Abusing AL Character Rebuild Thought Experiment

[PeteNutButter]

As many of you know in Adventurer's League (AL) you can freely change your character up to level 5, switching pretty much everything but their name. So naturally as good cheesy gamers we need to abuse the **** out of this. I mean how can use this to help make poor character designs live to level 5.

The idea is that you can ignore later levels and build a character that peeks at whatever level you are playing at 1-4. So no need to even have a wizard in the party. It can be fun to play a build that would never be playable(or at least gimped) past its certain level.

My first instinct is to go all clerics and barbarians for maximum staying power. AL is pretty combat focused so that's where these builds must shine. Most builds will likely be variant human for that feat, at least until level 4. Here are some ideas what I got so far:

Level 1:
War cleric 16 str, con, and wis with heavy armor mastery. Good tank and damage output. DR 3/magic is as good or better than resistance at low levels. Could attack 2 times a round 3 times a day with a greatsword. All that and he can heal.
Life Cleric with magic initiate goodberry is a pretty solid level 1 healer.

level 2:
Moon Druid 2
Barb 1/Fighter 1 TWFing with Dual Wielder feat is a potential 2d8+10 damage a round, plus resistance and a half decent AC 17.

level 3:
Moon Druid 2/Barb 1 Raging Bear
Assassin Rogue
Berserker Barb could be good here
Darkness spamming warlock w appropriate invocations
Fighter 1/Bladesinger 2 TWF again w Dual Wielder gives AC 19 or 20 w mage armor when singing, plus shield spell makes you practically immune to being hit. Dealing a potential 2d8+6 damage around without any buffs.

Level 4:
Barbarian or Fighter with GWM and Polearm Master
Mounted Combat DW lances cheese
Sorcerer 3/Monk 1 You could dump (13) wis and still have a 16 AC, cast alter self to grow claws as +1 weapons that do 1d6. That's 2 or 3(flurry) attacks a round +6 to hit dealing 1d6+4 each. Not great but fun.

Level 5:
You're a wizard, Harry. Or whatever else you want to be, but you'd better be sure.

What other builds can you guys come up with that peak or have peaks at one of these low levels?

Disclaimer: This is a thought experiment. Petenutbutter does not condone or encourage abusing the AL rules to this extent in legal play. It is recommended you discuss any character changes switches with your group or DM prior to using this rule. If you as a DM find that a player in your group is abusing this rule in your opinion it is recommended that you talk with that player and explain how his or her play is disrupting the group.

[Elfcrusher]

This doesn't really impact what you're talking about, but current AL rules say that when you rebuild you lose all your gold and magic items. I don't believe that was the case originally, because in the Tiamat campaign there were items like Headband of Intellect (19 INT) and Gauntlets of Ogre Power (19 STR) available, and people were making posts about rebuild with an 8 in those stats.

Did they change the rule to prevent that abuse, or did people just not notice it?

[PeteNutButter]

This doesn't really impact what you're talking about, but current AL rules say that when you rebuild you lose all your gold and magic items. I don't believe that was the case originally, because in the Tiamat campaign there were items like Headband of Intellect (19 INT) and Gauntlets of Ogre Power (19 STR) available, and people were making posts about rebuild with an 8 in those stats.

Did they change the rule to prevent that abuse, or did people just not notice it?

Can you post a link? Last I read you keep what you have. Is this the current rule?

[coredump]

This doesn't really impact what you're talking about, but current AL rules say that when you rebuild you lose all your gold and magic items. I don't believe that was the case originally, because in the Tiamat campaign there were items like Headband of Intellect (19 INT) and Gauntlets of Ogre Power (19 STR) available, and people were making posts about rebuild with an 8 in those stats.

Did they change the rule to prevent that abuse, or did people just not notice it?

I don't know who told you that, but you have been grossly misinformed.


As for the OP concept. I find it a repugnant abuse of the spirit of the AL rules. Those rules are in place for new people to experiment with choices, and to fix any 'mistakes'. They are not meant to cherry pick the most OP build at each level. If someone like that showed up at my table, they would just happen to die each and every session. Oddly enough, my doing that is *also* 'technically legal', yet an abuse of the spirit of the rules. So it seems kind of like poetic justice to me.

[Elfcrusher]

I don't know who told you that, but you have been grossly misinformed.

Huh? Oh...yup. I just re-read the rules and some how I read "lose" where it says "keep". Funny, I must have already had the idea that you lose them to mis-read it that badly.

Well that's actually a relief. Because I have a level 3 Paladin I'm not using with Headband of Intellect....

[PeteNutButter]

I don't know who told you that, but you have been grossly misinformed.
As for the OP concept. I find it a repugnant abuse of the spirit of the AL rules. Those rules are in place for new people to experiment with choices, and to fix any 'mistakes'. They are not meant to cherry pick the most OP build at each level. If someone like that showed up at my table, they would just happen to die each and every session. Oddly enough, my doing that is *also* 'technically legal', yet an abuse of the spirit of the rules. So it seems kind of like poetic justice to me.

For starters I am much more likely to rebuild my character to play fun builds like the clawing sorcerer monk than silly OP builds at each level. This is more of a thought experiment than anything else.

But what do you mean "happen to die?" If you mean the monsters focus that PC, then bring it on. But if you mean a rock falls and you die... that's just poor DMing.

You also have to take into consideration who you are playing with. If the players and DM are more RP focused then changing anything about your character doesn't fit with the game. If you are playing with a player killer DM who would focus your level 1 wizard in a heartbeat and murder him, then it is appropriate to bust out this trick in the unstoppable arms race of cheese.

Also consider the adventures you are playing. If it is a bunch of one-offs continuity doesn't really matter. If you are playing a campaign book, it can be disruptive to the game if you are suddenly a different race/class.

Where do you draw the line? Would it be so cheesy to start out with the tough feat on your wizard and switch it once you hit level 5? How about going from being a hill dwarf to a human? Changing classes altogether?

[PeteNutButter]

Huh? Oh...yup. I just re-read the rules and some how I read "lose" where it says "keep". Funny, I must have already had the idea that you lose them to mis-read it that badly.

Well that's actually a relief. Because I have a level 3 Paladin I'm not using with Headband of Intellect....

Sounds like a hill dwarf wizard to me. :smallbiggrin:

Really you don't gain that much by dumping int. 15 max in each other stat isn't really helping a wizard. Maybe a barbarian bladesinger. By the time you get an 18 con its better than mage armor.

[Elfcrusher]

Sounds like a hill dwarf wizard to me. :smallbiggrin:

Really you don't gain that much by dumping int. 15 max in each other stat isn't really helping a wizard. Maybe a barbarian bladesinger. By the time you get an 18 con its better than mage armor.

Oh, I still wouldn't dump Int, but I'd leave it at 16.

If I had a player who rebuilt a Wizard with 8 INT and Headband of Intellect, I'd probably make something "happen" to the headband sometime after level 5. For the reasons coredump mentions.

[PeteNutButter]

Oh, I still wouldn't dump Int, but I'd leave it at 16.

If I had a player who rebuilt a Wizard with 8 INT and Headband of Intellect, I'd probably make something "happen" to the headband sometime after level 5. For the reasons coredump mentions.

I'd go 14 int. And relish the chance to play a wizard as a race that doesn't give a bonus to int, and can still cast as good as a human gnome or elf. At least until they get a 20.

[Douche]

Where do you draw the line? Would it be so cheesy to start out with the tough feat on your wizard and switch it once you hit level 5? How about going from being a hill dwarf to a human? Changing classes altogether?

I think the line gets drawn when people realize you show up every week with a completely respecced character just because you want to be the strongest at every possible level, instead of having peaks and valleys like any normal person.

It's totally fine if you decide that you don't wanna play a barbarian after 2 sessions, or if you decided to change your archetype... but doing something different every week would annoy the DM, at the least. Get you killed or kicked out, at the worst.

[PeteNutButter]

I think the line gets drawn when people realize you show up every week with a completely respecced character just because you want to be the strongest at every possible level, instead of having peaks and valleys like any normal person.
It's totally fine if you decide that you don't wanna play a barbarian after 2 sessions, or if you decided to change your archetype... but doing something different every week would annoy the DM, at the least. Get you killed or kicked out, at the worst.

I don't see the issue. Some people like to build characters, myself included. If the rules allow for me to play pretty much a different character each adventure, it's no different than having a different player sit down at the table. Why should you hate on the player who likes to do different things? The game is for fun.

In the end, time at the first tier of play should pale in comparison to the rest of playtime. If you as a DM have a problem with that talk to the player about it. Explain that you think it's disruptive to the game and most people won't be jerks about it. Even if they are, the problem fixes itself in 4 short levels.

Don't passive aggressively kill their character. That is just a fine example of bad DMing.

[coredump]

But what do you mean "happen to die?" If you mean the monsters focus that PC, then bring it on. But if you mean a rock falls and you die... that's just poor DMing. It means that PC will end up dying just about every session. Maybe it will be some lucky crits, maybe monsters focus firing, maybe a really danger trap. Is it bad DMing? Maybe... but "Its legal".... which seems to be your defense of continually taking advantage of the AL rules in a way they were never intended.


If you are playing with a player killer DM who would focus your level 1 wizard in a heartbeat and murder him, then it is appropriate to bust out this trick in the unstoppable arms race of cheese. sounds more like you are trying to find ways to rationalize your decision. Since you have never mentioned having a 'killer DM'.


Where do you draw the line? Would it be so cheesy to start out with the tough feat on your wizard and switch it once you hit level 5? How about going from being a hill dwarf to a human? Changing classes altogether?Thats easy. If you sincerely want to play a certain character, class, race, feat, whatever, but upon trying it for a few levels decide it just isn't what you wanted.... then change away. That was the intent and reasoning for the rules. If you are purposely and knowingly making choices that you intend on changing because 'you can and its legal'. Then that is over the line.


If the rules allow for me.... No one has said it is against the letter of the rules, just the spirit. It is, IMO, a blatant abuse of the rules that were intended to help new people, or people earnestly trying something new. But as you say... "If the rules allow the DM to arbitrarily kill the PC...."



to play pretty much a different character each adventure, it's no different than having a different player sit down at the table. Yes, yes it is different... it is very different. One is abusing the rules, one is not.


Don't passive aggressively kill their character. That is just a fine example of bad DMing.1) There will be nothing 'passive' about it. 2) It may be 'bad', but it is 'legal'....... just like abusing the rebuilding rules. That is not a coincidence....

[PeteNutButter]

It means that PC will end up dying just about every session. Maybe it will be some lucky crits, maybe monsters focus firing, maybe a really danger trap. Is it bad DMing? Maybe... but "Its legal".... which seems to be your defense of continually taking advantage of the AL rules in a way they were never intended.

Yes it is legal for DMs to "cheat," but is frowned upon in many gaming groups.



sounds more like you are trying to find ways to rationalize your decision. Since you have never mentioned having a 'killer DM'.

What decision? I said before this is a thought experiment. Not a plan. And yes at least one of the DMs I play with is a Killer DM.



Thats easy. If you sincerely want to play a certain character, class, race, feat, whatever, but upon trying it for a few levels decide it just isn't what you wanted.... then change away. That was the intent and reasoning for the rules. If you are purposely and knowingly making choices that you intend on changing because 'you can and its legal'. Then that is over the line.
No one has said it is against the letter of the rules, just the spirit. It is, IMO, a blatant abuse of the rules that were intended to help new people, or people earnestly trying something new. But as you say... "If the rules allow the DM to arbitrarily kill the PC...." Yes, yes it is different... it is very different. One is abusing the rules, one is not.

In my opinion you would have to significantly gain something to be abusing the rules. None of my proposed builds would any more overpowered than a normal 1-20 build. That's part of the way 5e works. It's hard to gimp your character. Hence the thought experiment of what in theory could be done to take advantage of this rule. To have fun with it, if it doesn't disrupt the game. It's just a chance to play something that I don't have to be stuck with. It's like I want to try new things without having to stick to it... like the intent of the rules. It's a chance to make a character that isn't the best later, and not have to regret it for the rest of the character's career.



1) There will be nothing 'passive' about it. 2) It may be 'bad', but it is 'legal'....... just like abusing the rebuilding rules. That is not a coincidence....

I can't even argue with that. It's just a **** move. Things like this break up whole groups. One of my best groups I ever played in completely shattered when the DM did a **** move and killed a PC out of spite. It's just plain juvenile. At the end of the day if you can't handle DMing AL. Don't play AL. Play home brew.

What I actually intend to do with my next character is be a barbarian fighter TWF, so I can have the fighting style. Then at level 5, drop the fighter level for a bit so I'm not behind on extra attack. TWF sucks, but I want to do it for flavor reasons, while not wanting to be weak for doing so. Abuse? Debatable. But if the DM and the rest of the party are ok with it/doing similiar tactics then whats it matter? Why the hate?

Let me know if you are ever DMing a con so I give your table a miss.

[HoarsHalberd]

I can't even argue with that. It's just a **** move. Things like this break up whole groups. One of my best groups I ever played in completely shattered when the DM did a **** move and killed a PC out of spite. It's just plain juvenile. At the end of the day if you can't handle DMing AL. Don't play AL. Play home brew.

What I actually intend to do with my next character is be a barbarian fighter TWF, so I can have the fighting style. Then at level 5, drop the fighter level for a bit so I'm not behind on extra attack. TWF sucks, but I want to do it for flavor reasons, while not wanting to be weak for doing so. Abuse? Debatable. But if the DM and the rest of the party are ok with it/doing similiar tactics then whats it matter? Why the hate?

Let me know if you are ever DMing a con so I give your table a miss.

You never said that was your intent. At the beginning of the thread you were talking about the most monstrously cheesy ways to game the system. Going from cleric to druid to barbarian to -whatever- in order to negate the challenge of the game. And you were responded to in an appropriate manner. A player doing this is every bit as bad as a DM going: "Rocks Fall, a specific player dies." Worse even if the DM says "Rocks fall, cheater dies." Now someone swapping around a level with DM and groups consent is an entirely different kettle of fish, and moving the goal posts like this is not fooling anyone.

[PeteNutButter]

You never said that was your intent. At the beginning of the thread you were talking about the most monstrously cheesy ways to game the system. Going from cleric to druid to barbarian to -whatever- in order to negate the challenge of the game. And you were responded to in an appropriate manner. A player doing this is every bit as bad as a DM going: "Rocks Fall, a specific player dies." Worse even if the DM says "Rocks fall, cheater dies." Now someone swapping around a level with DM and groups consent is an entirely different kettle of fish, and moving the goal posts like this is not fooling anyone.

Nor did I ever say I was planning on doing this to that extreme. I said in the OP that it's cheese. Again I was looking at it as a thought experiment. I was never asking for help cheesing and ruining my game. Meant to be a discussion.

You discuss cheese like this in forums because you wouldn't actually do it at most tables. It's like dual wielding lances. Legal? Yes. Is it OP? Not really. Would I play it? No it's too cheesy.

People react so violently like cheesy thought experiments are taboo. I guess I need like nine pages of disclaimers before I post cheese. I'll even edit the OP.

[PotatoGolem]

DM suggestions on this thread are exactly why I quit AL. Too many power-mad DMo who insisted on the rules when it suited them, and then changed the rules when their toys weren't playing the way they wanted. If you're not going to follow the rules of an organized play league, you have no business getting involved, either as a player or as a DM. The AL rules are what everyone agrees to when they join. Throwing a hissy fit over rebuilds is no more pure and noble and in the spirit of the game than a player having a tantrum because he wants a 32 point buy.

[PeteNutButter]

DM suggestions on this thread are exactly why I quit AL. Too many power-mad DMo who insisted on the rules when it suited them, and then changed the rules when their toys weren't playing the way they wanted. If you're not going to follow the rules of an organized play league, you have no business getting involved, either as a player or as a DM. The AL rules are what everyone agrees to when they join. Throwing a hissy fit over rebuilds is no more pure and noble and in the spirit of the game than a player having a tantrum because he wants a 32 point buy.

Thank you. Just like I said before. If you don't want to abide by AL rules, then don't play AL.

Going back to the original concept, I'm having a hard time actually coming up with characters that really abuse this. I can come up with a lot of builds that are good at these low levels but they are also just fine as they scale up in level.

Something that takes advantage of the not so much loss to progression by taking many classes, like a fighter barbarian rogue. Expertise and advantage on grapple plus a fighting style, and either cunning action, action surge, or reckless attack at 4.

Life cleric 1, Druid 1, ranger 2 can goodberry trick at beginning of day and be very effective in combat.

A lock 1 sorcerer 3 could hex and scorching Ray increasing its damage by 50%.

Fighter 1 or 2/Monk 2 or 3. Wear heavy armor w shield and spend ki on dodge only. Or take tavern brawler and use flurry with your armor on. AC 19 at lvl one w fighter and defense, that can bonus action dodge 2 or 3 times a short rest after monk levels.

[Malifice]

But what do you mean "happen to die?" If you mean the monsters focus that PC, then bring it on. But if you mean a rock falls and you die... that's just poor DMing.



Yet here you are advocating poor playing. Weird distinction to make.

You're actively encouraging abuse of the spirit of the rules, and then critiquing a DM who boots you as a result (when to be fair, he's perfectly entitled to do so). I'd certainly stamp it out in my AL campaign and turf a player who obviously violated the spirit of the rules in such a manner.

But anyways, back to the thread.

[joaber]

I'll not talk about if is right or wrong. About the buildings:

lvl 1 would go for war cleric.

lvl 2 definitly moon druid. As barbarian you only have 2 times/day at low lvls, you're not so usefull in the other 4 to 6 encounters.

lvl 3 a full moon druid is better than MD 2/barb 1, you have moonbeam, spike growth and 4 first lvl spells, why would you want rage 2 times a day if you already have a full pool of HP? fighter 3 is better than fighter 1/bladesinger 2, you have superiority dice and heavy armor, as human v. GWM with precision strike. bladesinger don't have HP, and you didn't max dex and int to have a really good AC (and you only cast shield 3 times/day, you're not a melee guy yet). Warlock here have darkness + devil sight 2x short rest, eldritch blast with agonizing blast. Open hand monk 3 attacks tripping enemies. Rogue with sneak atttack, cunning action and assassinate. Multiclass isn't a good option at lvl 3.

lvl 4 don't forget ranged ranger with sharpshooter + crossbow expert, hand crossbow, archery, hunter's mark and horder breaker.

well, when you start to think about... man, there is a lot of balance in classes.

[PeteNutButter]

Overall a single classed level 4 character is going to have a lot more power, due to that feat/ASI.

I was stretching to find builds that would be really hard to play past a certain lvl. A lvl 3 character w 3 classes can be good but at lvl 5 they'll be really behind.

A sorc 2 warlock 2 can short rest cheese up his spells. Start the day w 2 short rests and have 9 spells for the first fight... But they are all first level.

Seems like weapon based builds are going to be strongest.

[joaber]

Overall a single classed level 4 character is going to have a lot more power, due to that feat/ASI.

I was stretching to find builds that would be really hard to play past a certain lvl. A lvl 3 character w 3 classes can be good but at lvl 5 they'll be really behind.

A sorc 2 warlock 2 can short rest cheese up his spells. Start the day w 2 short rests and have 9 spells for the first fight... But they are all first level.

Seems like weapon based builds are going to be strongest.

but a sor3/lock2 can quick EB with hex for 4d10 +4d6 +12 at lvl 5.

[PeteNutButter]

but a sor3/lock2 can quick EB with hex for 4d10 +4d6 +12 at lvl 5.

I know. It definitely doesn't gimp the build to go 2/2.

A cleric 3/warlock 1 could hex and use spiritual weapon to get a good bonus attack each round.

[Klorox]

I believe in Pathfinder Society you can change the character before you hit second level, and I've seen plenty of times people will build a cleric, fighter or barbarian to survive level 1 and switch before hitting level 2.

It's not a big deal there (yes, level 5 is a bit longer than it should be), and I wouldn't care so much in D&D either.

In the end, it's only a game. If a certain player wants to abuse (but stay within) the rules, that's on his conscience.

If I'm a DM, my job is to have fun and provide a fun game for everybody. If I'm a fellow player, I don't care if I've been a dragonborn sorcerer since session 1 and Merle the multiclassed changes every session.