Hello folks, I am in desperate need of help with the current situation for my character. Long story short, our tank left the group and that leaves me the only Melee capable character. (ignore the Inventory its just a notation thing since I lost my notepad) Character is: https://ddb.ac/characters/28098872/Rg6bWX
The Current Party Consists of a level 4 Kenku Rogue Inquititive Level 4 Lizard folk Cleric/ Trickster Domain Level 4 Human Variant Scorlock 2/2 Divine soul/ Celestial Patron
As it stands we just hit level 4 at the end of our current session. Before my character was a ranged attack and kiting Ranger with Archery Fighting style. Sharpshooter was going to be my default feat for level 4 so I put it in as a place holder. However I have become the meat shield of the group with a paltry 15 armor class. I am at a loss on how to progress. At 4th level I wanted Sharpshooter to enhance her amazing ranged abilities but that seems moot since I am only ever ranged for 1 round before I have to melee to prevent the rest of the team from being swarmed. At 5th level I was thinking of learning Healing Spirit to place on myself for that 1d6 for 3 rounds of regeneration as a sustain move and that includes the Extra Attack and Misty Step at level 5 as well.
My options for Multiclass are limited with my ability scores, except for Cleric, Druid, Monk( maybe unarmored defense?), Rogue.
Ah, so you don't have Sharpshooter yet? If you did, it would still be OK... Crossbow Expert can make Ranged Attacks fully viable in melee range, so it wouldn't be too late to save things and turn yourself into a melee Legolas. But if you don't have it yet, it's certainly a little easier... your build is just fine for a melee TWF.
Fey Warden seems like its OK with two weapon fighting, since its bonus damage enhancement can be done as part of a Bonus Action TWF attack. That actually still sucks a little, because it means your first attack will happen without enhancement - you can't make a TWF bonus action attack until you've already made at least one regular attack action attack. But Attack Action Attack 1-Bonus TWF jAttack with enhance-Attack Action Attack 2 with enhance is ok, considering each enemy can only take the ehanced damage once. So that lets you apply it to two critters per round, the same as a single weapon melee ranger would be doing.
Wearing medium armor puts you at up to AC 17 with stealth disadvantage, or AC 16 without. Taking Dual Wielder would make that AC 18 with poor stealth, or AC 17 with good stealth. Medium Armor Master would bring you up to AC 19 with good stealth. AC 17 is "par" for armor in 5E, so 18 or 19 is certainly not bad. But those feats will slow down your ability to be taking +2 Dex ASI, which you probably are wanting to do.
Multiclassing into Fighter for 6+ levels is one option to alleviate that, to start picking up more ASI than you would have as a pure ranger. As an EK you wouldn't necessarily be sacrificing spell slot progression much, though your ability to select higher level Ranger spells would suffer. As a Battlemaster your spell progression would freeze, but Maneuvers can do a lot of work for spell-like control or damage enhancement effects.
But if turning into a Fighter isn't your preference, it only takes two levels of Cleric to pick up Heavy Armor proficiency. Forge, Life, Nature, Order, Tempest, [Twilight UA], War... lots of choices to pick from, and your ASI already permit it. That would sacrifice Stealth, at least until you can find a set of Mithril Plate.
You're also still full capable of pivoting to Monk: it won't help your AC in the short run, but with ASI's continually pumped into Dex and Wisdom, you'll eventually be hitting 18-20 by third tier. Long Death monks are very tanky, but all Monks have good AC and good damage mitigation from Evasion and Dodge Arrows.
Finally, I don't feel like Druids are that tanky in middle tiers, unless you've got some barbarian levels under your belt or Monk levels and very high wisdom. I think at this point, building for that is a trap, especially since Beast forms will have NO synergy with your Ranger levels.
So the options as I see them are:
Stay a Ranger, but lean into Two Weapon Fighting by taking Dual Wielder at 4 for a little bit of quick AC. After that, balance +2 Dex vs. Medium Armor Master at 8, 12, and 16 depending on how you think things are going.
Stay a Ranger for 4, but then take Fighter 5-10 to pick up one extra ASI. After that, consider whether you want to go back to Ranger, or keep with Fighter.
Multi into Cleric at 4 and 5, to pick up Heavy Armor Proficiency as soon as possible. Then abandon it, and go back to Ranger, playing as a TWF (see bullet 1 above, but no need for Medium Armor Master, and maybe not for Dual Wielder depending on what weapons you want to use)
Stay a Ranger for 4 (+2 Dex), but then multi into Monk (Long Death, or whatever) for 11-14 levels.
It sounds like you don't want to play your character as "a meat shield" and a ranger that has specialised in range combat isn't going to be great at that anyway.
I suggest taking to the DM and group about it, outside of the game session.
It's also worth noting that an adventuring group doesn't need a "tank" in the way that you do in an MMO video game. You can just use alternative tactics.
(I don't know why I got fixated on TWF and feats. Just use a shield and wear medium armor, and you're already up to AC 19 with Stealth disadvantage, or AC 18 with good stealth. Even easier.)
Thank you! I was looking at what my options were before posting this, and some of these things I totally overlooked! And without adding another reply to your second post, I was thinking of foregoing the TWF and hopefully having enough gold soon to obtain the breast plate and a decent shield for that build.
Its true, I don't want to play her like that. It is totally out of character for her and goes against her background as well.
I have spoken to the group about working differently, but there has been no change in how combat works. It starts and then they all run behind me and attack from a far and throw bonus actions to heal me before they run out and I hit the ground. Then someone comes close enough for a cure wounds as I am flanked to all get out.
I should note that all of our combat except 2 instances have been underground where my only light source has the range of a torch.
I spoke to the DM even and he told me some anecdotes about flexibility, compromises, and many instances where his players and own characters diverge from their path.
Pick up the new dueling fighting style feat as your level 4 feat and wear medium armour and shield. That would give you an AC of 18, and an attack with a rapier of 1d8 +5 damage. Alternatively you could forgo the shield and take the two weapon fighting style instead giving AC 16 and 2 attacks of 1d8 +3 and 1d6 +3. Either would be okay, especially when using hunter's mark.
Ranged attacks in the dark if you don't have dark vision are going to be pretty limited anyway, and with +7 to hit I would imaging that you would be missing almost as much as you are hitting as you have disadvantage on attacks between 20-40 feet (Dim light) and can't target anything further away than that - meaning at most a single round of ranged combat before the enemy move into melee range.
I personally would just play two characters. That's what I'm doing right now actually. Nobody wanted to play a Cleric, except me. Nobody wanted to play a Fighter, except me. The DM didn't complain, the other players didn't complain. I didn't have to play anything I didn't want to play.
I would suggest talking with the other players and leveling up together, as a group. Plan strategies that will work around the lack of a tank in the group so that you all have fun without sticking your character out in front to die in every combat.
I'm thinking that as a group you can find creative solutions to control your opponents without needing a tank. Even simple caltrops combined with a hit and run style of combat where the group of you are always retreating as a group to stay out of melee is effective!
In the group I'm in, our 5 player group of level 3 characters consists of a fighter, a cleric, a wizard, a monk, and my chainpact warlock. The monk plays more like a rogue, and the cleric isn't perfect as the #2 frontline. We have rotated who goes with the fighter and it could be anyone but the wizard. Not ideal, but it has made for evolving tactics as its usually whoever is int he best shape at the moment.
Know who the best tank in your party would be? The Cleric.
Have to agree with Swift here.
With Mirror Image capability and an additional duplicate from the Trickster domain, the cleric needs to step up and not get hit.
Every fight disengage and run behind the cleric until they get the point. The cleric can easily have 16 AC plus Mirror Image plus a duplicate from Trickster. A perfectly viable tank especially when considering they can heal themselves.
I wanna toss in another vote on the Cleric taking on the tank role, when necessary. Ideally you would try to focus on combat that doesn't rely on a tank, but if you need someone up front soaking up hits, your Cleric is built for it better than your Ranger would be.
No they aren’t. Clerics have to concentrate for the sake of the group, rangers only for their own DPR. He’ll make a fine tank in Half Plate with a shield, even better with MAM or Tough.
No they aren’t. Clerics have to concentrate for the sake of the group, rangers only for their own DPR. He’ll make a fine tank in Half Plate with a shield, even better with MAM or Tough.
If he wanted half plate and a shield he'd be doing it.
A cleric is a far better option for a tank, and a trickster cleric could do so without even being hit.
And if the cleric wanted to tank, they'd be doing it. We're not talking about "want," it's already been established that if ceropio doesn't want to tank, they don't have to, and the party is capable of performing without one. But to the extent that we're discussing which character could most easily perform that function, it's the Ranger who has no job other than being in combat, not the cleric who also has responsibility for healing, control spells, and maintaining concentration. A properly armored melee ranger never needs to decide between staying in melee range with an enemy and something 'more important,' while a cleric may very well have to face difficult decisions in that respect in every combat.
And if the cleric wanted to tank, they'd be doing it. We're not talking about "want," it's already been established that if ceropio doesn't want to tank, they don't have to, and the party is capable of performing without one. But to the extent that we're discussing which character could most easily perform that function, it's the Ranger who has no job other than being in combat, not the cleric who also has responsibility for healing, control spells, and maintaining concentration. A properly armored melee ranger never needs to decide between staying in melee range with an enemy and something 'more important,' while a cleric may very well have to face difficult decisions in that respect in every combat.
You are failing to take into account the OP's party comp. They have a sorc/lock with Divine Soul/Celestial build. Plenty of healing for a party of 4 with a ranger that can dip into some healing as well. The cleric is able to heal themselves as well. Combined with the Mirror Image and Trickster copy the cleric is clearly the better option for a tank over a ranged DPS build Ranger. So the "responsibility" for healing is kinda spread out in this group and not just on the cleric.
No they aren’t. Clerics have to concentrate for the sake of the group, rangers only for their own DPR. He’ll make a fine tank in Half Plate with a shield, even better with MAM or Tough.
So for a party that is level 4 the only really effective concentration spells for combat a cleric has are Bless and Bane. They have many other concentration spells but those are not really effective in combat (plus you can't have more than 1 up). Unless of course, you want to make the cleric an even better tank with Shield of Faith on top of Mirror Image plus trickster copy.
Hunter's Mark is also concentration and is needed for the ranger to help the party by doing more damage. So the ranger should not be in front by your logic as well since they need to maintain concentration to assist the party.
In general, I would agree with you CC. The cleric does not need to be upfront.
For the specific party described by the OP, the Ranger that wants to be a ranged damage build does not make a better tank then the Trickster Cleric. The ranger can grab a shield and get heavier armor and get some drawbacks on some things they might want to use like Stealth (Unless they sac an ASI for Medium Armor Master-which the cleric wouldn't need to). The cleric possibly already has the armor and can do much more to be a better tank than the ranger.
And mechanics-wise Rangers are just weak in 5e. Compared to other classes they fall behind. It is why they are one of the least played classes according to metrics in DDB's YT videos and it is why Wizards of the Coast actually wrote an apology letter in the form of an updated sub-class pdf for them. So when the question comes up what can do it better a Ranger or _____.
It's entirely possible to build a melee Ranger able to take solid hits. However, that's not the situation. The Ranger in question was built with ranged attacking in mind, and has now been shoehorned into the role of tanking.
I do agree that the Cleric should give it a go at being the frontliner, but to say that all Clerics make great frontliners is not true. Like the Ranger, it depends on how they are built. Trickery Domain is one of those that can go several different directions. Without seeing that character sheet, there's no definitive way to say if they'd be better suited to tanking than the Ranger.
Personally, I think the problem is that we don't necessarily need a "Tank" for 5e. So logically neither the Ranger or Cleric needs to be treated as the dedicated tank for all encounters. But when things go bad, the logical people to step up would be the Ranger or the Cleric. I don't think either of them needs to be "The Tank", but I think it would make sense for both players to be ready to interpose themselves between the enemies and their allies when necessary.
That said, I also feel that, on average, the Cleric will be better suited for this job. Trickery gives a lot of "dodge-tank" options that other clerics lack, and a Cleric is generally less-troubled by carrying a shield, since the Ranger is most likely relying on a longbow, which is a two-handed weapon.
Hello folks, I am in desperate need of help with the current situation for my character.
Long story short, our tank left the group and that leaves me the only Melee capable character. (ignore the Inventory its just a notation thing since I lost my notepad)
Character is: https://ddb.ac/characters/28098872/Rg6bWX
The Current Party Consists of a level 4 Kenku Rogue Inquititive
Level 4 Lizard folk Cleric/ Trickster Domain
Level 4 Human Variant Scorlock 2/2 Divine soul/ Celestial Patron
As it stands we just hit level 4 at the end of our current session. Before my character was a ranged attack and kiting Ranger with Archery Fighting style. Sharpshooter was going to be my default feat for level 4 so I put it in as a place holder.
However I have become the meat shield of the group with a paltry 15 armor class.
I am at a loss on how to progress. At 4th level I wanted Sharpshooter to enhance her amazing ranged abilities but that seems moot since I am only ever ranged for 1 round before I have to melee to prevent the rest of the team from being swarmed. At 5th level I was thinking of learning Healing Spirit to place on myself for that 1d6 for 3 rounds of regeneration as a sustain move and that includes the Extra Attack and Misty Step at level 5 as well.
My options for Multiclass are limited with my ability scores, except for Cleric, Druid, Monk( maybe unarmored defense?), Rogue.
Any advice or suggestions are welcome!
Ah, so you don't have Sharpshooter yet? If you did, it would still be OK... Crossbow Expert can make Ranged Attacks fully viable in melee range, so it wouldn't be too late to save things and turn yourself into a melee Legolas. But if you don't have it yet, it's certainly a little easier... your build is just fine for a melee TWF.
Fey Warden seems like its OK with two weapon fighting, since its bonus damage enhancement can be done as part of a Bonus Action TWF attack. That actually still sucks a little, because it means your first attack will happen without enhancement - you can't make a TWF bonus action attack until you've already made at least one regular attack action attack. But Attack Action Attack 1-Bonus TWF jAttack with enhance-Attack Action Attack 2 with enhance is ok, considering each enemy can only take the ehanced damage once. So that lets you apply it to two critters per round, the same as a single weapon melee ranger would be doing.
Wearing medium armor puts you at up to AC 17 with stealth disadvantage, or AC 16 without. Taking Dual Wielder would make that AC 18 with poor stealth, or AC 17 with good stealth. Medium Armor Master would bring you up to AC 19 with good stealth. AC 17 is "par" for armor in 5E, so 18 or 19 is certainly not bad. But those feats will slow down your ability to be taking +2 Dex ASI, which you probably are wanting to do.
Multiclassing into Fighter for 6+ levels is one option to alleviate that, to start picking up more ASI than you would have as a pure ranger. As an EK you wouldn't necessarily be sacrificing spell slot progression much, though your ability to select higher level Ranger spells would suffer. As a Battlemaster your spell progression would freeze, but Maneuvers can do a lot of work for spell-like control or damage enhancement effects.
But if turning into a Fighter isn't your preference, it only takes two levels of Cleric to pick up Heavy Armor proficiency. Forge, Life, Nature, Order, Tempest, [Twilight UA], War... lots of choices to pick from, and your ASI already permit it. That would sacrifice Stealth, at least until you can find a set of Mithril Plate.
You're also still full capable of pivoting to Monk: it won't help your AC in the short run, but with ASI's continually pumped into Dex and Wisdom, you'll eventually be hitting 18-20 by third tier. Long Death monks are very tanky, but all Monks have good AC and good damage mitigation from Evasion and Dodge Arrows.
Finally, I don't feel like Druids are that tanky in middle tiers, unless you've got some barbarian levels under your belt or Monk levels and very high wisdom. I think at this point, building for that is a trap, especially since Beast forms will have NO synergy with your Ranger levels.
So the options as I see them are:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersIt sounds like you don't want to play your character as "a meat shield" and a ranger that has specialised in range combat isn't going to be great at that anyway.
I suggest taking to the DM and group about it, outside of the game session.
It's also worth noting that an adventuring group doesn't need a "tank" in the way that you do in an MMO video game. You can just use alternative tactics.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
(I don't know why I got fixated on TWF and feats. Just use a shield and wear medium armor, and you're already up to AC 19 with Stealth disadvantage, or AC 18 with good stealth. Even easier.)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Thank you! I was looking at what my options were before posting this, and some of these things I totally overlooked! And without adding another reply to your second post, I was thinking of foregoing the TWF and hopefully having enough gold soon to obtain the breast plate and a decent shield for that build.
Its true, I don't want to play her like that. It is totally out of character for her and goes against her background as well.
I have spoken to the group about working differently, but there has been no change in how combat works. It starts and then they all run behind me and attack from a far and throw bonus actions to heal me before they run out and I hit the ground. Then someone comes close enough for a cure wounds as I am flanked to all get out.
I should note that all of our combat except 2 instances have been underground where my only light source has the range of a torch.
I spoke to the DM even and he told me some anecdotes about flexibility, compromises, and many instances where his players and own characters diverge from their path.
Sounds like your group could benefit from having a Sidekick Warrior added to it.
Pick up the new dueling fighting style feat as your level 4 feat and wear medium armour and shield. That would give you an AC of 18, and an attack with a rapier of 1d8 +5 damage. Alternatively you could forgo the shield and take the two weapon fighting style instead giving AC 16 and 2 attacks of 1d8 +3 and 1d6 +3. Either would be okay, especially when using hunter's mark.
Ranged attacks in the dark if you don't have dark vision are going to be pretty limited anyway, and with +7 to hit I would imaging that you would be missing almost as much as you are hitting as you have disadvantage on attacks between 20-40 feet (Dim light) and can't target anything further away than that - meaning at most a single round of ranged combat before the enemy move into melee range.
I personally would just play two characters. That's what I'm doing right now actually. Nobody wanted to play a Cleric, except me. Nobody wanted to play a Fighter, except me. The DM didn't complain, the other players didn't complain. I didn't have to play anything I didn't want to play.
I would suggest talking with the other players and leveling up together, as a group. Plan strategies that will work around the lack of a tank in the group so that you all have fun without sticking your character out in front to die in every combat.
I'm thinking that as a group you can find creative solutions to control your opponents without needing a tank. Even simple caltrops combined with a hit and run style of combat where the group of you are always retreating as a group to stay out of melee is effective!
Professional computer geek
Your fellow players sound a pain.
Know who the best tank in your party would be? The Cleric.
In the group I'm in, our 5 player group of level 3 characters consists of a fighter, a cleric, a wizard, a monk, and my chainpact warlock. The monk plays more like a rogue, and the cleric isn't perfect as the #2 frontline. We have rotated who goes with the fighter and it could be anyone but the wizard. Not ideal, but it has made for evolving tactics as its usually whoever is int he best shape at the moment.
Have to agree with Swift here.
With Mirror Image capability and an additional duplicate from the Trickster domain, the cleric needs to step up and not get hit.
Every fight disengage and run behind the cleric until they get the point. The cleric can easily have 16 AC plus Mirror Image plus a duplicate from Trickster. A perfectly viable tank especially when considering they can heal themselves.
I wanna toss in another vote on the Cleric taking on the tank role, when necessary. Ideally you would try to focus on combat that doesn't rely on a tank, but if you need someone up front soaking up hits, your Cleric is built for it better than your Ranger would be.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
No they aren’t. Clerics have to concentrate for the sake of the group, rangers only for their own DPR. He’ll make a fine tank in Half Plate with a shield, even better with MAM or Tough.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If he wanted half plate and a shield he'd be doing it.
A cleric is a far better option for a tank, and a trickster cleric could do so without even being hit.
And if the cleric wanted to tank, they'd be doing it. We're not talking about "want," it's already been established that if ceropio doesn't want to tank, they don't have to, and the party is capable of performing without one. But to the extent that we're discussing which character could most easily perform that function, it's the Ranger who has no job other than being in combat, not the cleric who also has responsibility for healing, control spells, and maintaining concentration. A properly armored melee ranger never needs to decide between staying in melee range with an enemy and something 'more important,' while a cleric may very well have to face difficult decisions in that respect in every combat.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are failing to take into account the OP's party comp. They have a sorc/lock with Divine Soul/Celestial build. Plenty of healing for a party of 4 with a ranger that can dip into some healing as well. The cleric is able to heal themselves as well. Combined with the Mirror Image and Trickster copy the cleric is clearly the better option for a tank over a ranged DPS build Ranger. So the "responsibility" for healing is kinda spread out in this group and not just on the cleric.
So for a party that is level 4 the only really effective concentration spells for combat a cleric has are Bless and Bane. They have many other concentration spells but those are not really effective in combat (plus you can't have more than 1 up). Unless of course, you want to make the cleric an even better tank with Shield of Faith on top of Mirror Image plus trickster copy.
Hunter's Mark is also concentration and is needed for the ranger to help the party by doing more damage. So the ranger should not be in front by your logic as well since they need to maintain concentration to assist the party.
In general, I would agree with you CC. The cleric does not need to be upfront.
For the specific party described by the OP, the Ranger that wants to be a ranged damage build does not make a better tank then the Trickster Cleric. The ranger can grab a shield and get heavier armor and get some drawbacks on some things they might want to use like Stealth (Unless they sac an ASI for Medium Armor Master-which the cleric wouldn't need to). The cleric possibly already has the armor and can do much more to be a better tank than the ranger.
And mechanics-wise Rangers are just weak in 5e. Compared to other classes they fall behind. It is why they are one of the least played classes according to metrics in DDB's YT videos and it is why Wizards of the Coast actually wrote an apology letter in the form of an updated sub-class pdf for them. So when the question comes up what can do it better a Ranger or _____.
______ normally wins.
It's entirely possible to build a melee Ranger able to take solid hits. However, that's not the situation. The Ranger in question was built with ranged attacking in mind, and has now been shoehorned into the role of tanking.
I do agree that the Cleric should give it a go at being the frontliner, but to say that all Clerics make great frontliners is not true. Like the Ranger, it depends on how they are built. Trickery Domain is one of those that can go several different directions. Without seeing that character sheet, there's no definitive way to say if they'd be better suited to tanking than the Ranger.
Personally, I think the problem is that we don't necessarily need a "Tank" for 5e. So logically neither the Ranger or Cleric needs to be treated as the dedicated tank for all encounters. But when things go bad, the logical people to step up would be the Ranger or the Cleric. I don't think either of them needs to be "The Tank", but I think it would make sense for both players to be ready to interpose themselves between the enemies and their allies when necessary.
That said, I also feel that, on average, the Cleric will be better suited for this job. Trickery gives a lot of "dodge-tank" options that other clerics lack, and a Cleric is generally less-troubled by carrying a shield, since the Ranger is most likely relying on a longbow, which is a two-handed weapon.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium