In a campaign there is a Yuan Ti Paladin oath of the ancients and they aren't fazed by anything. They have an AC of 19 and their lowest saving throw is a +5, not to mention they have Adv against saving throws from magical effects and all damage they receive from spells is halved (level 8 Aura of Warding). Immunity to poison and the poison condition. They can reach even higher Ac if they use spells or get better armor. Usually the tactic to a high Ac target is to hit them with saving throws and vice versa, but this paladin seems to have it all. Any advice on what I can do?
Is this a Homebrew campaign? If so, maybe take some advice from other campaigns. We just finished The Storm King's Thunder and the enemies we fought would have no real problem challenging that Pally if it was on the merits of stats alone, they would have to play very intelligently to survive.
Sneak into it’s chamber and slit his throat while he’s sleeping.
On the surface, this sounds like terrible advice buuuut...
This actually happened to our "high and mighty" group while we were camped in a wilderness area. We failed to detect lowly goblins on our late night watch and the DM said quite literally that a goblin tried to slit our Druids throat. A couple other took the auto crit for less damage from Incapacitated and Unconscious.
That's a good policy for player characters, but for bandits and other hostile humanoids, it's important to remember that most of the time they will not be facing adventurer parties. Usually, a person who's unarmored is going to be a peasant, merchant, scholar, or some other variety of non-threatening individual. And even when they are a wizard, most wizards are likely to focus their spellcasting on things that help with their arcane research projects or are saleable or otherwise are something other than new and interesting ways to make someone's internal organs suddenly become external.
It depends on the context,
If the bandits come across a group of 4 travellng along the road 3 well armed and one without apparent armor or weapon (assuming the wizard doesn't have a large staff carved with arcane symbols) then yes they may assume it is a merchant or nobel travelling with an armed escort.
If the same group of individuals have come into the bandit base, and start attacking them it is clear the whole party are combatants and the one without armor will be a magic user.
I'm smiling. "Magic User" That was the name in the first edition of AD&D for what eventually came to be called a "Wizard" I'm sure what you meant would be "some kind of spell caster", which is essentially the same thing, so you're not incorrect, but it did made me smile.
And you're saying that an intelligent enemy is going to sit there and attack a heavily shielded and armored foe even after seeing it easily divert attacks. In what world is it intelligent to attack something that you have an extremely low chance of hurting? You can describe your weapon as threateningly as you like, it's still doing 1d10+4 damage versus the rogue's 4d6+4 and the wizard's 8d6 fireball. Just having a weapon does not make you the outstanding threat you seem to think it does.
Now an enemy with an INT of 2? Yes, that may behave the way you're describing.
Also, it is absolutely not metagaming to assume that a Knight in full plate with a tower shield is harder to hit and tougher to take down than the frail elf in robes huddling behind a tree in the back line. Things like ability scores and AC are references to actual, observable traits of your characters that an intelligent creature can - and absolutely should - pick up on. That's like 80% of what makes it different from a non-intelligent creature.
Being a tank is a balancing act between being hard to hit and being enough of a threat to be unable to ignore. This is a good thing. It makes building tanks more interesting than just maxing AC and saving throws. This is not unique to 5e and it's far more realistic than the video game solution of just magically drawing attention to yourself.
And as for the OP, yes I would follow the above logic and intelligent monsters would just attempt to circumvent the paladin. Especially as they get up on into levels, characters begin to build a reputation that interested parties would be familiar with. Snakeface the Invulnerable would become well known amongst his knowledgable foes and they would plan and act accordingly. Take advantage of his limited maneuverability. Attack his weaker allies. Use things like hostages or political pressure or hazardous terrain.
In short, smart enemies need to behave as if they are smart. Dumb enemies? Let him shine, it's the schtick he's invested in.
Keep in mind, D&D is a group game. Sure the Paladin might be shrugging everything off but his allies won’t be able to do that casually.
Smart opponents will focus on the rest of the party and bypass him once they figure out that they’re not doing much damage to him. If they don’t do that, they’ll ignore the rest of the party and team up on him until they break through his defenses. Either way he will feel some pain, just not as much as a less tanky PC will feel.
In a campaign there is a Yuan Ti Paladin oath of the ancients and they aren't fazed by anything. They have an AC of 19 and their lowest saving throw is a +5, not to mention they have Adv against saving throws from magical effects and all damage they receive from spells is halved (level 8 Aura of Warding). Immunity to poison and the poison condition. They can reach even higher Ac if they use spells or get better armor. Usually the tactic to a high Ac target is to hit them with saving throws and vice versa, but this paladin seems to have it all. Any advice on what I can do?
Use the environment against the party. Resistance to drowning? How about gravity? Fighting in confined spaces? How do they do in the excessive heat of a desert or the blistering cold of a glacial field? I'd also reinforce that this is a group effort. You don't have to target the character in question for them to "loose" the encounter. Loosing party members also counts as a fail. Use opportunities like the Sphere of Annihilation And last but not least, I give you - Tucker's Kobolds. The only downfall, you'll have to be ruthless with the mechanic of choice, regardless of character or player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Neighbor, I got just the thing for you. I hired them to take care of a job like that for me a while back, did a marvelous job. Lemme give ya their information, they’re called Kobolds. (Typically Kobolds don’t like their winged kin, but they’ve been known to make mechanical wings to strap on and fly around with.) First things first, drop everyone through some shoddy Kobold construction into a labyrinthine kobold warren. But no ordinary warren….
First things first, they don’t land together, they gotta meet back up first. (This shouldn’t take forever, but long enough for everyone to get into one scrap all by themselves to remind them how dangerous a weenie hoard can be, especially when all alone.)
Next, everything is difficult terrain, half movement.
After that, the entire place is absolutely jam packed with traps, and low CR dangerous plants, oozes, swarms, monstrosities, and other beasts that make sense. Really make it an ecosystem they can believe in. Throw in some undead, make them small kobold zombies and skeletons to really sell it, replace the warhorse with kobold mounts.
Finally, this one is lead by an inventor chief.
There are the Variant Kobolds in UA right now, you can swap some of them around to mix it up, so some of the more boss type creatures would loose G, C, & B; and Pact Tactics (and sensitivity), for draconian legacy and draconian roar. The Chief would be one of these. It would be a lower level spellcasters, but instead of a Sorcerer make him an Artificer, but use the old UA Artificer Alchemist instead to keep up with the “kobold inventor” schtick. Plus they won’t expect it if you do it right. And give this main boss a similar stat boost as a hobgoblin captain, and the Leadership trait too.
Really start to mix it up, Kobold cavalry! Consider a pack of Kobolds mounted on hyenas, vultures, or mountain goats. Maybe re-skin them as other animals if you like, something more reptilian perhaps, like homebrewed drake variants. And don’t forget a “giant” cave badger that is Large, has stat boost to match, burrows 20 ft, and when it pops out, out swarm the kobold badger headers. And an array of stuff like Alchemist's Fire, Acid, Acid, and various grenades should be dispersed among the Kobold Dragonshield that serve as officers. And don’t be afraid of using whips for kobolds who need reach, and give their spears finesse whenever the kobolds use them. It’s like a shortsword that turns into a two-handedrapier, hardly game breaking.
In my world I also treat Dragonborn as related to Kobolds just like Hobgoblins and Bugbears are related to Goblins. You could use some of them to add heavier shock troop types, cal them “mutated experiments” the inventor created. Basically bandits, thugs, and bandit captains with those UA Chromatic Dragonborn traits from the UA I linked above. Swap some weapons around so some can ha shield and spear or something, let some ride giant bats, giant lizard (variant), or giant toads.
After all of those bagillions of weenie attacks and saving against all of that non-magical stuff…. That Paladin will feel as if they have gone through a meat grinder.
Bear in mind that if you're selecting monsters based on CR appropriate to player level, then you will need to adjust that depending on things like player optimization, party size, magic items, etc. If your players are level 8, but far more powerful than your bog standard level 8 character, don't be afraid to throw a CR 11-13 monster their way. I assure you, 19 AC will not be a problem.
Alternately, focus on abilities/spells that still do damage even on a successful save. Fireball, Lightning Bolt, a dragon's breath weapon, etc. Even if they succeed in saving, they will take half damage that will prompt a concentration save on their buff spells which they still have a chance of failing.
Modify some monster stats and have one or two “leaders” with good attack bonus that focus on the paladin and some “minions” that attack the rest of the party so they don’t get overwhelmed but still challenged. Especially if the paladin is more optimized than the rest of the characters.
All of these are possible. If you're really looking for specific creatures or spells to target this paladin with instead of going around him, consider the Rust Monster. They may not do a lot themselves but they could definitely hurt defensive and offensive capabilities going forward. Another option would be an upcasted Heat Metal spell on his armor. Why this? No save to prevent your armor from being effected or to halve the damage. If the enemy caster maintains concentration, the damage will keep coming in round after round and it will hurt. But IMO only do this if theres a good campaign reason for the enemies to have the spell and use it in this manner, dont just throw it in there to mess with one player.
However, the player has clearly made choices - class, race, stats, armour - that are making them highly durable. Part of their play experience should be that they don't take a lot of damage. If you build a tanky melee character then they ought to be tanky.
Preach! DMs who think they're competing with their players suck. Let each character shine in the spotlight in their own way. When a player goes THIS far out of their way to make a tough and durable character, showcase that and let them excel at it.
My old DM used to get around my AC21 character by simply ignoring him, taking the opportunity attack, and running creatures around him. It didn't make sense for them to be ignoring a hammer wielding fighter in their faces, but he basically gave up on making melee attacks against me (especially as I could up my AC to 26 with shield (and usually had protection from evil and good up for disadvantage. This was deeply annoying for me as a player.
Yeah, that's for sure annoying. Sounds like he was both being competitive and adversarial, but also metagaming his NPCs decisions. While some types of creatures might suicide run right past a clearly dangerous armed warrior, most wouldn't unless the situation specifically called for it or they were provoked.
If your player wants to be super tough and durable then don't try to get around it to damage him. Lean into it.So it's hard to hit him? Put more monsters into the encounter and let him tank them.
Yeah absolutely. Until they start getting a bit too cocky about it, that is when the reality check encounter is due for an appearance. A reminder-fight that everyone is mortal and while well guarded they're not invulnerable. But again, only if things are getting way too much to their heads, otherwise, let them shine as a beefy tanky character.
My old DM used to get around my AC21 character by simply ignoring him, taking the opportunity attack, and running creatures around him. It didn't make sense for them to be ignoring a hammer wielding fighter in their faces, but he basically gave up on making melee attacks against me (especially as I could up my AC to 26 with shield (and usually had protection from evil and good up for disadvantage. This was deeply annoying for me as a player. I'd built my character around being the party tank, and the DM effectively took the role away from me by deciding to make intelligent monsters act irrationally.
I have to disagree that your DM decided to make intelligen monsters act irrationally. An intellignet enemy that knows any attacks against you are unlikely to succeed will want to take down the wizard that might be doing a similar abount of damage but can be taken down with one or 2 swipes of the sword, after taking care of squishy targets can then take on the paladin when they only need to worry about his attacks.
I.. tend to take people's word for their lived experience. You didn't sit in on their games and you really have no idea what their DM did or how it played out. You're speaking from a place of pure ignorance and trying to tell them what did or did not happen in their game. You.. shouldn't.
As for your points, I generally disagree. They're all super metagamey.
You don’t decide how a monster acts, the DM does. The monsters (especially intelligent ones) can do whatever they want as per DM fiat. Expecting “I wield a hammer so bad guys should definitely target me because I’m dangerous” is video-game thinking. This is not a video game.
So, just to be clear, they never question if the DM has the right to determine NPC actions. You're arguing against something no one is arguing for. You're making up something to argue against. DMs can make bad calls, and, honestly, unless you were in the game sitting next to them, I'm going to just take what their firsthand account of their games is like at face value instead of... well, whatever you're saying guy-who-wasn't-there.
This idea that monsters don’t know things like durability is an assumption about a game that has an intelligent game master that can play the creatures however they want. That’s the beauty of playing a role playing game vs a video game, where your expectations are subverted and you have to adapt to the game that the DM runs.
Uh, nothing about what you're saying really touches on having a DM run monsters in a sensible way or not. Many DMs do metagame NPC decisions and sometimes that's for the better and sometimes not. Unless your argument is DMs are perfect flawless logic engines who perfectly model realistic decisions for all NPCs at all times every time... I have no idea why you're trying so hard to convince someone that their actual lived experience is invalid. Listen more, talk less. If they say their DM was making bad NPC choices, they very well might be right.
Moreover, monsters (and players) should not be thinking in terms of hit points. To a monster, every creature can go down to one swing of the sword. They have no idea how durable anyone is, just as the players don't know monster hit points. To metagame this way, either for the DM or the players, is ultimately going to give a poorer experience. "Take out the casters" is perfectly viable, unless there is a knight in your face dealing you two hits a turn with a warhammer.
Since first edition, it's been a core mainstay of D&D reality that you always target the most naked opponent you have. It's less true in 5E now that it's so trivial for wizards to wear lots of armor, but it's still an excellent guideline: if you're fighting a set of humanoids, and they have people in plate armor in front and people in robes in the back, kill the ones in robes first. That's the most elementary of elementary rules of survival in any D&D world, just as it is in the real world, although the reasons differ slightly.
That's sorta only true if you think the people in robes are a threat. The rule of thumb should be to target whichever target is the highest threat but also is the most vulnerable. So, step 1. Determine what the NPC views as threat. Step 2, which of these threats is the most vulnerable.
Imagine a real world example say with tech from a thousand years back or whatever. You got your army, the enemy has theirs... infantry, cavalry, archers, but, strangely, they also seem to have a squad of dudes in robes with no armor or weapons of any kind whatsoever. You're determining how to split your forces to attack their respective positions. How much of your forces do you sent to take out the completely unarmored and unarmed guys? Is that REALLY where you're going to focus your effort? I mean, really? You know it isn't.
The archers are who you wanna delete, if you can. Why? Because they can do a good bit of damage to your forces but if you can get to them are super vulnerable.
Now... if those unarmed dudes in robes start shooting laser beams, balls of fire, and flying all over the place and teleporting around and summoning demons.. okay yeah, time to IMMEDIATELY reassess our priorities and pray god we survive this battle never underestimate dudes in robes again.
So, it'll depend on the NPCs themselves, who do they view as a threat? And do they think they can eliminate that threat?
You can generally assume anything fighting you rather than running away has been in a fight before and lived through it. That means anything not wearing armor doesn't need it, and anything not carrying a weapon doesn't need it. That makes it orders of magnitude more dangerous, not less.
Note also that if it has a greatsword, you know how it's probably going to murder you. An unarmed opponent is an unknown quantity, which is already more dangerous.
Regardless of enemy competency, you want to reduce enemy numbers as quickly as possible. It's at least plausible that the targets wearing less armor are easier to hit and therefore kill, which means you should try to hit and kill them. You always want to kill the easiest to kill targets first - use your context clues.
D&D only: spellcasters exist, and most of them don't wear plate. A fresh spellcaster is more dangerous than a fresh martial, because martials are better at endurance combat and spellcasters are better at burst combat. You need the spellcasters dead now - a martial "nova" might consist of a bucket of damage, but that spellcaster's nova can be a summon. Or worse.
In any D&D campaign, unless my character is fresh off the boat, if I'm fighting humanoids, I ask what my opponents are wearing, and then I try to kill the most naked first. It's a good policy, and it keeps me alive.
I'd generally agree with you if experience hadn't taught me it's just an easy excuse to say "because you look tough" so they attack someone "that looks weak". I've played in countless games this isn't ever an issue but also had a game where I played a super high AC character without any physical armor or even weapons, but enemies would conveniently avoid attacking him because he "looked weak" while not also attacking our paladin "Because he looked too tough". DM had enemies avoid attacking them after a few combats just as if they had achieved that high AC from wearing plate and carrying a shield to go attack... surprise surprise, the unarmored spellcaster behind them because "they looked weak". Yes, they were both unarmored, and unarmed. But enemies always just seemed to know which was low AC/HP and which wasn't.
Why? Probably the same reason DMs always do this sort of thing, they're adversarial. They're more concerned with a "difficult fight" at any costs and toss out realistic NPC choices as something their willing to give up on to make it happen.
.
Here's the thing... the NPCs are wrong. If a group of NPCs are going to fight the PCs, they've made an error in judgement somewhere. This is essentially a given, in D&D the assumption is that PCs win fights. NPCs aren't all just suicidal though, I'd imagine anyway... depending on the weird games you run I guess, but... in mine they're entering the fight with the goal of actually winning it. If they can't identify a way to do that immediately, then... what exactly is it they're planning on doing precisely? Now of course there are savage dumb attacking monsters, obviously. But we're talking intelligent enemies here. Intelligent enemies, sure, but who have not correctly evaluated this conflict's odds, if they had, they'd probably be trying to escape or flee.
So, really, it is a given that the NPCs are either over evaluating their own ability or under evaluating the PCs ability if they're electing to fight them. Probably a bit of both.
And this all ties back to the fact that a DM gets to decide these things. If the DM isn't sure if an enemy would try to bypass an armored target to get to a backlines character, why not just have it attack the tanky guy? It gives him the opportunity to excel. If there is a uncertainty, why not lean into the direction that makes your characters have great moments of doing what they were designed and built to do?
There really is nothing worse than building a character, sitting down at a new table, and having the DM just do everything in their power to prevent you from excelling in the way you built your character to succeed in. Or for it to gradually grow more adversarial as time goes on, that's almost even worse. I'm old enough to have sat at these kinds of tables too many times, and they just suck. They do exist and it is okay to call them out when they do. DMs are not immune from criticism when they act shitty to their players under some veil of authority. Just because they're allowed to choose the actions of NPCs doesn't make those good choices.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There really is nothing worse than building a character, sitting down at a new table, and having the DM just do everything in their power to prevent you from excelling in the way you built your character to succeed in. Or for it to gradually grow more adversarial as time goes on, that's almost even worse. I'm old enough to have sat at these kinds of tables too many times, and they just suck. They do exist and it is okay to call them out when they do. DMs are not immune from criticism when they act shitty to their players under some veil of authority. Just because they're allowed to choose the actions of NPCs doesn't make those good choices.
QFT. Particularly if they've made a strong build but not some sort of overwhelming cheesefest.
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.
Target a different party member, use intelligent creatures that would come up with tactics, and use legendary creatures. If you want to use creatures with a low to hit or spellcasters then just boost the numbers a bit--the CR of creatures is meant for the average party of 4 not the best paladin combo in a party of 4. Also don't get mad at the player this combo is so immensely fun but you need to force him to be supportive of the other players rather then the center of the party so entice him to take defensive stuff like sentinel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is this a Homebrew campaign? If so, maybe take some advice from other campaigns. We just finished The Storm King's Thunder and the enemies we fought would have no real problem challenging that Pally if it was on the merits of stats alone, they would have to play very intelligently to survive.
Sneak into it’s chamber and slit his throat while he’s sleeping.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
On the surface, this sounds like terrible advice buuuut...
This actually happened to our "high and mighty" group while we were camped in a wilderness area. We failed to detect lowly goblins on our late night watch and the DM said quite literally that a goblin tried to slit our Druids throat. A couple other took the auto crit for less damage from Incapacitated and Unconscious.
It depends on the context,
If the bandits come across a group of 4 travellng along the road 3 well armed and one without apparent armor or weapon (assuming the wizard doesn't have a large staff carved with arcane symbols) then yes they may assume it is a merchant or nobel travelling with an armed escort.
If the same group of individuals have come into the bandit base, and start attacking them it is clear the whole party are combatants and the one without armor will be a magic user.
I'm smiling. "Magic User" That was the name in the first edition of AD&D for what eventually came to be called a "Wizard" I'm sure what you meant would be "some kind of spell caster", which is essentially the same thing, so you're not incorrect, but it did made me smile.
<Insert clever signature here>
And you're saying that an intelligent enemy is going to sit there and attack a heavily shielded and armored foe even after seeing it easily divert attacks. In what world is it intelligent to attack something that you have an extremely low chance of hurting? You can describe your weapon as threateningly as you like, it's still doing 1d10+4 damage versus the rogue's 4d6+4 and the wizard's 8d6 fireball. Just having a weapon does not make you the outstanding threat you seem to think it does.
Now an enemy with an INT of 2? Yes, that may behave the way you're describing.
Also, it is absolutely not metagaming to assume that a Knight in full plate with a tower shield is harder to hit and tougher to take down than the frail elf in robes huddling behind a tree in the back line. Things like ability scores and AC are references to actual, observable traits of your characters that an intelligent creature can - and absolutely should - pick up on. That's like 80% of what makes it different from a non-intelligent creature.
Being a tank is a balancing act between being hard to hit and being enough of a threat to be unable to ignore. This is a good thing. It makes building tanks more interesting than just maxing AC and saving throws. This is not unique to 5e and it's far more realistic than the video game solution of just magically drawing attention to yourself.
And as for the OP, yes I would follow the above logic and intelligent monsters would just attempt to circumvent the paladin. Especially as they get up on into levels, characters begin to build a reputation that interested parties would be familiar with. Snakeface the Invulnerable would become well known amongst his knowledgable foes and they would plan and act accordingly. Take advantage of his limited maneuverability. Attack his weaker allies. Use things like hostages or political pressure or hazardous terrain.
In short, smart enemies need to behave as if they are smart. Dumb enemies? Let him shine, it's the schtick he's invested in.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Keep in mind, D&D is a group game. Sure the Paladin might be shrugging everything off but his allies won’t be able to do that casually.
Smart opponents will focus on the rest of the party and bypass him once they figure out that they’re not doing much damage to him. If they don’t do that, they’ll ignore the rest of the party and team up on him until they break through his defenses. Either way he will feel some pain, just not as much as a less tanky PC will feel.
Professional computer geek
Use the environment against the party. Resistance to drowning? How about gravity? Fighting in confined spaces? How do they do in the excessive heat of a desert or the blistering cold of a glacial field? I'd also reinforce that this is a group effort. You don't have to target the character in question for them to "loose" the encounter. Loosing party members also counts as a fail. Use opportunities like the Sphere of Annihilation And last but not least, I give you - Tucker's Kobolds. The only downfall, you'll have to be ruthless with the mechanic of choice, regardless of character or player.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Holy crap. The Tuckers Kobolds seems awesome, this is beside trying to challenge my paladin those kobolds just seems super cool.
Neighbor, I got just the thing for you. I hired them to take care of a job like that for me a while back, did a marvelous job. Lemme give ya their information, they’re called Kobolds. (Typically Kobolds don’t like their winged kin, but they’ve been known to make mechanical wings to strap on and fly around with.) First things first, drop everyone through some shoddy Kobold construction into a labyrinthine kobold warren. But no ordinary warren….
There are the Variant Kobolds in UA right now, you can swap some of them around to mix it up, so some of the more boss type creatures would loose G, C, & B; and Pact Tactics (and sensitivity), for draconian legacy and draconian roar. The Chief would be one of these. It would be a lower level spellcasters, but instead of a Sorcerer make him an Artificer, but use the old UA Artificer Alchemist instead to keep up with the “kobold inventor” schtick. Plus they won’t expect it if you do it right. And give this main boss a similar stat boost as a hobgoblin captain, and the Leadership trait too.
Really start to mix it up, Kobold cavalry! Consider a pack of Kobolds mounted on hyenas, vultures, or mountain goats. Maybe re-skin them as other animals if you like, something more reptilian perhaps, like homebrewed drake variants. And don’t forget a “giant” cave badger that is Large, has stat boost to match, burrows 20 ft, and when it pops out, out swarm the kobold badger headers. And an array of stuff like Alchemist's Fire, Acid, Acid, and various grenades should be dispersed among the Kobold Dragonshield that serve as officers. And don’t be afraid of using whips for kobolds who need reach, and give their spears finesse whenever the kobolds use them. It’s like a shortsword that turns into a two-handed rapier, hardly game breaking.
In my world I also treat Dragonborn as related to Kobolds just like Hobgoblins and Bugbears are related to Goblins. You could use some of them to add heavier shock troop types, cal them “mutated experiments” the inventor created. Basically bandits, thugs, and bandit captains with those UA Chromatic Dragonborn traits from the UA I linked above. Swap some weapons around so some can ha shield and spear or something, let some ride giant bats, giant lizard (variant), or giant toads.
After all of those bagillions of weenie attacks and saving against all of that non-magical stuff…. That Paladin will feel as if they have gone through a meat grinder.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
*Evil grin*
Escort quest.
Bear in mind that if you're selecting monsters based on CR appropriate to player level, then you will need to adjust that depending on things like player optimization, party size, magic items, etc. If your players are level 8, but far more powerful than your bog standard level 8 character, don't be afraid to throw a CR 11-13 monster their way. I assure you, 19 AC will not be a problem.
Alternately, focus on abilities/spells that still do damage even on a successful save. Fireball, Lightning Bolt, a dragon's breath weapon, etc. Even if they succeed in saving, they will take half damage that will prompt a concentration save on their buff spells which they still have a chance of failing.
Modify some monster stats and have one or two “leaders” with good attack bonus that focus on the paladin and some “minions” that attack the rest of the party so they don’t get overwhelmed but still challenged. Especially if the paladin is more optimized than the rest of the characters.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
All of these are possible. If you're really looking for specific creatures or spells to target this paladin with instead of going around him, consider the Rust Monster. They may not do a lot themselves but they could definitely hurt defensive and offensive capabilities going forward. Another option would be an upcasted Heat Metal spell on his armor. Why this? No save to prevent your armor from being effected or to halve the damage. If the enemy caster maintains concentration, the damage will keep coming in round after round and it will hurt. But IMO only do this if theres a good campaign reason for the enemies to have the spell and use it in this manner, dont just throw it in there to mess with one player.
Preach! DMs who think they're competing with their players suck. Let each character shine in the spotlight in their own way. When a player goes THIS far out of their way to make a tough and durable character, showcase that and let them excel at it.
Yeah, that's for sure annoying. Sounds like he was both being competitive and adversarial, but also metagaming his NPCs decisions. While some types of creatures might suicide run right past a clearly dangerous armed warrior, most wouldn't unless the situation specifically called for it or they were provoked.
Yeah absolutely. Until they start getting a bit too cocky about it, that is when the reality check encounter is due for an appearance. A reminder-fight that everyone is mortal and while well guarded they're not invulnerable. But again, only if things are getting way too much to their heads, otherwise, let them shine as a beefy tanky character.
I.. tend to take people's word for their lived experience. You didn't sit in on their games and you really have no idea what their DM did or how it played out. You're speaking from a place of pure ignorance and trying to tell them what did or did not happen in their game. You.. shouldn't.
As for your points, I generally disagree. They're all super metagamey.
So, just to be clear, they never question if the DM has the right to determine NPC actions. You're arguing against something no one is arguing for. You're making up something to argue against. DMs can make bad calls, and, honestly, unless you were in the game sitting next to them, I'm going to just take what their firsthand account of their games is like at face value instead of... well, whatever you're saying guy-who-wasn't-there.
Uh, nothing about what you're saying really touches on having a DM run monsters in a sensible way or not. Many DMs do metagame NPC decisions and sometimes that's for the better and sometimes not. Unless your argument is DMs are perfect flawless logic engines who perfectly model realistic decisions for all NPCs at all times every time... I have no idea why you're trying so hard to convince someone that their actual lived experience is invalid. Listen more, talk less. If they say their DM was making bad NPC choices, they very well might be right.
That's sorta only true if you think the people in robes are a threat. The rule of thumb should be to target whichever target is the highest threat but also is the most vulnerable. So, step 1. Determine what the NPC views as threat. Step 2, which of these threats is the most vulnerable.
Imagine a real world example say with tech from a thousand years back or whatever. You got your army, the enemy has theirs... infantry, cavalry, archers, but, strangely, they also seem to have a squad of dudes in robes with no armor or weapons of any kind whatsoever. You're determining how to split your forces to attack their respective positions. How much of your forces do you sent to take out the completely unarmored and unarmed guys? Is that REALLY where you're going to focus your effort? I mean, really? You know it isn't.
The archers are who you wanna delete, if you can. Why? Because they can do a good bit of damage to your forces but if you can get to them are super vulnerable.
Now... if those unarmed dudes in robes start shooting laser beams, balls of fire, and flying all over the place and teleporting around and summoning demons.. okay yeah, time to IMMEDIATELY reassess our priorities and pray god we survive this battle never underestimate dudes in robes again.
So, it'll depend on the NPCs themselves, who do they view as a threat? And do they think they can eliminate that threat?
I'd generally agree with you if experience hadn't taught me it's just an easy excuse to say "because you look tough" so they attack someone "that looks weak". I've played in countless games this isn't ever an issue but also had a game where I played a super high AC character without any physical armor or even weapons, but enemies would conveniently avoid attacking him because he "looked weak" while not also attacking our paladin "Because he looked too tough". DM had enemies avoid attacking them after a few combats just as if they had achieved that high AC from wearing plate and carrying a shield to go attack... surprise surprise, the unarmored spellcaster behind them because "they looked weak". Yes, they were both unarmored, and unarmed. But enemies always just seemed to know which was low AC/HP and which wasn't.
Why? Probably the same reason DMs always do this sort of thing, they're adversarial. They're more concerned with a "difficult fight" at any costs and toss out realistic NPC choices as something their willing to give up on to make it happen.
.
Here's the thing... the NPCs are wrong. If a group of NPCs are going to fight the PCs, they've made an error in judgement somewhere. This is essentially a given, in D&D the assumption is that PCs win fights. NPCs aren't all just suicidal though, I'd imagine anyway... depending on the weird games you run I guess, but... in mine they're entering the fight with the goal of actually winning it. If they can't identify a way to do that immediately, then... what exactly is it they're planning on doing precisely? Now of course there are savage dumb attacking monsters, obviously. But we're talking intelligent enemies here. Intelligent enemies, sure, but who have not correctly evaluated this conflict's odds, if they had, they'd probably be trying to escape or flee.
So, really, it is a given that the NPCs are either over evaluating their own ability or under evaluating the PCs ability if they're electing to fight them. Probably a bit of both.
And this all ties back to the fact that a DM gets to decide these things. If the DM isn't sure if an enemy would try to bypass an armored target to get to a backlines character, why not just have it attack the tanky guy? It gives him the opportunity to excel. If there is a uncertainty, why not lean into the direction that makes your characters have great moments of doing what they were designed and built to do?
There really is nothing worse than building a character, sitting down at a new table, and having the DM just do everything in their power to prevent you from excelling in the way you built your character to succeed in. Or for it to gradually grow more adversarial as time goes on, that's almost even worse. I'm old enough to have sat at these kinds of tables too many times, and they just suck. They do exist and it is okay to call them out when they do. DMs are not immune from criticism when they act shitty to their players under some veil of authority. Just because they're allowed to choose the actions of NPCs doesn't make those good choices.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
QFT. Particularly if they've made a strong build but not some sort of overwhelming cheesefest.
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.
Target a different party member, use intelligent creatures that would come up with tactics, and use legendary creatures. If you want to use creatures with a low to hit or spellcasters then just boost the numbers a bit--the CR of creatures is meant for the average party of 4 not the best paladin combo in a party of 4. Also don't get mad at the player this combo is so immensely fun but you need to force him to be supportive of the other players rather then the center of the party so entice him to take defensive stuff like sentinel.