Yes I would definitely agree that the rules sometimes are very restrictive. Personally in my group I would probably allow them to grapple as an opportunity attack. However, all my enemies would do the same thing to the players that try to escape ;)
Yes I would definitely agree that the rules sometimes are very restrictive. Personally in my group I would probably allow them to grapple as an opportunity attack. However, all my enemies would do the same thing to the players that try to escape ;)
of course 8D, if they can do it why wouldn't the enemy.
this rule also forces disengage a bit more. which is a bonus considering the ability is never an option in the players mind. I also will try a new ruling in my next game on that one. disengage will be a 5 foot step just like in 3rd edition as well as a no opportunity attack if moved away. that way the disengage action might give them a bit more uses then just losing an action for regular movement. but we dont want it to be full movment as it would break dash. so i thin its either half movement, or the 5foot side step. and i think my players will be in love with the 5 foot side step from 3e coming back. even if it is as an action.
but we're talking about TWF here, so i'll stop there. to me TWF is great, if you are a rogue trying to maximise your damage, or if you want to be a ranger in melee. i think fighters are always much better being GWF with a two hander. though, i would argue as a DM that my players could use a shield as the offhand to bash an opponent and thus gain benefits from TWF. which would help fighters gets a bit more damage out of protection type builds. because i always thought the duelist fighting style was never too much and usually useless. but i never got to try it so i dont know. in any case that's my stand on it... GWF fighters are better with two handers then they are with dual weilding. though i must say, with feat added, dual long swords is kinda dope.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Sounds like the makings of a pretty useful homebrew feat.
its not a great feat per say, it would be lacking a lot.
because right now, you need to take the attack action to mek the grapple on one of your attacks. but the ruling i'd be making here, would simply change that to "any attacks can be made grapples instead." its not a big change in ruling and feats are things that fondamentally change things. this doesn't change thing, they just remove one word. in the end this homebrew ruling doesn't change much to the ruling, but adds a bunch of usefullness to enemies and players alike. making it a feat means the players have to lose precious ASI just to gte a small benefit. also, the feats are usually specialised stuff. this is just regular thing that everybody should be able to do without anything prohibing it. i mean everyone can try to grapple people in the midle of a fight. you dont need to be a specialised fighter to do that.
if someone would want to make it a feat, they'd add a +1 to strength and allow something else to be added onto the feat, making the change much bigger then just removing the action necessity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Yes I would definitely agree that the rules sometimes are very restrictive. Personally in my group I would probably allow them to grapple as an opportunity attack. However, all my enemies would do the same thing to the players that try to escape ;)
Quite often, players refuse to run, even when they should. I'd be inclined to rule against anything that makes it harder to flee from combat, just to let the players know that fleeing is an option.
Yes I would definitely agree that the rules sometimes are very restrictive. Personally in my group I would probably allow them to grapple as an opportunity attack. However, all my enemies would do the same thing to the players that try to escape ;)
Quite often, players refuse to run, even when they should. I'd be inclined to rule against anything that makes it harder to flee from combat, just to let the players know that fleeing is an option.
If your players do not flee, its because they think they can win that battle. its up to the DM to hint that they cannot win. Its a game not a question of if they flee or not. but a question of... did your DM tell you that there would be undefeatable things in his world ? my players depends on me to make them heroes, and that means to them that whatever the enemy, they can defeat it. something i rightfully, off the bat told them wasn't true. my world is a living one, and it does have monsters stronger then them. that's why they refused to go into the asdtral plane when i give them hint of a tarrasque like creature devouring everything there. because to them they are not capable of defeating such a creature, the fear of death was real for them. but if i tell them, there is an ancent dragon over there, they feel like they can defeat it, and they will try it out. once in combat, players often think there are better options then fleeing, often keeping close to the enemy just to not get an attack of opportunity. yet they dont take the disengage action ? why ? because it would lose them a precious action which players dont want to lose.
in the end, its normal for players not to be able to flee, the same way that opponents aren't obligated to flee either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
a single level of fighter gives it to you. and a fighter rogue is not really a bad idea as the damage boost is totally warranting it. also, rogues passed level 11 are not all that great. thus they have a ton of levels with which they could go 3 levels of fighter for the battlemaster archetype, the action surge, the fighting styles. even some healing abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Is there any opportunity at all for a rogue to obtain two-weapon fighting style?
The only way is to multiclass, as sadly there is no official Feat allowing the choice of a Fighting Style.
DM allowing you can always create a Feat, though.
Where does Artemis Entreri the assassin fit in?
As a multiclass most probably (IIRC in 3.x he was a pretty crazy multiclass in the Forgotten Reals Guide where his stats appeared). Regardless, NPCs/Monsters/Nemesis etc do not necessarily follow character rules in terms of construction, skills and features.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
As for 3e... Even drizzt was a uber multiclass. In 5e hed probably be just a fighter though. Since i dont the other one you talking about. Id say in 5e hed be probably 1 or 2 classes only.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
As for 3e... Even drizzt was a uber multiclass. In 5e hed probably be just a fighter though. Since i dont the other one you talking about. Id say in 5e hed be probably 1 or 2 classes only.
I think he would be a Ranger (Hunter)/Fighter (Battle Master or Champion) with the obsidian panther (can't remember her name for the love of me) as a sidekick, but nothing more than that. Fighting Styles Two-weapon fighter (of course) and probably Defense (a +1 AC is never a bad thing).
Artemis Entreri (Human Master Assassin, one of the many Nemesis of Drizzt) would most probably be a Rogue (Assassin)/Fighter (Battle Master for stuff like Riposte, Parry and maybe Disarming Attack).
the thing is, in 3e drizzt was a ranger and had no levels of fighter, but the reality is, rangers was enough of a difference then fighter back then... in 5e, rangers are pretty much just a subpar version of fighter. they have the same abilities and all. drizzt definitely has no magic, except those coming from his drow race. and thus i believe drizzt would be pure fighter. heck even chris perkins who played drizzt in ACQ INC and showed us stats, thinks that he would be pure fighter.
as i said, to me, rogue is only good until about level 11, 12 if you want that last ASI. Rogue/Fighter is a great combination for melee rogues who just want to add much more DPS to their arsenal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I dunno about that, level 17 Scout essentially doubles your damage per round and also puts you on par with the number of attacks per round you would have gotten as a Rogue 11/Fighter 9. Between 11 and 17 there is Blindsense (may or may not be Blindsight 10, depending on how your DM reads it) and proficiency in an essential save for high-tier play. So if you're not a Scout, sure, stop at 11... but if Drizzt is any kind of Rogue at all he's a Scout, and I think by the time you take him to 17 he might as well go to 20 to pick up the ability to guarantee that you succeed at something impossibly heroic once per day. If he's a fighter he's a boring old Champion, which, blech ...
The problem is not going rogue 20 or not.... the problem is how many levels of nothing are you really wanting to waste just to get that archetype feature ?
While blindsense is pretty good, how often is it really gonna be used ? Blindsense is only really good only against burrowing creatures and thats not much. its also great against invisible creatures, let's face it, your wizard or whatever cleric you have will have done dispel magic or counter spell long before that gets there. the problem with blind sight is how specific it is and how it is used only 1 out of 5 scenarios. you could argue that it allow you to never be surprised also, but between that and expertise in perception, it might just make it a moot point. there is also the feat alertt who helps you much better in not being surprised. and since rogues only really need dexterity at top, they have plenty of room for feats. the only real good reason to go beyond level 11 for a rogue, is the sneak attack dice. but is it really that great to lose all those useless levels just to get more damage. there are tons of stuff that just make your damage much higher. calculate this one... you are a rogue 3rd level arcane trickster... WITH BOOMING BLADE !!! that alone, that single 3 level in rogues already defeats the purpose of sneak attack dice. and it even offer more utility in the fact that now your victim cannot move without taking more damage.
test this... at level 17... rogues with booming blade, deals 1d8 piercing + 5 dexterity +3d8 thunder damage, if the creature then move, it takes 4d8 thunder damage in addition. you could argue that sneak attack is much more then that. but in reality, its not... because at that level, he could also be using green flame blade which means he now does AoE damage, something the rogues never really had before.. same shit happens... ad8+5+3d8 fire+4d8 fire to another enemy. all that from a single third level archetype. if you go on that road, going beyond level 11 is totally useless. rogues capstone is a joke, as much as monks capstone and warlock capstone. oh and did i say that if you add a magical weapon in that mix, it does even higher damage. because booming blade and green flame blade actually use the weapon.
of course... taking a feat to get that cantrips makes the rogues way stronger because both the cantrip and sneak attack stacks together. but thats nother story, i am talking about versus snea attack. not with it. also, multiclassing in 5e is almost a must. there is only really 3 classes that warrants going all the way to 20.
Druid being the first one, becaus infinite life, why not wildshape even as an action is the equivalent of gaining 150 hit points back.
Paladin being the second, because really avatar of gods... those avatars are the shit. and the capstone is archetype feature is which is to me what every class should of done.
Barbarian in third, because... yeah 24 strength and 24 constitution is the shit. not to mention that with toughness, the barbarian is literally the only one going all the way to the 300 hp because 28 constitution maximum.
the others im not liking their capstones... to bland... fighter gets a third extra attack.. at that point extra attacks are meh. sure the combo with surge and giving it 9 attacks if dual wiedling is nice, but the same can be done with a sorcerer at 4th level. and twice at it... i'd say the wizard could easily take the place of that barbarian though, because 3rd level spells are a good thing to have more of. so i'll put wizard at the equal spot with barbarian.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I mean... Drizzt is a drow, so I'd say priority #1 on the surface is to find him a way to attack without suffering disadvantage from Sunlight Sensitivity? A rogue loses a lot of opportunities for sneak attack if they live their whole life ineligible for advantage... so yeah, I'd say that getting to Rogue 14 could be a huge priority for Drizzt (if, indeed, he's a Rogue at all) if the DM rules that 'Blind Sense' = Blindsight 10. Honestly I wouldn't (whichis the reason that Drizzt still is a Ranger after all), because at Ranger 18 there is a similar ability 'Feral Senses' which explicitly grants the ability to shut one's eyes against the sunlight and attack without disadvantage. A Ranger (Hunter) 20 dual wielding scimitars can chew through a horde of enemies or slice a single one to bits, depending on which way you spec. A Ranger (Gloomstalker) 20 is a little less offensive, but much more viable as a solo hero capable of surviving high level encounters. Both of those sound like the right way to build Drizzt, now that I think about it more.
But putting Drizzt away and turning to whether Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade are more damage or easier to apply than Sneak Attack for a dual wielding rogue in general... sure, using a SCAG cantrip as a rogue/eldritch knight is probably better than a standard dual wielding attack progression performed by the same rogue/eldritch knight. But compared against Scout 20, it's still a trap.
Arcane Trickster Rogue 3/Eldritch Knight Fighter 17 who dual wields scimitars casts Booming Blade: 1d6+5+3d8+2d6 (average 32ish), additional 4d8 if they move (20ish), then 1d6+5 (average 9). Total average 41, or 61 if they move.
Arcane Rogue 3/Eldritch Fighter 17 who dual wields scimitars performs a standard attack rotation with bonus attack: 1d6+5+2d6 (average 17ish), then 1d6+5 (average 9), then 1d6+5 (average 9), then 1d6+5 (average 9). Total average 44.
Arcane Rogue 11/Eldritch Fighter 9 who dual wields scimitars casts Booming Blade: 1d6+5+3d8+6d6 (average 48ish), additional 4d8 if they move (20ish), then 1d6+5 (average 9). Total average 57, or 77 if they move.
Arcane Rogue 11/Eldritch Fighter 9 who dual wields scimitars performs a standard attack rotation with bonus attack: 1d6+5+6d6 (average 33ish), then 1d6+5 (average 9), then 1d6+5 (average 9). Total average 51.
Scout Rogue 20 who dual wields scimitars performs a standard attack rotation with bonus attack: 1d6+5+10d6 (average 59ish), then 1d6+5+10d6 (average 59ish), then 1d6+5 (average 9). Total average 127.
I'm sure we could find some interesting numbers by running comparisons of other fighter subclasses, mixes that include rangers, etc.... but the point is, a dual wielding level 20 scout massively outdamages a rogue casting Booming Blade, although a Rogue/Eldritch Knight Fighter casting Booming Bladedoes out damage what it would do with a standard attack progression.
Yes I would definitely agree that the rules sometimes are very restrictive. Personally in my group I would probably allow them to grapple as an opportunity attack. However, all my enemies would do the same thing to the players that try to escape ;)
Sounds like the makings of a pretty useful homebrew feat.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
of course 8D, if they can do it why wouldn't the enemy.
this rule also forces disengage a bit more. which is a bonus considering the ability is never an option in the players mind.
I also will try a new ruling in my next game on that one. disengage will be a 5 foot step just like in 3rd edition as well as a no opportunity attack if moved away. that way the disengage action might give them a bit more uses then just losing an action for regular movement. but we dont want it to be full movment as it would break dash. so i thin its either half movement, or the 5foot side step. and i think my players will be in love with the 5 foot side step from 3e coming back. even if it is as an action.
but we're talking about TWF here, so i'll stop there.
to me TWF is great, if you are a rogue trying to maximise your damage, or if you want to be a ranger in melee.
i think fighters are always much better being GWF with a two hander. though, i would argue as a DM that my players could use a shield as the offhand to bash an opponent and thus gain benefits from TWF. which would help fighters gets a bit more damage out of protection type builds. because i always thought the duelist fighting style was never too much and usually useless. but i never got to try it so i dont know. in any case that's my stand on it... GWF fighters are better with two handers then they are with dual weilding. though i must say, with feat added, dual long swords is kinda dope.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
its not a great feat per say, it would be lacking a lot.
because right now, you need to take the attack action to mek the grapple on one of your attacks. but the ruling i'd be making here, would simply change that to "any attacks can be made grapples instead." its not a big change in ruling and feats are things that fondamentally change things. this doesn't change thing, they just remove one word. in the end this homebrew ruling doesn't change much to the ruling, but adds a bunch of usefullness to enemies and players alike. making it a feat means the players have to lose precious ASI just to gte a small benefit. also, the feats are usually specialised stuff. this is just regular thing that everybody should be able to do without anything prohibing it. i mean everyone can try to grapple people in the midle of a fight. you dont need to be a specialised fighter to do that.
if someone would want to make it a feat, they'd add a +1 to strength and allow something else to be added onto the feat, making the change much bigger then just removing the action necessity.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
That's a conversation for another forum, but it isn't exactly what I was referring to.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Quite often, players refuse to run, even when they should. I'd be inclined to rule against anything that makes it harder to flee from combat, just to let the players know that fleeing is an option.
If your players do not flee, its because they think they can win that battle. its up to the DM to hint that they cannot win.
Its a game not a question of if they flee or not. but a question of... did your DM tell you that there would be undefeatable things in his world ?
my players depends on me to make them heroes, and that means to them that whatever the enemy, they can defeat it. something i rightfully, off the bat told them wasn't true. my world is a living one, and it does have monsters stronger then them. that's why they refused to go into the asdtral plane when i give them hint of a tarrasque like creature devouring everything there. because to them they are not capable of defeating such a creature, the fear of death was real for them. but if i tell them, there is an ancent dragon over there, they feel like they can defeat it, and they will try it out. once in combat, players often think there are better options then fleeing, often keeping close to the enemy just to not get an attack of opportunity. yet they dont take the disengage action ? why ? because it would lose them a precious action which players dont want to lose.
in the end, its normal for players not to be able to flee, the same way that opponents aren't obligated to flee either.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Could I ask what the two-weapon fighting style is? is it a feat?
It's a Fighting Style, meaning a feature certain calsses can choose (Fighter, Ranger and Paladin, mostly).
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
thank you,
Is there any opportunity at all for a rogue to obtain two-weapon fighting style?
The only way is to multiclass, as sadly there is no official Feat allowing the choice of a Fighting Style.
DM allowing you can always create a Feat, though.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
a single level of fighter gives it to you. and a fighter rogue is not really a bad idea as the damage boost is totally warranting it. also, rogues passed level 11 are not all that great. thus they have a ton of levels with which they could go 3 levels of fighter for the battlemaster archetype, the action surge, the fighting styles. even some healing abilities.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Where does Artemis Entreri the assassin fit in?
As a multiclass most probably (IIRC in 3.x he was a pretty crazy multiclass in the Forgotten Reals Guide where his stats appeared).
Regardless, NPCs/Monsters/Nemesis etc do not necessarily follow character rules in terms of construction, skills and features.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Many monsters have class abilities and all...
But yeah monsters have monster abilities too.
As for 3e... Even drizzt was a uber multiclass. In 5e hed probably be just a fighter though. Since i dont the other one you talking about. Id say in 5e hed be probably 1 or 2 classes only.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I think he would be a Ranger (Hunter)/Fighter (Battle Master or Champion) with the obsidian panther (can't remember her name for the love of me) as a sidekick, but nothing more than that. Fighting Styles Two-weapon fighter (of course) and probably Defense (a +1 AC is never a bad thing).
Artemis Entreri (Human Master Assassin, one of the many Nemesis of Drizzt) would most probably be a Rogue (Assassin)/Fighter (Battle Master for stuff like Riposte, Parry and maybe Disarming Attack).
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
the thing is, in 3e drizzt was a ranger and had no levels of fighter, but the reality is, rangers was enough of a difference then fighter back then... in 5e, rangers are pretty much just a subpar version of fighter. they have the same abilities and all. drizzt definitely has no magic, except those coming from his drow race. and thus i believe drizzt would be pure fighter. heck even chris perkins who played drizzt in ACQ INC and showed us stats, thinks that he would be pure fighter.
as i said, to me, rogue is only good until about level 11, 12 if you want that last ASI.
Rogue/Fighter is a great combination for melee rogues who just want to add much more DPS to their arsenal.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I dunno about that, level 17 Scout essentially doubles your damage per round and also puts you on par with the number of attacks per round you would have gotten as a Rogue 11/Fighter 9. Between 11 and 17 there is Blindsense (may or may not be Blindsight 10, depending on how your DM reads it) and proficiency in an essential save for high-tier play. So if you're not a Scout, sure, stop at 11... but if Drizzt is any kind of Rogue at all he's a Scout, and I think by the time you take him to 17 he might as well go to 20 to pick up the ability to guarantee that you succeed at something impossibly heroic once per day. If he's a fighter he's a boring old Champion, which, blech ...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The problem is not going rogue 20 or not.... the problem is how many levels of nothing are you really wanting to waste just to get that archetype feature ?
While blindsense is pretty good, how often is it really gonna be used ?
Blindsense is only really good only against burrowing creatures and thats not much. its also great against invisible creatures, let's face it, your wizard or whatever cleric you have will have done dispel magic or counter spell long before that gets there. the problem with blind sight is how specific it is and how it is used only 1 out of 5 scenarios. you could argue that it allow you to never be surprised also, but between that and expertise in perception, it might just make it a moot point. there is also the feat alertt who helps you much better in not being surprised. and since rogues only really need dexterity at top, they have plenty of room for feats. the only real good reason to go beyond level 11 for a rogue, is the sneak attack dice. but is it really that great to lose all those useless levels just to get more damage. there are tons of stuff that just make your damage much higher. calculate this one... you are a rogue 3rd level arcane trickster... WITH BOOMING BLADE !!! that alone, that single 3 level in rogues already defeats the purpose of sneak attack dice. and it even offer more utility in the fact that now your victim cannot move without taking more damage.
test this... at level 17...
rogues with booming blade, deals 1d8 piercing + 5 dexterity +3d8 thunder damage, if the creature then move, it takes 4d8 thunder damage in addition.
you could argue that sneak attack is much more then that. but in reality, its not... because at that level, he could also be using green flame blade which means he now does AoE damage, something the rogues never really had before.. same shit happens... ad8+5+3d8 fire+4d8 fire to another enemy. all that from a single third level archetype. if you go on that road, going beyond level 11 is totally useless. rogues capstone is a joke, as much as monks capstone and warlock capstone. oh and did i say that if you add a magical weapon in that mix, it does even higher damage. because booming blade and green flame blade actually use the weapon.
of course... taking a feat to get that cantrips makes the rogues way stronger because both the cantrip and sneak attack stacks together. but thats nother story, i am talking about versus snea attack. not with it. also, multiclassing in 5e is almost a must. there is only really 3 classes that warrants going all the way to 20.
Druid being the first one, becaus infinite life, why not wildshape even as an action is the equivalent of gaining 150 hit points back.
Paladin being the second, because really avatar of gods... those avatars are the shit. and the capstone is archetype feature is which is to me what every class should of done.
Barbarian in third, because... yeah 24 strength and 24 constitution is the shit. not to mention that with toughness, the barbarian is literally the only one going all the way to the 300 hp because 28 constitution maximum.
the others im not liking their capstones... to bland... fighter gets a third extra attack.. at that point extra attacks are meh. sure the combo with surge and giving it 9 attacks if dual wiedling is nice, but the same can be done with a sorcerer at 4th level. and twice at it... i'd say the wizard could easily take the place of that barbarian though, because 3rd level spells are a good thing to have more of. so i'll put wizard at the equal spot with barbarian.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I mean... Drizzt is a drow, so I'd say priority #1 on the surface is to find him a way to attack without suffering disadvantage from Sunlight Sensitivity? A rogue loses a lot of opportunities for sneak attack if they live their whole life ineligible for advantage... so yeah, I'd say that getting to Rogue 14 could be a huge priority for Drizzt (if, indeed, he's a Rogue at all) if the DM rules that 'Blind Sense' = Blindsight 10. Honestly I wouldn't (which is the reason that Drizzt still is a Ranger after all), because at Ranger 18 there is a similar ability 'Feral Senses' which explicitly grants the ability to shut one's eyes against the sunlight and attack without disadvantage. A Ranger (Hunter) 20 dual wielding scimitars can chew through a horde of enemies or slice a single one to bits, depending on which way you spec. A Ranger (Gloomstalker) 20 is a little less offensive, but much more viable as a solo hero capable of surviving high level encounters. Both of those sound like the right way to build Drizzt, now that I think about it more.
But putting Drizzt away and turning to whether Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade are more damage or easier to apply than Sneak Attack for a dual wielding rogue in general... sure, using a SCAG cantrip as a rogue/eldritch knight is probably better than a standard dual wielding attack progression performed by the same rogue/eldritch knight. But compared against Scout 20, it's still a trap.
I'm sure we could find some interesting numbers by running comparisons of other fighter subclasses, mixes that include rangers, etc.... but the point is, a dual wielding level 20 scout massively outdamages a rogue casting Booming Blade, although a Rogue/Eldritch Knight Fighter casting Booming Blade does out damage what it would do with a standard attack progression.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.