There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
What exactly constitutes a "casual" campaign? If it's a game that doesn't focus on combat then it doesn't matter.
If the game is going to have the normal amount of combat but the other players are building characters who are incompetent at adventuring, why should I deliberately hobble my character? Having a character with high AC and high melee damage output does not make the character invincible. The fact that a character is really good at defending themselves does not mean that they shouldn't know which end of the sword to use. It does not mean that they can do everything and will always outshine everyone else. In fact, it probably means that they'll lag considerably in other ways.
1. A 'casual campaign' would be almost all campaigns that aren't recorded and people are able to cancel. A 'non-casual' campaign would be like Critical Role, where they're recorded and need to be there most of the time (admittedly, CR does have some exemptions to this rule because they are actors). Basically, if you are just having fun with your friends and aren't performing for an audience, it's casual.
2. Yes, it does make you invincible. I know from experience, and you can get up even higher than I did.
3. If the other people you consider incompetent a) The DM will probably make the encounters weaker and b) If you don't like it, just leave.
1: Literally never heard anyone describe that as casual gaming or a casual campaign. Usually that's just called gaming.
2: ROTFLOL. I've been the player with jacked AC and I've been the GM with a player with jacked AC. It does not come anywhere close to making you invincible. For one thing, a nat 20 still hits anyway. For another, there are four words that every character who wears heavy armor fears: "make a dex save." Or any other kind of save. Even monks with proficiency in all saves still have saving throws that they're not so good against. There simply is not a way to make a character that has no weaknesses, no matter how hard you try.
Yes, that is the POINT. You shouldn't create a jacked character, it sucks the fun out of the game. There are definitely ways to make near-invincible characters. If you can succeed INT/WIS/CHA saves regularly, then you can't be hit with most saves that don't deal damage. And are you forgetting disadvantage exists? Because it does. And realize that if you have any way to impose disadvantage, a) the dm must get a 1/400 chance to hit and b) hit you, not attack someone else.
Prove it. What's this invincible ultimate character build that has unhittable AC with the ability to impose disadvantage on enemy attacks, saving throws that are high enough they can't be beaten that way, and has high damage output?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As a rule, you shouldn't be doing more than 3 times your level per turn in damage as an AC Tank. Choose to be an AC Tank, cool. Choose to Minmax so that you don't die and you deal a meagre 150 damage per turn if they succeed on all 5 saving throws, not cool. I played an Aasimar Battle Smith Artificer that can get up to 33 with SoF and Shield, but I wasn't doing more than 20 DPR at level 11, I just didn't die or do great damage to Tiamat or any other boss and instead acted as a shield so that others did the damage.
TL;DR: It's fine if you don't min-max to also deal damage greatly.
Who’s rule is that? I have never hear of it in over 30 years of gaming. One of my characters has been holding the single round damage record for a couple years after doing 92 damage in a single round on a giant while playing Storm King. He was a 9th level paladin oath of the open sea / warlock fathomless pact. I did however retire him not long after as his damage output was so much greater than the rest of the party and with plate and shield the defensive style and shield of faith he had an ac of 23, 28 with the shield spell and uses the sea mist ability to give everyone disadvantage to hit him. Damn I miss that character. If you are a tank then you must have a high damage output to be a threat on the battlefield. If you can’t deal damage but your ac os so high they can’t hit you then the enemy will simply ignore you and go after weaker targets letting their casters bring you down with heat metal or something
Of course, the counter to paladins with high nova damage is large groups of squishy foes that are just tough enough that they can't be reliably killed in one round. Paladins can deal a lot of damage with Divine Smite, but their spell slots are extremely limited so you can't just go smiting huge groups with impunity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
One pack on Kobolds with a net to bring down the tank and a nice jelly to melt that armor away or a devious caster with heat metal to force its removal.
Or just run them though a few adventures that require a lot of quiet sneaking.
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
What exactly constitutes a "casual" campaign? If it's a game that doesn't focus on combat then it doesn't matter.
If the game is going to have the normal amount of combat but the other players are building characters who are incompetent at adventuring, why should I deliberately hobble my character? Having a character with high AC and high melee damage output does not make the character invincible. The fact that a character is really good at defending themselves does not mean that they shouldn't know which end of the sword to use. It does not mean that they can do everything and will always outshine everyone else. In fact, it probably means that they'll lag considerably in other ways.
1. A 'casual campaign' would be almost all campaigns that aren't recorded and people are able to cancel. A 'non-casual' campaign would be like Critical Role, where they're recorded and need to be there most of the time (admittedly, CR does have some exemptions to this rule because they are actors). Basically, if you are just having fun with your friends and aren't performing for an audience, it's casual.
2. Yes, it does make you invincible. I know from experience, and you can get up even higher than I did.
3. If the other people you consider incompetent a) The DM will probably make the encounters weaker and b) If you don't like it, just leave.
1: Literally never heard anyone describe that as casual gaming or a casual campaign. Usually that's just called gaming.
2: ROTFLOL. I've been the player with jacked AC and I've been the GM with a player with jacked AC. It does not come anywhere close to making you invincible. For one thing, a nat 20 still hits anyway. For another, there are four words that every character who wears heavy armor fears: "make a dex save." Or any other kind of save. Even monks with proficiency in all saves still have saving throws that they're not so good against. There simply is not a way to make a character that has no weaknesses, no matter how hard you try.
Yes, that is the POINT. You shouldn't create a jacked character, it sucks the fun out of the game. There are definitely ways to make near-invincible characters. If you can succeed INT/WIS/CHA saves regularly, then you can't be hit with most saves that don't deal damage. And are you forgetting disadvantage exists? Because it does. And realize that if you have any way to impose disadvantage, a) the dm must get a 1/400 chance to hit and b) hit you, not attack someone else.
Prove it. What's this invincible ultimate character build that has unhittable AC with the ability to impose disadvantage on enemy attacks, saving throws that are high enough they can't be beaten that way, and has high damage output?
All right, near-invincible:
Protector Aasimar
Monk (Ascendant Dragon) 14- Proficiency in all Saving Throws
Artificer (Battle Smith) 3- Steel Defender imposes disadvantage as a reaction
Ranger (Hunter) 3- Hunter's Mark+Colossus Slayer
Plate+3
Shield+3
Defender Longsword+3 (All to offence)
Ring of Evasion
Cloak of Protection
AC 28
Stats (Standard Array)
STR 15+2/DEX 12/CON 14+1/WIS 13/ INT 8/ CHA 10
ASI:
DEX+1,CON+1
Heavily Armored (STR+1)
CON+2
STR 18/DEX 13/CON 18/WIS 13/ INT 8/CHA 10
Assuming everything is active and everything hits:
3d8+2d6+8+20- An average of 46 damage, a low of 36, and a high of 62, not counting crits.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
What exactly constitutes a "casual" campaign? If it's a game that doesn't focus on combat then it doesn't matter.
If the game is going to have the normal amount of combat but the other players are building characters who are incompetent at adventuring, why should I deliberately hobble my character? Having a character with high AC and high melee damage output does not make the character invincible. The fact that a character is really good at defending themselves does not mean that they shouldn't know which end of the sword to use. It does not mean that they can do everything and will always outshine everyone else. In fact, it probably means that they'll lag considerably in other ways.
1. A 'casual campaign' would be almost all campaigns that aren't recorded and people are able to cancel. A 'non-casual' campaign would be like Critical Role, where they're recorded and need to be there most of the time (admittedly, CR does have some exemptions to this rule because they are actors). Basically, if you are just having fun with your friends and aren't performing for an audience, it's casual.
2. Yes, it does make you invincible. I know from experience, and you can get up even higher than I did.
3. If the other people you consider incompetent a) The DM will probably make the encounters weaker and b) If you don't like it, just leave.
1: Literally never heard anyone describe that as casual gaming or a casual campaign. Usually that's just called gaming.
2: ROTFLOL. I've been the player with jacked AC and I've been the GM with a player with jacked AC. It does not come anywhere close to making you invincible. For one thing, a nat 20 still hits anyway. For another, there are four words that every character who wears heavy armor fears: "make a dex save." Or any other kind of save. Even monks with proficiency in all saves still have saving throws that they're not so good against. There simply is not a way to make a character that has no weaknesses, no matter how hard you try.
Yes, that is the POINT. You shouldn't create a jacked character, it sucks the fun out of the game. There are definitely ways to make near-invincible characters. If you can succeed INT/WIS/CHA saves regularly, then you can't be hit with most saves that don't deal damage. And are you forgetting disadvantage exists? Because it does. And realize that if you have any way to impose disadvantage, a) the dm must get a 1/400 chance to hit and b) hit you, not attack someone else.
Prove it. What's this invincible ultimate character build that has unhittable AC with the ability to impose disadvantage on enemy attacks, saving throws that are high enough they can't be beaten that way, and has high damage output?
All right, near-invincible:
Protector Aasimar
Monk (Ascendant Dragon) 14- Proficiency in all Saving Throws
Artificer (Battle Smith) 3- Steel Defender imposes disadvantage as a reaction
Ranger (Hunter) 3- Hunter's Mark+Colossus Slayer
Plate+3
Shield+3
Defender Longsword+3 (All to offence)
Ring of Evasion
Cloak of Protection
AC 28
Stats (Standard Array)
STR 15+2/DEX 12/CON 14+1/WIS 13/ INT 8/ CHA 10
ASI:
DEX+1,CON+1
Heavily Armored (STR+1)
CON+2
STR 18/DEX 13/CON 18/WIS 13/ INT 8/CHA 10
Assuming everything is active and everything hits:
3d8+2d6+8+20- An average of 46 damage, a low of 36, and a high of 62, not counting crits.
Saves are +10/+7/+10/+7/+5/+6.
Okay, let's break this down.
First of all, the build is illegal because you can't multiclass to or from Artificer with 8 intelligence. But I'll ignore that in order to actually break this build down.
Let's start with the magic items. You're assuming that the GM gives you +3 plate, a +3 shield, a Defender +3, and a Cloak of Protection. That's doing the majority of the heavy lifting on your AC, not any class features or abilities, that's not really a valid claim there. Yo also appear to have forgotten that the Cloak gives +1 on saving throws.
Now, the Artificer levels. Seems like you went that way specifically to get the Steel Defender for its Reaction ability. First of all, you can only use that once per round and it only applies to one attack. That's pretty weak. Second of all, because your build only has three levels of Artificer and an 8 intelligence, you've got a Steel Defender with a 15 AC and 16 HP. At level 20, that's not even noticeable defense. Enemies are going to kill that outright in one hit most of the time. Or nail you with an area-effect ability like a breath weapon that will damage both of you at the same time. Simply put, the Steel Defender does not actually factor into your build, you basically wasted three levels for no benefit here.
Ranger levels. It appears that all you did this for was Hunter's Mark and Colossus Slayer. That's another three levels just to get an extra (maximum, assuming you hit with all attacks) 2d6+1d8 damage per round. That's not really a huge benefit given that you can only cast HM three times per day and it requires concentration- even with +11 to Con saves the amount of damage that many things that hit you at that level means that it's not going to be easy to maintain concentration: an Ancient White Dragon's breath weapon deals an average of 72 damage with a DC 19 saving throw so you're going to make the save more often than not but how often are you going to succeed a DC 36 concentration check? And honestly, a white dragon is a perfect counter for this character- you've got very little in the way of ranged capability, it never has to get within melee range and your ranged options are unimpressive unless you want to drop your shield and take that -5 to AC.
Now monk levels: you took 14 levels of monk just to get proficiency in all saves. You do get to use a few other features like Evasion and Stillness of Mind, but you're prevented from using about half of the class's abilities due to wearing armor.
All in all, this character is in no way OP or invincible. Even if you give yourself resistance to cold to fight a white dragon, well, I can use something that deals Psychic damage, that's going to hammer you even harder because your intelligence save sucks. Your ranged options are unimpressive, you've got very limited spellcasting, you're looking at great skill options. And you're 20th level. It's easy to build a 20th level single-classed character who can beat this build. Most campaigns don't even get to half that. What's this character like at 10th or 5th level? I rather doubt that they're going to be anything close to OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don’t know why you felt the need to attack me over that but you do you.
That wasn't an attack, not sure why you'd think it was. I was just pointing out how the character isn't invincible, there are still things it can't do well because there seems to be an idea that being good at two things at once makes a character broken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
First off, nice hypothetical sheet. I mean it's horribly suboptimal as none of your monk features would even connect if you could use them with the abysmal 13 wisdom. And anything with illusion magic would just lock you down with your awful INT save. But the point of this build is AC, so I'll attack your strength rather than your weaknesses.
Your 4 person party comes across Arkhan the cruel who is ordering a platoon of Blue Abishai to commit some nefarious act in Tiamat's name. Your party engages the horde with waves upon waves of Blue Abishai assaulting you.
To make the combat fair your DM breaks them up into small encounters of 4-5 blue abishai apiece (a twice deadly encounter, but a nice warmup since you are fully rested and nova capable). Your DM is also using Mob rules from the DMG to simulate the difficulty of fighting all these enemies at once, despite splitting them into waves.
The first wave of 4 abishai target you. They launch their lightning strikes from 120ft away. With +12 to hit they would need to roll 16 or higher to hit you. Meaning 1 in every 4 hits hit you. They each multiattack 3 times. You are hit for 24d8 lightning damage in the opening salvo. If need be, they can dispel your buffs you place on yourself, or wall of force you off away from your teammates. You close the gap to have your steel defender aid you and they teleport away as a bonus action before launching another volley of 12 attacks against you with 3 of them connecting each round.
You are not immortal.
And this is just a scenario I threw together in 10 minutes of thought. A DM who has the experience with your character growth could pick apart this build like nothing.
I don’t know why you felt the need to attack me over that but you do you.
That wasn't an attack, not sure why you'd think it was. I was just pointing out how the character isn't invincible, there are still things it can't do well because there seems to be an idea that being good at two things at once makes a character broken.
I didn’t say it was invincible, I was replying to the statement that there was a well known rule that a character should not do more damage in a round than 3 times their proficiency bonus. That’s just nonsense. A first level character with a firebolt can do 5 times their proficiency bonus on a lucky roll.
I can’t figure out who said what on my phone due to the idiotic desire to copy paste absolutely everything in every single post. But that ‘invincible’ build fails at the first hurdle. Int 8 means you aren’t getting into or out of Artificer. Need a 13 minimum. Sorry if someone said that already.
I don’t know why you felt the need to attack me over that but you do you.
That wasn't an attack, not sure why you'd think it was. I was just pointing out how the character isn't invincible, there are still things it can't do well because there seems to be an idea that being good at two things at once makes a character broken.
I didn’t say it was invincible, I was replying to the statement that there was a well known rule that a character should not do more damage in a round than 3 times their proficiency bonus. That’s just nonsense. A first level character with a firebolt can do 5 times their proficiency bonus on a lucky roll.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I was trying to build off the points you made.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That’s cool. I just realised they said do no more than 3 times their level per round in damage. That’s simply idiotic. Even using standard array you can start with an 18 strength so a level 1 fighter with a dagger does a minimum of 5 damage on a hit. So what I am completely lost about is where this ‘rule’ comes from or who actually thinks it is a sensible one.
That’s cool. I just realised they said do no more than 3 times their level per round in damage. That’s simply idiotic. Even using standard array you can start with an 18 strength so a level 1 fighter with a dagger does a minimum of 5 damage on a hit. So what I am completely lost about is where this ‘rule’ comes from or who actually thinks it is a sensible one.
It is a generally accepted optimizer baseline that states you are able to 12.5 damage per round per tier of play to be considered optimal damage. If I had a build that couldn't do more than 3x their level sub Lv10 I'd feel like I was wasting my time with any type meant to deal damage.
That’s cool. I just realised they said do no more than 3 times their level per round in damage. That’s simply idiotic. Even using standard array you can start with an 18 strength so a level 1 fighter with a dagger does a minimum of 5 damage on a hit. So what I am completely lost about is where this ‘rule’ comes from or who actually thinks it is a sensible one.
It is a generally accepted optimizer baseline that states you are able to 12.5 damage per round per tier of play to be considered optimal damage. If I had a build that couldn't do more than 3x their level sub Lv10 I'd feel like I was wasting my time with any type meant to deal damage.
uhh... I frequent optimizer threads on multiple sites, and nowhere have I ever seen "12.5 per tier" be anywhere near optimal. heck, several builds that I can think of off the top of my head deal, on average, 42 damage in early tier 3 (as in, level 12)... and over 200 damage in tier 4, and that's not on a Wizard. Heck, using the "most optimal" Evocation Wizard build that I am aware of (which the builder explicitly stated he stopped optimizing at a certain point due to not being otherwise willing to play it in an actual game), you can do 500+ damage in a single cast.
And I'm pretty sure that *technically* there are ways to do a series of damage loops and literally hit "Unlimited" damage in a single round. I don't know where you're pulling this "rule" from, but some citations would be nice.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
That’s cool. I just realised they said do no more than 3 times their level per round in damage. That’s simply idiotic. Even using standard array you can start with an 18 strength so a level 1 fighter with a dagger does a minimum of 5 damage on a hit. So what I am completely lost about is where this ‘rule’ comes from or who actually thinks it is a sensible one.
It is a generally accepted optimizer baseline that states you are able to 12.5 damage per round per tier of play to be considered optimal damage. If I had a build that couldn't do more than 3x their level sub Lv10 I'd feel like I was wasting my time with any type meant to deal damage.
uhh... I frequent optimizer threads on multiple sites, and nowhere have I ever seen "12.5 per tier" be anywhere near optimal. heck, several builds that I can think of off the top of my head deal, on average, 42 damage in early tier 3 (as in, level 12)... and over 200 damage in tier 4, and that's not on a Wizard. Heck, using the "most optimal" Evocation Wizard build that I am aware of (which the builder explicitly stated he stopped optimizing at a certain point due to not being otherwise willing to play it in an actual game), you can do 500+ damage in a single cast.
And I'm pretty sure that *technically* there are ways to do a series of damage loops and literally hit "Unlimited" damage in a single round. I don't know where you're pulling this "rule" from, but some citations would be nice.
Baseline. As in if you're dealing under 12.5 dmg per round you are nowhere near optimized for your class. I've seen the chart repeated in a few content creators so I don't know who came up with it or what, but it is my understanding it is the base amount of regular damage dealt. Your numbers are fine, and I agree, I've had many characters deal well over 100 damage per round in as low as Tier 2 play, but I wasn't talking about maximum, or nova damage. Baseline, sustained DPR, accounting for your hit percentage against enemy AC.
It is a number I see referred to regularly that off the top of my head I can't recall where I first saw it, but once I have the drive to do so I am sure I can find the info behind it. Regardless I think we can all agree that what's been provided in regards to this post is nowhere near game breaking.
It is a generally accepted optimizer baseline that states you are able to 12.5 damage per round per tier of play to be considered optimal damage. If I had a build that couldn't do more than 3x their level sub Lv10 I'd feel like I was wasting my time with any type meant to deal damage.
My multiclass swarmkeeper ranger 3 warlock 2 is doing 1d10+3(ag blast with a 16 chr) +1d6 twice from EB and Hex and then +3 bludgeoning from genie, an +1d6 piercing swarm damage once so thats a min of 14, a max of 47 and an average of 30.5 per round if both EB hit and that in tier 1 with no additional feats or abilities. If I throw in maddening hex thats an additional 3 damage to every bad guy within 5 foot of my hex victim. So 12.5 is way below the curve as well.
in melee she uses a (dex 18) rapier and booming blade so that’s 1d8+4 base +1d8 thunder +2 duelling style +3 bludgeoning genie damage +1d6 swarm damage +1d6 hex (and uses crusher to move the enemy away) 13 min and 37 max with an average of 25, with an additional 2d8 if the target triggers the secondary damage bringing it to 15, 53, and 34 respectively per round.
It is a generally accepted optimizer baseline that states you are able to 12.5 damage per round per tier of play to be considered optimal damage. If I had a build that couldn't do more than 3x their level sub Lv10 I'd feel like I was wasting my time with any type meant to deal damage.
My multiclass swarmkeeper ranger 3 warlock 2 is doing 1d10+3(ag blast with a 16 chr) +1d6 twice from EB and Hex and then +3 bludgeoning from genie, an +1d6 piercing swarm damage once so thats a min of 14, a max of 47 and an average of 30.5 per round if both EB hit and that in tier 1 with no additional feats or abilities. If I throw in maddening hex thats an additional 3 damage to every bad guy within 5 foot of my hex victim. So 12.5 is way below the curve as well.
in melee she uses a (dex 18) rapier and booming blade so that’s 1d8+4 base +1d8 thunder +2 duelling style +3 bludgeoning genie damage +1d6 swarm damage +1d6 hex (and uses crusher to move the enemy away) 13 min and 37 max with an average of 25, with an additional 2d8 if the target triggers the secondary damage bringing it to 15, 53, and 34 respectively per round.
Might by one of those rules of thumb that originated before the power creep in the more recent books, that still gets copied around the net without being updated...
Maybe but tome pact warlocks existed from the beginning and a 16 primary casting stat with eldritch blast is definitely not optimised it’s baseline. Agonising blast and hex are just bare minimum. Going by this rule my average damage with an unoptimised and barely functioning character is 17% higher at level 5 than it should be at level 10. Again it make no sense. I simply don’t accept that optimisers are putting 12.5 damage per round per tier as the benchmark to aim for. It is even worse than 3x level. At least at level 10 that’s 30 damage compared to this new rules 25
Might by one of those rules of thumb that originated before the power creep in the more recent books, that still gets copied around the net without being updated...
Not sure how that could have happened. A first level fighter with 16 for their primary stat and the Dueling or Two-Handed Weapon fighting style is looking at triple their proficiency bonus as a minimum damage per round. Chromatic Orb deals 3d8 damage, which can potentially beat the maximum damage output that a 20th level character is supposed to have according to this "rule."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Prove it. What's this invincible ultimate character build that has unhittable AC with the ability to impose disadvantage on enemy attacks, saving throws that are high enough they can't be beaten that way, and has high damage output?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Of course, the counter to paladins with high nova damage is large groups of squishy foes that are just tough enough that they can't be reliably killed in one round. Paladins can deal a lot of damage with Divine Smite, but their spell slots are extremely limited so you can't just go smiting huge groups with impunity.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
One pack on Kobolds with a net to bring down the tank and a nice jelly to melt that armor away or a devious caster with heat metal to force its removal.
Or just run them though a few adventures that require a lot of quiet sneaking.
I don’t know why you felt the need to attack me over that but you do you.
What?
All right, near-invincible:
Protector Aasimar
Monk (Ascendant Dragon) 14- Proficiency in all Saving Throws
Artificer (Battle Smith) 3- Steel Defender imposes disadvantage as a reaction
Ranger (Hunter) 3- Hunter's Mark+Colossus Slayer
Plate+3
Shield+3
Defender Longsword+3 (All to offence)
Ring of Evasion
Cloak of Protection
AC 28
Stats (Standard Array)
STR 15+2/DEX 12/CON 14+1/WIS 13/ INT 8/ CHA 10
ASI:
DEX+1,CON+1
Heavily Armored (STR+1)
CON+2
STR 18/DEX 13/CON 18/WIS 13/ INT 8/CHA 10
Assuming everything is active and everything hits:
3d8+2d6+8+20- An average of 46 damage, a low of 36, and a high of 62, not counting crits.
Saves are +10/+7/+10/+7/+5/+6.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Dream of Days Lore Bard 9/Wizard 4 Baulder's Gate: Descent to Avernus (In Person/Over Zoom)
Saleadon Morgul Battle Smith Artificer 11 Tyranny of Dragons (In Person/Over Zoom)
Hurtharn Serpti Ghostslayer Blood Hunter 7 Spelljammer (Over Zoom)
Ex Sig
Okay, let's break this down.
First of all, the build is illegal because you can't multiclass to or from Artificer with 8 intelligence. But I'll ignore that in order to actually break this build down.
Let's start with the magic items. You're assuming that the GM gives you +3 plate, a +3 shield, a Defender +3, and a Cloak of Protection. That's doing the majority of the heavy lifting on your AC, not any class features or abilities, that's not really a valid claim there. Yo also appear to have forgotten that the Cloak gives +1 on saving throws.
Now, the Artificer levels. Seems like you went that way specifically to get the Steel Defender for its Reaction ability. First of all, you can only use that once per round and it only applies to one attack. That's pretty weak. Second of all, because your build only has three levels of Artificer and an 8 intelligence, you've got a Steel Defender with a 15 AC and 16 HP. At level 20, that's not even noticeable defense. Enemies are going to kill that outright in one hit most of the time. Or nail you with an area-effect ability like a breath weapon that will damage both of you at the same time. Simply put, the Steel Defender does not actually factor into your build, you basically wasted three levels for no benefit here.
Ranger levels. It appears that all you did this for was Hunter's Mark and Colossus Slayer. That's another three levels just to get an extra (maximum, assuming you hit with all attacks) 2d6+1d8 damage per round. That's not really a huge benefit given that you can only cast HM three times per day and it requires concentration- even with +11 to Con saves the amount of damage that many things that hit you at that level means that it's not going to be easy to maintain concentration: an Ancient White Dragon's breath weapon deals an average of 72 damage with a DC 19 saving throw so you're going to make the save more often than not but how often are you going to succeed a DC 36 concentration check? And honestly, a white dragon is a perfect counter for this character- you've got very little in the way of ranged capability, it never has to get within melee range and your ranged options are unimpressive unless you want to drop your shield and take that -5 to AC.
Now monk levels: you took 14 levels of monk just to get proficiency in all saves. You do get to use a few other features like Evasion and Stillness of Mind, but you're prevented from using about half of the class's abilities due to wearing armor.
All in all, this character is in no way OP or invincible. Even if you give yourself resistance to cold to fight a white dragon, well, I can use something that deals Psychic damage, that's going to hammer you even harder because your intelligence save sucks. Your ranged options are unimpressive, you've got very limited spellcasting, you're looking at great skill options. And you're 20th level. It's easy to build a 20th level single-classed character who can beat this build. Most campaigns don't even get to half that. What's this character like at 10th or 5th level? I rather doubt that they're going to be anything close to OP.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That wasn't an attack, not sure why you'd think it was. I was just pointing out how the character isn't invincible, there are still things it can't do well because there seems to be an idea that being good at two things at once makes a character broken.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
First off, nice hypothetical sheet. I mean it's horribly suboptimal as none of your monk features would even connect if you could use them with the abysmal 13 wisdom. And anything with illusion magic would just lock you down with your awful INT save. But the point of this build is AC, so I'll attack your strength rather than your weaknesses.
Your 4 person party comes across Arkhan the cruel who is ordering a platoon of Blue Abishai to commit some nefarious act in Tiamat's name. Your party engages the horde with waves upon waves of Blue Abishai assaulting you.
To make the combat fair your DM breaks them up into small encounters of 4-5 blue abishai apiece (a twice deadly encounter, but a nice warmup since you are fully rested and nova capable). Your DM is also using Mob rules from the DMG to simulate the difficulty of fighting all these enemies at once, despite splitting them into waves.
The first wave of 4 abishai target you. They launch their lightning strikes from 120ft away. With +12 to hit they would need to roll 16 or higher to hit you. Meaning 1 in every 4 hits hit you. They each multiattack 3 times. You are hit for 24d8 lightning damage in the opening salvo. If need be, they can dispel your buffs you place on yourself, or wall of force you off away from your teammates. You close the gap to have your steel defender aid you and they teleport away as a bonus action before launching another volley of 12 attacks against you with 3 of them connecting each round.
You are not immortal.
And this is just a scenario I threw together in 10 minutes of thought. A DM who has the experience with your character growth could pick apart this build like nothing.
I didn’t say it was invincible, I was replying to the statement that there was a well known rule that a character should not do more damage in a round than 3 times their proficiency bonus. That’s just nonsense. A first level character with a firebolt can do 5 times their proficiency bonus on a lucky roll.
I can’t figure out who said what on my phone due to the idiotic desire to copy paste absolutely everything in every single post. But that ‘invincible’ build fails at the first hurdle. Int 8 means you aren’t getting into or out of Artificer. Need a 13 minimum. Sorry if someone said that already.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I was trying to build off the points you made.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That’s cool. I just realised they said do no more than 3 times their level per round in damage. That’s simply idiotic. Even using standard array you can start with an 18 strength so a level 1 fighter with a dagger does a minimum of 5 damage on a hit. So what I am completely lost about is where this ‘rule’ comes from or who actually thinks it is a sensible one.
It is a generally accepted optimizer baseline that states you are able to 12.5 damage per round per tier of play to be considered optimal damage. If I had a build that couldn't do more than 3x their level sub Lv10 I'd feel like I was wasting my time with any type meant to deal damage.
uhh... I frequent optimizer threads on multiple sites, and nowhere have I ever seen "12.5 per tier" be anywhere near optimal. heck, several builds that I can think of off the top of my head deal, on average, 42 damage in early tier 3 (as in, level 12)... and over 200 damage in tier 4, and that's not on a Wizard. Heck, using the "most optimal" Evocation Wizard build that I am aware of (which the builder explicitly stated he stopped optimizing at a certain point due to not being otherwise willing to play it in an actual game), you can do 500+ damage in a single cast.
And I'm pretty sure that *technically* there are ways to do a series of damage loops and literally hit "Unlimited" damage in a single round. I don't know where you're pulling this "rule" from, but some citations would be nice.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Baseline. As in if you're dealing under 12.5 dmg per round you are nowhere near optimized for your class. I've seen the chart repeated in a few content creators so I don't know who came up with it or what, but it is my understanding it is the base amount of regular damage dealt. Your numbers are fine, and I agree, I've had many characters deal well over 100 damage per round in as low as Tier 2 play, but I wasn't talking about maximum, or nova damage. Baseline, sustained DPR, accounting for your hit percentage against enemy AC.
It is a number I see referred to regularly that off the top of my head I can't recall where I first saw it, but once I have the drive to do so I am sure I can find the info behind it. Regardless I think we can all agree that what's been provided in regards to this post is nowhere near game breaking.
My multiclass swarmkeeper ranger 3 warlock 2 is doing 1d10+3(ag blast with a 16 chr) +1d6 twice from EB and Hex and then +3 bludgeoning from genie, an +1d6 piercing swarm damage once so thats a min of 14, a max of 47 and an average of 30.5 per round if both EB hit and that in tier 1 with no additional feats or abilities. If I throw in maddening hex thats an additional 3 damage to every bad guy within 5 foot of my hex victim. So 12.5 is way below the curve as well.
in melee she uses a (dex 18) rapier and booming blade so that’s 1d8+4 base +1d8 thunder +2 duelling style +3 bludgeoning genie damage +1d6 swarm damage +1d6 hex (and uses crusher to move the enemy away) 13 min and 37 max with an average of 25, with an additional 2d8 if the target triggers the secondary damage bringing it to 15, 53, and 34 respectively per round.
Might by one of those rules of thumb that originated before the power creep in the more recent books, that still gets copied around the net without being updated...
Maybe but tome pact warlocks existed from the beginning and a 16 primary casting stat with eldritch blast is definitely not optimised it’s baseline. Agonising blast and hex are just bare minimum. Going by this rule my average damage with an unoptimised and barely functioning character is 17% higher at level 5 than it should be at level 10. Again it make no sense. I simply don’t accept that optimisers are putting 12.5 damage per round per tier as the benchmark to aim for. It is even worse than 3x level. At least at level 10 that’s 30 damage compared to this new rules 25
Not sure how that could have happened. A first level fighter with 16 for their primary stat and the Dueling or Two-Handed Weapon fighting style is looking at triple their proficiency bonus as a minimum damage per round. Chromatic Orb deals 3d8 damage, which can potentially beat the maximum damage output that a 20th level character is supposed to have according to this "rule."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.