I had it in my head that charming makes them friendly. It's not RAW though (only Charm Person). I agree normally it'd be hard, if not impossible, to persuade someone that is hostile to do things, as per the DMG, but I'd argue that it's implied that charming works by making them no longer hostile by magically changing their mind. That would makes sense, they think you're friendly, so don't try to hurt you anymore, but attacking them shows that you aren't, and so the charm breaks.
As an aside, anything that forces the wizard to polymorph to remove an effect is actually a sound tactic for an EK. True Polymorph can be dispelled, and DMM (and most likely any other form that removes effects) has no Counterspell. Wizard has just lost their 9th level spell. I also believe that polymorph into an immune form wouldn't remove the effect from the caster's original form, immune means no effect, not remove effect.
First paragraph, I get where you're coming from but I think of the eladrin effect as more like a fascination effect (Pathfinder term), as opposed to friendliness. Because otherwise as a DM I'd have a problem with the social aspects of the game around that character and I have issues with equating it to the equivalent of 2 whole levelled spells. But yeah, table dependent.
Second, yup definitely that's why go Silvery Barbs or Portent or racial features etc to significantly improve the chances of successful saves. All suitable options I would say. But I disagree with the point on effect removal. I could only find this snippet from the MM (it's a niche issue so I don't blame WotC for mostly ignoring it) saying 'some creatures are immune to certain conditions'. I would say this doesn't feel like a statement that refers to the point where the condition is imposed but rather a permanent state of charm immunity from the point of becoming that creature. But it's not specific enough either way for one of us to prove the other wrong I don't think. No effect means no impact from the effect, not remove effect the way I see it in this scenario.
I think we are agreeing re effect removal as I did say 'immune means no effect, not remove effect' e.g. you charm the caster, the caster polymorphs to an immune form. Charm no longer effects them, but the effect is still active. You dispel polymorph, caster reverts back to original form. Caster is back to being charmed as not immune and charm was never removed. Or did you mean something else?
While I feel like saying “I told you so” but I’ll lay off and let everyone read through to draw their own conclusions but either way for the Disarming a shield discussion I now even more so believe that yes you can knock the item from their hand.
Sage advice
Answer: While yes they do use sage advice as a backing… but they use that backing to support their reasoning so while yes they use sage advice (which many would appreciate) they also use quotes and reasoning to bring them to their conclusion.
So to just say “sage advice” in an attempt to essentially disregard the entirety of their argument is very disingenuous as you are saying that the rest of their evidence doesn’t matter/exist.
What I wanted to draw attention to was not their use of sage advice but their use of other evidence, quotes, and logical reasoning to come to their conclusion in what I find a very reasonable manner.
So what I’m saying is if you want to disregard their opinion (by extension mine as well) you need to prove why they are wrong not just use two words in a futile attempt to dismiss their conclusion.
Well if we are going off how things are meant to function sage advice is official rulings, and one of them is that disarming doesn’t work on shields because they are fully strapped to the arm too securely to be removed that easily. This is not me, it’s Wizards of the Coast. I know that it’s strange for shields to count as armor for some purposes and not for others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
I think we are agreeing re effect removal as I did say 'immune means no effect, not remove effect' e.g. you charm the caster, the caster polymorphs to an immune form. Charm no longer effects them, but the effect is still active. You dispel polymorph, caster reverts back to original form. Caster is back to being charmed as not immune and charm was never removed. Or did you mean something else?
I honestly don't think it makes any difference if we have different opinions on the suppression or removal of charm anyway. Cause to get rid of a True Polymorph without dealing damage and ending the effect anyway, you're having to roll very high on that Counterspell which seems unlikely even with high Int. And then the charm effect ends regardless at the end of the turn. But obviously, the aim is to avoid failing the charm save in the first place.
While I feel like saying “I told you so” but I’ll lay off and let everyone read through to draw their own conclusions but either way for the Disarming a shield discussion I now even more so believe that yes you can knock the item from their hand.
Sage advice
Answer: While yes they do use sage advice as a backing… but they use that backing to support their reasoning so while yes they use sage advice (which many would appreciate) they also use quotes and reasoning to bring them to their conclusion.
So to just say “sage advice” in an attempt to essentially disregard the entirety of their argument is very disingenuous as you are saying that the rest of their evidence doesn’t matter/exist.
What I wanted to draw attention to was not their use of sage advice but their use of other evidence, quotes, and logical reasoning to come to their conclusion in what I find a very reasonable manner.
So what I’m saying is if you want to disregard their opinion (by extension mine as well) you need to prove why they are wrong not just use two words in a futile attempt to dismiss their conclusion.
Well if we are going off how things are meant to function sage advice is official rulings, and one of them is that disarming doesn’t work on shields because they are fully strapped to the arm too securely to be removed that easily. This is not me, it’s Wizards of the Coast. I know that it’s strange for shields to count as armor for some purposes and not for others.
Answer: Sage advice like I said unless it is from the Sage Advice Compendium is essentially useless beyond just having a better opinio than the average joe. Anyways have have this “sage advice” saying shields were intentionally not put as Armor and were separated from being categorized as Armor:
“The Player's Handbook lists which armor is light, medium, and heavy. Shields are intentionally not on any of those lists.”
As in armor and shields are separated/in their own category even if the shield may seem to act like Armor it still isn’t Armor. This can be seen especially well within the PHB see pg 14: Armor Class:
“Your Armor Class (AC) represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle. Things that contribute to your AC include the armor you wear, the shield you carry, and your Dexterity modifier. Not all characters wear armor or carry shields… There are drawbacks to wearing armor or carrying a shield if you lack the required proficiency, as explained in chapter 5.”
And again from the PHB see pg 144 Armor and Shields:
”The Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield… Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2.”
It then goes on and shows the three categories being Light Armor, Medium Armor, and Heavy Armor with no mention of Shields except in the “Armor List.” And this is what I’m talking about in that while shields are put GENERALLY into the “Armor” category but it is not actually armor.
Then once again PHB pg 146 Getting into and out of Armor:
“The time it takes to don or doff a type of armor or a shield is shown in the Donning and Doffing Armor table.
Don.This is the time it takes to put on the item. You benefit from its AC only if you take the full time to don it.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off the item. If you have help removing armor, reduce this time by half.”
Once more another separation of Armor and shields I could go into more but I think I’ve said enough especially with all the quotes. But what I’m trying to say is that although sheilds and Armor are shoved into the same area they aren’t the same and shouldn’t be seen as the same thing.
While I feel like saying “I told you so” but I’ll lay off and let everyone read through to draw their own conclusions but either way for the Disarming a shield discussion I now even more so believe that yes you can knock the item from their hand.
Sage advice
Answer: While yes they do use sage advice as a backing… but they use that backing to support their reasoning so while yes they use sage advice (which many would appreciate) they also use quotes and reasoning to bring them to their conclusion.
So to just say “sage advice” in an attempt to essentially disregard the entirety of their argument is very disingenuous as you are saying that the rest of their evidence doesn’t matter/exist.
What I wanted to draw attention to was not their use of sage advice but their use of other evidence, quotes, and logical reasoning to come to their conclusion in what I find a very reasonable manner.
So what I’m saying is if you want to disregard their opinion (by extension mine as well) you need to prove why they are wrong not just use two words in a futile attempt to dismiss their conclusion.
Well if we are going off how things are meant to function sage advice is official rulings, and one of them is that disarming doesn’t work on shields because they are fully strapped to the arm too securely to be removed that easily. This is not me, it’s Wizards of the Coast. I know that it’s strange for shields to count as armor for some purposes and not for others.
Answer: Sage advice like I said unless it is from the Sage Advice Compendium is essentially useless beyond just having a better opinio than the average joe. Anyways have have this “sage advice” saying shields were intentionally not put as Armor and were separated from being categorized as Armor:
“The Player's Handbook lists which armor is light, medium, and heavy. Shields are intentionally not on any of those lists.”
As in armor and shields are separated/in their own category even if the shield may seem to act like Armor it still isn’t Armor. This can be seen especially well within the PHB see pg 14: Armor Class:
“Your Armor Class (AC) represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle. Things that contribute to your AC include the armor you wear, the shield you carry, and your Dexterity modifier. Not all characters wear armor or carry shields… There are drawbacks to wearing armor or carrying a shield if you lack the required proficiency, as explained in chapter 5.”
And again from the PHB see pg 144 Armor and Shields:
”The Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield… Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2.”
It then goes on and shows the three categories being Light Armor, Medium Armor, and Heavy Armor with no mention of Shields except in the “Armor List.” And this is what I’m talking about in that while shields are put GENERALLY into the “Armor” category but it is not actually armor.
Then once again PHB pg 146 Getting into and out of Armor:
“The time it takes to don or doff a type of armor or a shield is shown in the Donning and Doffing Armor table.
Don.This is the time it takes to put on the item. You benefit from its AC only if you take the full time to don it.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off the item. If you have help removing armor, reduce this time by half.”
Once more another separation of Armor and shields I could go into more but I think I’ve said enough especially with all the quotes. But what I’m trying to say is that although sheilds and Armor are shoved into the same area they aren’t the same and should be seen as the same thing.
Okay then, whenever I want to remove a shield, I will do a disarming attack on myself with an unarmed strike because that is faster than doffing the shield. If it were that easy to knock a shield out of someone’s hand when they are trying to keep it, it wouldn’t take an action to remove when you want it off.
You actually also said they should be seen as the same thing, better check your message for typos next time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Okay then, whenever I want to remove a shield, I will do a disarming attack on myself with an unarmed strike because that is faster than doffing the shield. If it were that easy to knock a shield out of someone’s hand when they are trying to keep it, it wouldn’t take an action to remove when you want it off.
Answer: It takes an action to doff with no chance of failure… Disarming has a chance of failure since you can’t willingly fail the check and even if you make the attack at advantage you still could miss your arm…
You actually also said they should be seen as the same thing, better check your message for typos next time.
Answer: Yeah I don’t reread my posts. I probably should but I don’t although I think I fixed the typo you mentioned…
I think we are agreeing re effect removal as I did say 'immune means no effect, not remove effect' e.g. you charm the caster, the caster polymorphs to an immune form. Charm no longer effects them, but the effect is still active. You dispel polymorph, caster reverts back to original form. Caster is back to being charmed as not immune and charm was never removed. Or did you mean something else?
I honestly don't think it makes any difference if we have different opinions on the suppression or removal of charm anyway. Cause to get rid of a True Polymorph without dealing damage and ending the effect anyway, you're having to roll very high on that Counterspell which seems unlikely even with high Int. And then the charm effect ends regardless at the end of the turn. But obviously, the aim is to avoid failing the charm save in the first place.
Eldarin charm lasts a minute, which is why I was pursuing the idea of using it. I was looking at beating the Tank Wizard builds, which only have Spell DC of 16/17. If you can get your success to 6/20 or better (success on 15 or more), Lucky or any other ability re-roll gives you a better than average chance of passing (14/20 with a re-roll gives 196/200 or 49% chance of failure). You'd need INT 18+ to do that against DC19.
Answer: Sage advice like I said unless it is from the Sage Advice Compendium is essentially useless beyond just having a better opinio than the average joe. Anyways have have this “sage advice” saying shields were intentionally not put as Armor and were separated from being categorized as Armor:
[cut]
Once more another separation of Armor and shields I could go into more but I think I’ve said enough especially with all the quotes. But what I’m trying to say is that although sheilds and Armor are shoved into the same area they aren’t the same and shouldn’t be seen as the same thing.
Can the Disarming Attack maneuver disarm a creature of a shield it has donned? No. Disarming Attack forces a creature to drop an object it is holding. Donned shields aren’t merely held.
Note that nowhere in the clarification does it say that this doesn't work because it's armor.
It doesn't matter if it's armor or not. What matters is that it is "donned". It's not that it's armor, it's that it uses the same equipping rules as armor and that's what matters.
Disarming disarms an item you are "holding", the argument is that you can't disarm anything that is explicitly donned rather than held, no matter if it's a donned plate-mail, donned shield, or donned some HB item. That's the stance Sage Advice Compendium takes on the subject.
I think we are agreeing re effect removal as I did say 'immune means no effect, not remove effect' e.g. you charm the caster, the caster polymorphs to an immune form. Charm no longer effects them, but the effect is still active. You dispel polymorph, caster reverts back to original form. Caster is back to being charmed as not immune and charm was never removed. Or did you mean something else?
I honestly don't think it makes any difference if we have different opinions on the suppression or removal of charm anyway. Cause to get rid of a True Polymorph without dealing damage and ending the effect anyway, you're having to roll very high on that Counterspell which seems unlikely even with high Int. And then the charm effect ends regardless at the end of the turn. But obviously, the aim is to avoid failing the charm save in the first place.
Eldarin charm lasts a minute, which is why I was pursuing the idea of using it. I was looking at beating the Tank Wizard builds, which only have Spell DC of 16/17. If you can get your success to 6/20 or better (success on 15 or more), Lucky or any other ability re-roll gives you a better than average chance of passing (14/20 with a re-roll gives 196/200 or 49% chance of failure). You'd need INT 18+ to do that against DC19.
It lasts one minute, sure. But it also ends if you do any damage to the target. So I'm guessing it won't actually last one minute. And I'm not sure about the tank build race but if gnome or elf, you get advantage on the save (Fey Ancestry and Gnome Cunning).
If the gnome or elf (which I personally prefer to variant human or custom lineage) then you'd get 65.7% which is a pretty decent chance of success. 34.3% chance of failure.
Why does everyone have the assumpion that the Wizard will be able to maje their concentration checks?
Answer: The average damage dealt by SSS is 23.25 so half that rounded down is 11... most of these wizards have a high con stat at anywhere from 18-20, resilience (Con) and/or War Caster that means if the wizard rolled a literally one they would still pass the concentration checks. not to mention if the wizard has a concentration spell up that usually means they are transformed into some other creature... which no doubt is some like CR 20 creature with over 20 Con.
So that is why we don't talk about concentration checks.
EDIT: Removed the Mistake "and like a 7-9+ proficiency bonus" as all CR 20 creatures seem to have a proficiency bonus of 6 while CR 21+ have a 7 or more Proficiency bonus although the point still stands in that since Shapechange and Clone allow the wizard to become an adult gold shadow dragon permanently then as they age their proficiency would go up to that of an ancient gold shadow dragon. But then again you could do some of the Magic Jar strategies of which still work. Even though certain others think it doesn't but by saying it doesn't work they are saying that the wizard now has infinite range range of self spells. I could go into more depth but people have said to just agree to disagree but whatever.
Why does everyone have the assumpion that the Wizard will be able to maje their concentration checks?
Answer: The average damage dealt by SSS is 23.25 so half that rounded down is 11... most of these wizards have a high con stat at anywhere from 18-20, resilience (Con) and/or War Caster that means if the wizard rolled a literally one they would still pass the concentration checks. not to mention if the wizard has a concentration spell up that usually means they are transformed into some other creature... which no doubt is some like CR 20 creature with over 20 Con and like a 7-9+ proficiency bonus.
So that is why we don't talk about concentration checks.
All of that holds true save one nitpick: cr20 creatures have a +6 proficiency bonus. Same as the wizard did before. Still not going to be bothered by dc11 concentration saves. Also, concentration might come into play with eldritch knights if they use a big slot for a damage spell. Unlikely and maybe not optimal, but it could happen, I guess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Of course, above average damage is dealt half the time* (I know, radical concept). I don't have a probability bell curve for damage** but the chance of failing a concentration save is definitely above zero. I know we're using averages here but I would say this is one time when it's worth mentioning. Still, the chance of success will remain very high.
*Sort of. A not insignificant amount of the time the damage will be bang on average. So really just below half the time.
**I'm actually interested though so I'll probably make one sometime today. I'll post when it's done with the overall chance of concentration success on any single attack as well as over a whole turn.
Another option for the fighter is to take expertise in stealth.
Shapechange has a duration of 1 hour. The Fighter waits an hour for the Shapechange to expire before attacking.
If we're going with a white room scenario then the fighter needs to be invisible the entire time because you can't just stand very still and pretend to be a tree, you need somewhere to hide.
Ditch Gunner and take Crossbow Expert. Use a heavy crossbow cause some people take issue with that musket (personally I reckon it should be fine but still). Instead of Disarming Strike use Precision Attack to bypass the problems with shields until the argument can be resolved. Anyway, if the wizard carries two shields they benefit from only one at a time but don't lose AC when you disarm one. Ditch Mounted Combatant and Fey Touched, just use your bonus action to get advantage on attacks (this one hurts me deep inside, but we need that advantage). You now have a couple of extra feat slots. Take Lucky (it's useful and helps make up for the loss of disarmament) and take Savage Attacker for a slight damage boost to two of those attacks. One per turn.
Now your attacks deal 20.5 damage, and crits deal 31.5. You hit 6.474 normal hits and 2.382 crits on average (16 normal attacks and 2 without advantage from Rapid Strikes). Since everything else has been averages I'm not bothering to round these. I'm guessing that you'll hit another few (we'll say 2.6) attacks thanks to Lucky and Precision Attacks. You could hit up to five extra shop I'm just gonna head straight to the middle man. This gets us 261.05 (edited from 248.75, I just typed the wrong number, no new maths) damage. I'll go ahead and assume you reroll four ones from Savage Attacker and Piercer and get average (5.5) results. This would boost damage by a further 16 damage getting over the threshold for success at 277.05 damage. This all works RAW I hope and fixes the issues with the SSS.
I made assumptions about the number of hits you could turn to misses in this build at 2.6. I have no clue how likely it is until. 3 d20s rolled needing 17 or above to hit. That's a 1/5 chance multiplied by 3 so we'll take 0.6 extra hits from that. I'm assuming that both Precision Attacks uses can be timed to work by picking the right dice tools to maximise chances of success.
Savage Attacker and Piercer getting 16 extra comes from an expectation to roll just under 20 d10s from all expected hits and criticals. I expect 2 1s and 2 2s overall and then I did the difference from subtracting from the average dice roll. Gets around 16 damage.
Tell me if I made mistakes and I'm assuming that someone will have a bone to pick with me about the Savage Attacker, Lucky and Precision Attack numbers I've used.
Edited a couple of additions that I did wrong. From earlier edits before posting that I didn't fully update.
Nobody has an issue with the musket, it's doing damage to self that reduces hp to 0 from full, specifically worded that way to trigger an ability that is the problem. If you can quote the rule that permits this, then the build is fine. If you can't, then it's not. Haven't seen anyone quote anything other than DM fiat, and if you are going down that route, then everyone can make up something that works.
Nobody has an issue with the musket, it's doing damage to self that reduces hp to 0 from full, specifically worded that way to trigger an ability that is the problem. If you can quote the rule that permits this, then the build is fine. If you can't, then it's not. Haven't seen anyone quote anything other than DM fiat, and if you are going down that route, then everyone can make up something that works.
Oh, and savage attacker is melee, not ranged.
That's funny given how you reacted to the point that Wish has the casting time of a copied spell.
Another option for the fighter is to take expertise in stealth.
Shapechange has a duration of 1 hour. The Fighter waits an hour for the Shapechange to expire before attacking.
If we're going with a white room scenario then the fighter needs to be invisible the entire time because you can't just stand very still and pretend to be a tree, you need somewhere to hide.
Yet another in the long list of ways this scenario is intentionally slanted to favor the wizard.
Nobody has an issue with the musket, it's doing damage to self that reduces hp to 0 from full, specifically worded that way to trigger an ability that is the problem. If you can quote the rule that permits this, then the build is fine. If you can't, then it's not. Haven't seen anyone quote anything other than DM fiat, and if you are going down that route, then everyone can make up something that works.
Oh, and savage attacker is melee, not ranged.
Ahhh thank you. Not quite enough damage then (I started this out trying for a melee build but couldn't do it without elven accuracy and non finesse weapons - which don't go well and forgot to swap out the savage attacker). And yes, I agree the self suicide thing is iffy at best.
Use a musket though, that should get you the damage difference and make it work. I'll run the numbers quickly.
Edited: Ran the numbers, no savage attacker but musket gets you 272.506 damage. Which does the trick.
I think we are agreeing re effect removal as I did say 'immune means no effect, not remove effect' e.g. you charm the caster, the caster polymorphs to an immune form. Charm no longer effects them, but the effect is still active. You dispel polymorph, caster reverts back to original form. Caster is back to being charmed as not immune and charm was never removed. Or did you mean something else?
Well if we are going off how things are meant to function sage advice is official rulings, and one of them is that disarming doesn’t work on shields because they are fully strapped to the arm too securely to be removed that easily. This is not me, it’s Wizards of the Coast. I know that it’s strange for shields to count as armor for some purposes and not for others.
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
I honestly don't think it makes any difference if we have different opinions on the suppression or removal of charm anyway. Cause to get rid of a True Polymorph without dealing damage and ending the effect anyway, you're having to roll very high on that Counterspell which seems unlikely even with high Int. And then the charm effect ends regardless at the end of the turn. But obviously, the aim is to avoid failing the charm save in the first place.
Chilling kinda vibe.
Answer: Sage advice like I said unless it is from the Sage Advice Compendium is essentially useless beyond just having a better opinio than the average joe. Anyways have have this “sage advice” saying shields were intentionally not put as Armor and were separated from being categorized as Armor:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/do-shields-fall-within-light-or-medium-armor/
Just in case I’ll quote JC:
“The Player's Handbook lists which armor is light, medium, and heavy. Shields are intentionally not on any of those lists.”
As in armor and shields are separated/in their own category even if the shield may seem to act like Armor it still isn’t Armor. This can be seen especially well within the PHB see pg 14: Armor Class:
“Your Armor Class (AC) represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle. Things that contribute to your AC include the armor you wear, the shield you carry, and your Dexterity modifier. Not all characters wear armor or carry shields… There are drawbacks to wearing armor or carrying a shield if you lack the required proficiency, as explained in chapter 5.”
And again from the PHB see pg 144 Armor and Shields:
”The Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield… Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2.”
It then goes on and shows the three categories being Light Armor, Medium Armor, and Heavy Armor with no mention of Shields except in the “Armor List.” And this is what I’m talking about in that while shields are put GENERALLY into the “Armor” category but it is not actually armor.
Then once again PHB pg 146 Getting into and out of Armor:
“The time it takes to don or doff a type of armor or a shield is shown in the Donning and Doffing Armor table.
Don. This is the time it takes to put on the item. You benefit from its AC only if you take the full time to don it.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off the item. If you have help removing armor, reduce this time by half.”
Once more another separation of Armor and shields I could go into more but I think I’ve said enough especially with all the quotes. But what I’m trying to say is that although sheilds and Armor are shoved into the same area they aren’t the same and shouldn’t be seen as the same thing.
EDIT: Grammer
Okay then, whenever I want to remove a shield, I will do a disarming attack on myself with an unarmed strike because that is faster than doffing the shield. If it were that easy to knock a shield out of someone’s hand when they are trying to keep it, it wouldn’t take an action to remove when you want it off.
You actually also said they should be seen as the same thing, better check your message for typos next time.
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: It takes an action to doff with no chance of failure… Disarming has a chance of failure since you can’t willingly fail the check and even if you make the attack at advantage you still could miss your arm…
Answer: Yeah I don’t reread my posts. I probably should but I don’t although I think I fixed the typo you mentioned…
Eldarin charm lasts a minute, which is why I was pursuing the idea of using it. I was looking at beating the Tank Wizard builds, which only have Spell DC of 16/17. If you can get your success to 6/20 or better (success on 15 or more), Lucky or any other ability re-roll gives you a better than average chance of passing (14/20 with a re-roll gives 196/200 or 49% chance of failure). You'd need INT 18+ to do that against DC19.
it is from the Sage Advice Compendium
Sage Advice Compendium - Sage Advice Compendium - Sources - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Note that nowhere in the clarification does it say that this doesn't work because it's armor.
It doesn't matter if it's armor or not. What matters is that it is "donned". It's not that it's armor, it's that it uses the same equipping rules as armor and that's what matters.
Disarming disarms an item you are "holding", the argument is that you can't disarm anything that is explicitly donned rather than held, no matter if it's a donned plate-mail, donned shield, or donned some HB item. That's the stance Sage Advice Compendium takes on the subject.
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.
It lasts one minute, sure. But it also ends if you do any damage to the target. So I'm guessing it won't actually last one minute. And I'm not sure about the tank build race but if gnome or elf, you get advantage on the save (Fey Ancestry and Gnome Cunning).
If the gnome or elf (which I personally prefer to variant human or custom lineage) then you'd get 65.7% which is a pretty decent chance of success. 34.3% chance of failure.
Chilling kinda vibe.
Why does everyone have the assumpion that the Wizard will be able to maje their concentration checks?
Answer: The average damage dealt by SSS is 23.25 so half that rounded down is 11... most of these wizards have a high con stat at anywhere from 18-20, resilience (Con) and/or War Caster that means if the wizard rolled a literally one they would still pass the concentration checks. not to mention if the wizard has a concentration spell up that usually means they are transformed into some other creature... which no doubt is some like CR 20 creature with over 20 Con.
So that is why we don't talk about concentration checks.
EDIT: Removed the Mistake "and like a 7-9+ proficiency bonus" as all CR 20 creatures seem to have a proficiency bonus of 6 while CR 21+ have a 7 or more Proficiency bonus although the point still stands in that since Shapechange and Clone allow the wizard to become an adult gold shadow dragon permanently then as they age their proficiency would go up to that of an ancient gold shadow dragon. But then again you could do some of the Magic Jar strategies of which still work. Even though certain others think it doesn't but by saying it doesn't work they are saying that the wizard now has infinite range range of self spells. I could go into more depth but people have said to just agree to disagree but whatever.
All of that holds true save one nitpick: cr20 creatures have a +6 proficiency bonus. Same as the wizard did before. Still not going to be bothered by dc11 concentration saves. Also, concentration might come into play with eldritch knights if they use a big slot for a damage spell. Unlikely and maybe not optimal, but it could happen, 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
Of course, above average damage is dealt half the time* (I know, radical concept). I don't have a probability bell curve for damage** but the chance of failing a concentration save is definitely above zero. I know we're using averages here but I would say this is one time when it's worth mentioning. Still, the chance of success will remain very high.
*Sort of. A not insignificant amount of the time the damage will be bang on average. So really just below half the time.
**I'm actually interested though so I'll probably make one sometime today. I'll post when it's done with the overall chance of concentration success on any single attack as well as over a whole turn.
Chilling kinda vibe.
Another option for the fighter is to take expertise in stealth.
Shapechange has a duration of 1 hour. The Fighter waits an hour for the Shapechange to expire before attacking.
If we're going with a white room scenario then the fighter needs to be invisible the entire time because you can't just stand very still and pretend to be a tree, you need somewhere to hide.
Chilling kinda vibe.
Ditch Gunner and take Crossbow Expert. Use a heavy crossbow cause some people take issue with that musket (personally I reckon it should be fine but still). Instead of Disarming Strike use Precision Attack to bypass the problems with shields until the argument can be resolved. Anyway, if the wizard carries two shields they benefit from only one at a time but don't lose AC when you disarm one. Ditch Mounted Combatant and Fey Touched, just use your bonus action to get advantage on attacks (this one hurts me deep inside, but we need that advantage). You now have a couple of extra feat slots. Take Lucky (it's useful and helps make up for the loss of disarmament) and take Savage Attacker for a slight damage boost to two of those attacks. One per turn.
Now your attacks deal 20.5 damage, and crits deal 31.5. You hit 6.474 normal hits and 2.382 crits on average (16 normal attacks and 2 without advantage from Rapid Strikes). Since everything else has been averages I'm not bothering to round these. I'm guessing that you'll hit another few (we'll say 2.6) attacks thanks to Lucky and Precision Attacks. You could hit up to five extra shop I'm just gonna head straight to the middle man. This gets us 261.05 (edited from 248.75, I just typed the wrong number, no new maths) damage. I'll go ahead and assume you reroll four ones from Savage Attacker and Piercer and get average (5.5) results. This would boost damage by a further 16 damage getting over the threshold for success at 277.05 damage. This all works RAW I hope and fixes the issues with the SSS.
I made assumptions about the number of hits you could turn to misses in this build at 2.6. I have no clue how likely it is until. 3 d20s rolled needing 17 or above to hit. That's a 1/5 chance multiplied by 3 so we'll take 0.6 extra hits from that. I'm assuming that both Precision Attacks uses can be timed to work by picking the right dice tools to maximise chances of success.
Savage Attacker and Piercer getting 16 extra comes from an expectation to roll just under 20 d10s from all expected hits and criticals. I expect 2 1s and 2 2s overall and then I did the difference from subtracting from the average dice roll. Gets around 16 damage.
Tell me if I made mistakes and I'm assuming that someone will have a bone to pick with me about the Savage Attacker, Lucky and Precision Attack numbers I've used.
Edited a couple of additions that I did wrong. From earlier edits before posting that I didn't fully update.
Chilling kinda vibe.
Nobody has an issue with the musket, it's doing damage to self that reduces hp to 0 from full, specifically worded that way to trigger an ability that is the problem. If you can quote the rule that permits this, then the build is fine. If you can't, then it's not. Haven't seen anyone quote anything other than DM fiat, and if you are going down that route, then everyone can make up something that works.
Oh, and savage attacker is melee, not ranged.
That's funny given how you reacted to the point that Wish has the casting time of a copied spell.
Yet another in the long list of ways this scenario is intentionally slanted to favor the wizard.
Ahhh thank you. Not quite enough damage then (I started this out trying for a melee build but couldn't do it without elven accuracy and non finesse weapons - which don't go well and forgot to swap out the savage attacker). And yes, I agree the self suicide thing is iffy at best.
Use a musket though, that should get you the damage difference and make it work. I'll run the numbers quickly.
Edited: Ran the numbers, no savage attacker but musket gets you 272.506 damage. Which does the trick.
Chilling kinda vibe.