
If you can charm the wizard, you get advantage on persuasion to convince them to do all sorts of things, like, oh I don't know, waste their spell slots, dispel any effects they have running, take off their armour and shield (with your help of course), test to see how many vials of Malice it would take to blind them, get them to go prone...
With WIS and CHA 10, you just need to get to a DC of 18 to have them fail normal saving throws more than they pass on average. Thing is, wizard gets advantage against spells, but what if I told you it's possible, as an elf, to get a charm racial ability that is an innate ability, uses INT, WIS or CHA for DC, is tied to a 30 ft teleport bonus action, has a range of 10ft, isn't cast and so isn't a spell, can't be counterspelled and can be cast 6 times ? That certainly changes things doesn't it?
However, I'm not sure if it could beat the original Dread build due to Lucky, but if it could get enough charms off it might be workable. So the question is, what's the least number of turns a wizard needs to reduce a fighter to 0hp (assuming Con 10 and average hp), and what would they use to do it?
I think charmed probably isn't a great idea to be honest since the charm effect (Eladrin, right?) ends as soon as you deal damage to the creature. So I guess you could stab them a bunch of times and then bonus action teleport and try to charm but even so it seems very high risk for damage prevention. Plus the wizard can just True Polymorph into a charm immune creature cause you can still do that when charmed RAW (the text says only no damage/harmful effects targeting the charmer). I'm thinking the Drow Matron Mother? Plus that way you can get a Yochlol/Glabrezu ally for your bonus action. Or various things tbh but the Drow option is probably most appealing to me. Also elf wizards will get advantage on the saves as will the probably better gnome wizards. But it's a cool idea, especially because I love charm effects in RPGs.
I might also add with the build consideration that you're getting advantage on persuasion checks, but it's still going to be pretty hard at most tables to persuade someone you just stabbed nearly to death to waste their spells (and many DMs would rule it to be in that special zone where even a Nat 20 won't make it possible). The DC is probably going to be almost impossibly high at my table, anyway. I can't speak for anyone else. You're going to need quite the investment in Cha and at least one related skill and your DPR will suffer even if your DM does allow you to persuade an enemy to hurt themself in the middle of life or death combat.
Chilling kinda vibe.
The Eldritch Knight, if he wins initiative, can grab a bow and cast Fear on the Wizard, then shoot the Wizard in the back until the spell ends or the Wizard is dead.
By your rules, the battlefield is wide open. The Wizard will have to keep taking the Dash action and has dropped everything in his hands. So, he can't fight back.
That's assuming that the wizard fails the save.
Also the wizard could true Poly into something immune to fear as well