Monster Hunter Build

[j_spencer93]

I have a monster hunter build i am working on, and want feedback on if im spreading it to thin or if the build is even viable.
Fighter (Monster Hunter) 7, Ranger (Hunter's Conclave) 6, Bard (College of the Sword) 5.
Focuses on dagger and hand crossbow attacks, specializing in killing mythical beast and staying elusive in combat.

[Isidorios]

specializing in killing mythical beast and staying elusive in combat.
So ever dex-based Adventurer in the history of D&D?

Why not just play a single-classed character and actually be good at things for the character's career? You aren't going to play til 20th level anyway, assuming this isn't pure Theorycrafting to begin with.

[Axorfett12]

I would say leave Bard out of this one. Adding Charisma makes it a little too MAD.

My personal favorite build for a monster hunter doesn't even use the monster hunter archetype. It is simply a Knowledge Cleric 8/Hunter Ranger 12. Build progression is actually pretty irrelevant here, as both classes are pretty similar proficiency wise. I'd start cleric for saves and then take ranger to grab a skill though. It really comes into its own at level 8. Ranger 5/cleric 3. You have extra attack, some spells, and that excellent CD. You also have double proficiency and advantage on checks relating to favored enemies. (I would do undead). The final build is a terror to the creatures of the night, having 4th level spells (I'm looking at you Death Ward) and almost full ranger capabilities. Before the revision, this build was the only way you'd catch me playing ranger.

[j_spencer93]

I like that...will look into that, although not exactly what I wanted lol. Looking it over it may end up being what I do.
Also, I fully expect this campaign to hit 20. Since we are running a mega campaign.
This build was for a new character who wanted to be something like this. He liked the look of the monster hunter fighter, which is what created the entire idea.

[Isidorios]

He liked the look of the monster hunter fighter, which is what created the entire idea.
So play a Monster Hunter fighter? I mean, unless your entire play-group is going to min-max, then I suppose you are obligated to as well.
I guess I hearken back to Ye Olden days of D&D, when every class fought monsters constantly, and so I find the idea of a "Monster Hunter" archetype to be rather silly. But that's me personally.

(I run a game with no multi-classing in it).

[j_spencer93]

Actually I agree with you. The archetype is a little silly (also i thought it shouldve be a range archetype but whatever). However, it is obviously made to appeal to those that liked the old Van Hellsing, Jonah Hex, etc characters or so I guess.

And maybe I made it sound weird in the initial post, but this isn't my character. Its a possible character for a new player. I may have him just run straight fighter though, it would be simpler for a newbie.

[Isidorios]

There's absolutely nothing about Jonah Hex or Van Helsing that absolutely requires a specific new archetype.
It's just 3.5 Disease, creeping into 5e. I expect it to get worse with Volo's.

Yeah, don't pitch some triple class Frankenstein at a newbie. Triple class characters are Munchkin builds.

[j_spencer93]

lol I don't disagree with that. I am not sure the Monster Hunter was actually necessary.
Anyways, yea, sometimes I like to multiclass to see how different ideas work, forgot this time time it wasnt my build lol

[Isidorios]

I am not sure the Monster Hunter was actually necessary.

There's a certain segment of the D&D community that ABSOLUTELY NEEDS splatbooks to function in a TTRPG. Not only would they like to sell them on the current edition, you have lots of poor souls who WANT to play 3.5, but everyone around them is playing 5e, so they really want to be catered to.

Yes it's really silly. They might as well make the "Adventurer" archetype. (with extra-added Nova Damage).

[j_spencer93]

3.5 and pathfinder went absolutely insane with Archetypes and classes. Some i thought were really cool, most were filler.

[Isidorios]

3.5 and pathfinder went absolutely insane with Archetypes and classes. Some i thought were really cool, most were filler.

It's the way the character is played that makes them really cool, crunch or stacked abilities have nothing to do with it.

Look at the three kidnappers in the Princess Bride. You could make them two fighters and a rogue, or a Swashbuckler, Mastermind and a Champion. None of that has anything to do with what made them distinct or entertaining.

[djreynolds]

Your extra attacks do not stack, so which ever class is going to give you extra attack stick with that.

So 11 in fighter for 3 attacks, or 5 ranger or 6 valor bard/college of swords for 2 attacks

So you can go ranger hunter say 11 for whirlwind, and 12 for the ASI/feat and then add in some fighter for SD's or bard for spells.

So there are class features at 11th that simulate the fighter's extra attack, ranger gets whirlwind/volley, paladin gets improved divine smite, etc.

So pick a main class you will take to around 11th/12th and then place in your dips here and there. 3 levels of ranger for hunter and colossus slayer/horde breaker, 2 levels of paladin for smite, 1-3 levels of barbarian for rage, 1-3 levels of fighter for second wind, action surge, and superiority dice or crit increases.

[Isidorios]

This is exactly what I am talking about.
Trying to "win" D&D.
There are no winners with this sort of mentality, turning a role playing game into "Battle-bots".
The people who do this are reliably boring to sit around a table with, when they aren't full-time theorycrafters.

[j_spencer93]

Honestly, optimization isnt something we do.
Also extra attack had nothing to do with the levels I posted above. However, I decided to go much simpler since this is for a newbie.

[Isidorios]

Honestly, optimization isnt something we do.

that's rather disingenuous, as you headed the thread with a triple-class build, and are ostensibly asking other players for a "better build".
That's exactly optimization.

[j_spencer93]

Actually optimization would be asking for a specific way to get the maximum out from a build. Optimization. I simply asked if the build did what I wanted or if anyone else had a better one. There is a difference.
Also, you didn't use disingenuous right. But lets not nitpick here. Also, is there a reason your trying to turn everything posted into a rant about how it goes against what you think?

[Malifice]

I have a monster hunter build i am working on, and want feedback on if im spreading it to thin or if the build is even viable.
Fighter (Monster Hunter) 7, Ranger (Hunter's Conclave) 7, Bard (College of the Sword) 6.
Focuses on dagger and hand crossbow attacks, specializing in killing mythical beast and staying elusive in combat.

I have a similar concept (based on Van Helsing, or a witch hunter).

Im rolling Investigator Rogue into Monster Hunter into Vengance paladin (sworn enemies necromancers and undead).

Hand crossbow. Big hat. This kind of thing:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/bc/23/12/bc23120817fd3ba2250980f535b45e7a.jpg

Could be room for some Ranger in there as well now that I think of it (track, favored enemy).

[j_spencer93]

Mainly I wanted to mix ranger with monster hunter but think it may be to advanced for a newbie, however I am still interested in making a theoretical build for later.

I do like the Inquisitive Rogue and its insightful fighting. That is awesome to me flavor and crunch wise.
Monster Hunter is eh. I don't really think its that great but fighter is good in the build and it just adds more flavor, which is always a plus to me.
Ranger was to capitalize on the flavor of a person being trained to track, and understand their foe.

My entire build is flavor lol

[djreynolds]

This is exactly what I am talking about.
Trying to "win" D&D.
There are no winners with this sort of mentality, turning a role playing game into "Battle-bots".
The people who do this are reliably boring to sit around a table with, when they aren't full-time theorycrafters.

I here you and I agree, I've rocked a 20th level champion, still one of the best I played.

I've played a barbarian and got by very well with just 2 attacks.

But the OP is selecting particular class features the archetypes hand out. So he is optimizing, or he wouldn't take those class to those precise levels.

What he has is a lot of overlapping abilities? He could streamline what he wants, why 7 levels of ranger? Which class feature is he after?

And it will take a while for his build to come into being.

Now I like this idea of ranger hunter/ monster slayer fighter, it has great potential. But rogue could easily be substituted for bard.

The monster hunter archetype gets SD to saves, so unless he is selecting multiattack defense-which only lasts a turn Steel Will would be a waste.

But this the fun of this is us discussing the pitfalls and possibilities now, so when he plays he will have fun and not feel stuck.

[j_spencer93]

Actually, I stopped at those levels because they gave the class feature i wanted. That is not optimizing. I think people are starting to use that word wrong. Optimizing would be to you know optimized damage, optimized AC, saves, max amount of attacks, blah blah blah.

Those levels just gave the feature that fitted my character idea. Which again, isn't even being done now.
Also, you pointed out a mistype. It should have been ranger 6 and Bard 5??? Actually i think i just said Bard 6 to fill up all the levels, and dont even see why i decided on it originally now.

[djreynolds]

Actually, I stopped at those levels because they gave the class feature i wanted. That is not optimizing. I think people are starting to use that word wrong. Optimizing would be to you know optimized damage, optimized AC, saves, max amount of attacks, blah blah blah.

Those levels just gave the feature that fitted my character idea. Which again, isn't even being done now.
Also, you pointed out a mistype. It should have been ranger 6 and Bard 5??? Actually i think i just said Bard 6 to fill up all the levels, and dont even see why i decided on it originally now.

But this good, I like theory crafting.

So why ranger 7?

I actually like the idea of a bard/ranger. Some good spells there. I like the idea of expertise coupled with the ranger's abilities.

This could work.

[j_spencer93]

Being honest idr why now.

Bard (College of Blades) 3
Flavor- Tales of beast and forgotten foes, learned in the blade and music to help counter these forces.
Crunch- Font of Inspiration, Expertise, Counter Charm, Blade Flourish

Ranger (Hunter's Conclave) 6
Flavor- Travels the world learning to defeat speicifc foes, able to remain silent and unseen.
Crunch- fighting style, favored enemy, Primeal awareness

Fighter (Monster Hunter) 7
Flavor- Monster hunter is a no brainer. It isn't overly powerful but fits the idea to a T.
Crunch- Hunter's mysticism, Monster Slayer, Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge

Also the build wont even come online until level 12 (i think) if it even sees the light of day

[djreynolds]

Being honest idr why now.

Bard (College of Blades) 3
Flavor- Tales of beast and forgotten foes, learned in the blade and music to help counter these forces.
Crunch- Font of Inspiration, Expertise, Counter Charm, Blade Flourish

Ranger (Hunter's Conclave) 6
Flavor- Travels the world learning to defeat speicifc foes, able to remain silent and unseen.
Crunch- fighting style, favored enemy, Primeal awareness

Fighter (Monster Hunter) 7
Flavor- Monster hunter is a no brainer. It isn't overly powerful but fits the idea to a T.
Crunch- Hunter's mysticism, Monster Slayer, Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge

Also the build wont even come online until level 12 (i think) if it even sees the light of day

See this is good, I like this. You only need some dex, wis, and charisma.

Now do you need to take the fighter to 7th level

[j_spencer93]

Monster Slayer is the reason behind that but stopping at 3rd would work just as fine. I would get the feature I sought and the base of the character.

Bard (College of Blades) 3
Flavor- Tales of beast and forgotten foes, learned in the blade and music to help counter these forces.
Crunch- Font of Inspiration, Expertise, Counter Charm, Blade Flourish

Ranger (Hunter's Conclave) 6
Flavor- Travels the world learning to defeat speicifc foes, able to remain silent and unseen.
Crunch- fighting style, favored enemy, Primeal awareness

Fighter (Monster Hunter) 3
Flavor- Monster hunter is a no brainer. It isn't overly powerful but fits the idea to a T.
Crunch- Hunter's mysticism, Monster Slayer, Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge

I would also have a wide variety of spells to use for utility, offense, and defense.

[djreynolds]

Monster Slayer is the reason behind that but stopping at 3rd would work just as fine. I would get the feature I sought and the base of the character.

Bard (College of Blades) 3
Flavor- Tales of beast and forgotten foes, learned in the blade and music to help counter these forces.
Crunch- Font of Inspiration, Expertise, Counter Charm, Blade Flourish

Ranger (Hunter's Conclave) 6
Flavor- Travels the world learning to defeat speicifc foes, able to remain silent and unseen.
Crunch- fighting style, favored enemy, Primeal awareness

Fighter (Monster Hunter) 3
Flavor- Monster hunter is a no brainer. It isn't overly powerful but fits the idea to a T.
Crunch- Hunter's mysticism, Monster Slayer, Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge

I would also have a wide variety of spells to use for utility, offense, and defense.

See this works, you get in grab the goodies you want and go. And now you can focus on the ranger and bard spells.

I like a lot of the ranger spells, because hail of thorns and lightning arrow can key off an arrow or bolt or a thrown weapon... like a dagger.

And now you have the opportunity for more ASI, say 4 in bard or fighter, or 8 in ranger because you will need it for counterspell, counter charm, etc as you have two spell D/Cs.

But I like the build, its very flavorful.

[Sir cryosin]

This is exactly what I am talking about.
Trying to "win" D&D.
There are no winners with this sort of mentality, turning a role playing game into "Battle-bots".
The people who do this are reliably boring to sit around a table with, when they aren't full-time theorycrafters.

Dude the mechanics of the game is build on, around and for fighting, it not just sitting there I said douche bag of Lourdes ****tin Ford and you sir I do not like your tone. It not all about character play. The game has many aspects you can spend a hole campaign without killing a thing talking and acting in character. Or it can be all combat fill different ROLES to PLAY in a party. The you have what I like a sweet medium of all aspects role playing games. I would like people to stop belittling people injoying different aspects of this game. You may not see the need for splat books or archtypes but new archtypes and splat books are a nice way to give players a option to play a type of character. With out needing to multiclass. Yes Adventures do kill a lot of monsters but that's not there main objective. They seek out treasures, explore, Hired Hands, ect....

[j_spencer93]

Now that I agree with too. I do think 3.5/pathfinder went a little overboard but new options are always nice when don right. However, as you said the entire game is role playing. Thats the main aspect. Don't get so hung up on the mechanics of someones build and see the role they want to be.
Thats what I do as a DM. Ive had entire character builds designed to use diplomacy, was neat and refreshing.

[j_spencer93]

See this works, you get in grab the goodies you want and go. And now you can focus on the ranger and bard spells.

I like a lot of the ranger spells, because hail of thorns and lightning arrow can key off an arrow or bolt or a thrown weapon... like a dagger.

And now you have the opportunity for more ASI, say 4 in bard or fighter, or 8 in ranger because you will need it for counterspell, counter charm, etc as you have two spell D/Cs.

But I like the build, its very flavorful.

The ranger spells to work with the thrown dagger and the hand crossbow are what I want to focus on more, so prob throw some more ranger onto it if it gets that far. Actually this build may interest a player of mine after all, I am just not sure he is playing this time or not. I will need to find out. He likes bard, he likes crossbows, and he has always loved throwing daggers.

[Specter]

Assuming a full build:
Monster Hunter 11/Hunter 9
I'll go with a blade build because it's cooler for a monster hunter, but a bow would work better. Start Fighter for CON save.

Race: Wood Elf (just because)
Fighting Styles: Dueling and Defense
Feats: Blade Mastery (if not allowed go Lucky), Alert
ASI's: +4DX, +2WI (or another feat like
Starting stats: ST10, DX16, CO14, IN12, WI14, CH10 (just to avoid penalties: dumping str and cha to start with 16wis can also work)
Skills: Acrobatics, Insight, Investigation, Perception, Religion, Survival (acolyte works fine)
Hunter stuff: Colossus Slayer and Multiattack Defense
Favored enemies: fiends and undead?

Ranger spells:
1: hunter's mark, absorb elements
2: pass without trace, silence
3: lightning arrow (with a dagger), conjure animals

With three attacks and Hunter's Mark no one should be ignoring you too much. Action Surge to give your favored boss 1d8+1d6+DX+1d6+4+2... per hit. All of this at minimum level 8.

[djreynolds]

This is actually something I want play now, thank j_spencer93, but 93 better not be in reference to your birthdate

[lunaticfringe]

3.5 and pathfinder went absolutely insane with Archetypes and classes. Some i thought were really cool, most were filler.

Lol it started in AD&D 2e there were whole books devoted to specific classes. The Kits of Old UA is full of concepts that started in the 90s.

[j_spencer93]

This is actually something I want play now, thank j_spencer93, but 93 better not be in reference to your birthdate

I am thinking of actually playing one now. It ought to be interesting to say the least.
Think my rogue, fighter, ranger build would be fun and versatile is slightly lacking in hitting power, but that wouldnt even be its purpose.