Would you allow lvl 3 Battlemaster feature for permanent melee disadvantage?

[Wuzza]

Hi All,

This hasn't been allowed at my table, yet. Wanted to get a few opinions on if anyone though it was unfair? (to my mind it seems like a fair trade off)

We've just transitioned over from WHRPG, and starting at 2nd level. My character was a typical flamboyant Bard, good with a bow, crap with a blade, i'm playing him as if he is a master with a blade, but he's not. Will be going college of valour. Dex +2, Con+2, Cha+3 all other are at 0. This is below the table average as everyone else rolled and i went standard array.

To give him the flavour I'm after, my idea is to give him permanent disadvantage with his rapier, in exchange for the 3rd level Battle Master manoeuvres. (3 manoeuvres and 4 dice -commanders strike, distracting strike and parry) When I broached this at the table, the DM seemed fine with it, but another player immediately said "Oh yes, I'll take a rocket launcher with disadvantage" so in the end i didn't go with it. I just don't think the feat version would be a fair trade off. Maybe 2 feats, defensive duellist and lucky could kinda get the same result, but lacks the occasional moment of rapier brilliance i was after.

I'm not worried about the player, we've all been mates for 30 odd years, and as mentioned they're pretty min/max'd anyway. Just want to know if you would allow this at your table?

[meandean]

Not really getting this...? There are dozens of weapons in the game... having disadvantage with one particular one doesn't mean much of anything, when you can just pick a different one.

[False God]

Not really getting this...? There are dozens of weapons in the game... having disadvantage with one particular one doesn't mean much of anything, when you can just pick a different one.

Yeah basically this. Unless the character is somehow magically cursed or otherwise required to use a specific weapon, totally sucking with one weapon in D&D is basically meaningless.

[Wuzza]

Not really getting this...? There are dozens of weapons in the game... having disadvantage with one particular one doesn't mean much of anything, when you can just pick a different one.

That's the rub, i'll always be using the rapier...

[Bobthewizard]

I think it would be fine if you limited the maneuvers to only the weapon with disadvantage. Disadvantage with a rapier but then getting to use maneuvers with a crossbow would be too much.

[MrStabby]

Take swords bard instead? They get flourishes which are a bit like BM manouvres.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Is this some sort of super disadvantage that can't be cancelled out or will a source of advantage have you roll straight as usual?

If it's disadvantage no matter what and you can't simply use a different weapon, sure, I guess that's fine. If you're taking disadvantage with a Rapier and you can simply mitigate that penalty through a source of advantage or ignore it by utilizing a ranged weapon for your maneuver, no I don't think I'd go for it.

My question beyond all that though - Is taking some downtime to train the Martial Adept feat not a good enough option? There are rules for doing so in the Marks of Prestige section in the DMG.

[Kvess]

I don't think you or your DM entirely understands the effect that this homebrew rule will have on the character. Having disadvantage on attacks is roughly equivalent to a -5 and negates criticals. With bounded accuracy, what disadvantage means is if your bard had a 30% chance to hit a heavily armoured enemy, they now have a 5% chance to hit. Disadvantage was designed to be a significant and meaningful penalty at every level of play.

By trading disadvantage for that set of Battlemaster maneuvers, your college of valor bard is effectively trading the ability to attack in melee for the ability to Commander's Strike four times per short rest -- because every other maneuver would be effectively negated by the disadvantage.

If the intent is to allow the character to use the ability in place of attacks, why not offer a custom magic item instead?

The Banner of Valor: This banner requires two hands to wield, is unsuitable for use as a weapon, requires an attunement slot, and acts as a bardic spell focus while the wielder sings war chants. While holding this banner in combat, the wielder can use the Commander's Strike maneuver a number of times per day equal to their proficiency bonus, and may also spend Bardic Inspiration dice to use this ability. The wilder's bardic inspiration die may be added to the attack's damage roll in place of a superiority die.

[Tanarii]

That sounds like GWM or SS on steroids. You have to pay a feat for those ...

[Kvess]

That sounds like GWM or SS on steroids. You have to pay a feat for those ...

See, I don't think that using the distracting strike and parry abilities with disadvantage on all your attacks is a worthwhile tradeoff. GWM and SS work well when you're attacking lightly armoured enemies because you add a ton of damage to your attacks. This doesn't really provide that big of a damage boost.

The only maneuver mentioned which would interest me was the commander's strike, and that wouldn't interact with the disadvantage at all.

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, I don't think that this is necessarily a good trade-off, especially since nothing prevents you from using something other than a rapier.

I agree with the Swords Bard looking a lot like a Battlemaster. Maybe replace those Flourishes with Battlemaster Manuevers, losing the Swords movement bonus?

[Wuzza]

Thanks for the replies so far, i'll clarify as i think the point has been missed a little.

I'm wanting to use this to bring a bit of flavour, and actively give myself a large "disadvantage" for want of a better word. My character thinks he is amazing, but isn't. He wont be using any weapons aside from the rapier. Attacks at advantage would have me rolling a single dice, at disadvantage rolling 3.
The "RAW" options, feat/swords etc wouldnt give the flavour i'm after. Although i suppose i could just go with a self imposed disadvantage most of the time.

[MrStabby]

Thanks for the replies so far, i'll clarify as i think the point has been missed a little.

I'm wanting to use this to bring a bit of flavour, and actively give myself a large "disadvantage" for want of a better word. My character thinks he is amazing, but isn't. He wont be using any weapons aside from the rapier. Attacks at advantage would have me rolling a single dice, at disadvantage rolling 3.
The "RAW" options, feat/swords etc wouldnt give the flavour i'm after. Although i suppose i could just go with a self imposed disadvantage most of the time.

Well if he is scared of the clash of steel and flinched enough in combat and looked away he could have disadvantage from having his eyes closed I guess...

[Kvess]

You mentioned that you don’t have a lot of experience with D&D 5e, so you might not be aware of what the build you are asking for will mean in play.

As a bard with 14 in Dexterity and disadvantage on all your attacks, you’re not playing a defensive duelist who has moments of brilliance. You will be playing a mage who has no business being in melee. You won’t be able to hit enemies, you’ll have d8 hit dice so you won’t be able to tank a lot of hits, and most of the maneuvers you’ve been granted won’t do anything because — again — you won’t be able to hit enemies.

If that’s what you want to play, and you won’t be talked out of it, that’s fine. There’s no such thing as wrong-bad-fun. But I have to wonder why you started this thread asking for advice if it won’t change your mind.

[Zuras]

The thing is that 5e isn’t a point based advantage/drawback system, nor does it have a solid metagame currency system (like Fate Points in FATE or bennies in Savage Worlds), so it doesn’t have the mechanical support for the concept.

What it sounds like you want is the ability to charge up your karmic battery by playing sub-optimally, then doing something spectacular every 3rd turn or so. Conceptually, that’s hard to get working in 5e because fights are relatively short, and it gets annoying for the other players the instant fights start getting deadly. They’re trying to stay alive while you’re using more than half your actions in every fight to do something you’re bad at.

Do you really want your PC to be someone else’s escort quest?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Thanks for the replies so far, i'll clarify as i think the point has been missed a little.

I'm wanting to use this to bring a bit of flavour, and actively give myself a large "disadvantage" for want of a better word. My character thinks he is amazing, but isn't. He wont be using any weapons aside from the rapier. Attacks at advantage would have me rolling a single dice, at disadvantage rolling 3.
The "RAW" options, feat/swords etc wouldnt give the flavour i'm after. Although i suppose i could just go with a self imposed disadvantage most of the time.

If your character is not amazing and still cocky enough to be using a weapon he's unskilled with, simply being non-proficient with no additional benefits is the best option. If he's crap with a Rapier it doesn't make any sense for him to have any maneuvers using that weapon, that would imply he does have skills.

Personally I'm not sure what exactly your concept is going for here, you're building a Valor Bard with intentions of using weapon maneuvers and constantly using a Rapier but you want to have him be actively penalized for using the weapon when you've already admitted your characters stats are below the tables average level... Is he perhaps trying to die?

[Kvess]

I have an oddball suggestion for a defensive duelist who has moments of brilliance: Oath of Redemption Paladin.

Compared to a bard subclass it’s more focused on melee than spellcasting, but you still have a handful of magical tricks up your sleeve. You could flavour Rebuke The Violent as your character taking advantage of an opponent’s aggression to make a lethal strike. You could even take the Superior Technique fighting style to get your hands on a Battle Master maneuver.

If you really want disadvantage on all your attacks for some reason, avert your eyes from the enemies.

[meandean]

Thanks for the replies so far, i'll clarify as i think the point has been missed a little.

I'm wanting to use this to bring a bit of flavour, and actively give myself a large "disadvantage" for want of a better word. My character thinks he is amazing, but isn't. He wont be using any weapons aside from the rapier.
No, I think people get that. They just want it to be part of the actual rules for your character that you have to use the rapier.

Furthermore, even if it's explicitly stated that you have to use a rapier as your melee weapon, it's still the case that "have to use a certain melee weapon" != "have to be in melee". Rather than attack at disadvantage, why wouldn't you run away and use your bow... or better yet, take Crossbow Expert/Gunner so you don't even have to do that much? That IMO is why, if you do continue with this framework, you also shouldn't be allowed to use the maneuvers with anything other than the rapier. That's the weakness that you allegedly agreed to in exchange for that benefit.


Attacks at advantage would have me rolling a single dice, at disadvantage rolling 3.
So the disadvantage would be cancellable by advantage, as per usual? That of course also makes it less of a weakness, although less of a big deal IMO than the various workarounds to "I promise to use the rapier."

At the end of the day, I think what you're asking for -- being able to do these non-super-powered abilities four times per short rest -- is reasonable. But, I don't like the way you're contemplating getting there. I think it'll be a lot smoother if you homebrew a class that has this ability. The most obvious way is to note that 3rd level Fighters often get this sort of thing (e.g., Psi Warrior, Rune Knight, or, well, Battle Master), and thus you can just ask to trade Valor Bard's Combat Inspiration for 4 x / SR use of those specific three maneuvers. I think that makes a lot of sense. (I think it's fair that they should be d6's, like Martial Adept and your 3rd level Bardic Inspiration die.)

If you stick with the disadvantage bit (again, not what I'm recommending), my final note is that, although you seem sincere in your intentions, I'd still be skeptical as DM of a character whose concept is "lol, I'm bad at this." Assuming a long-running campaign, is it going to break immersion that you'll eventually have been adventuring for months if not years, become allegedly one of the most powerful combatants in the entire world, faced off against dragons and gods, and yet somehow suck at using your own weapon (and have yet to realize it)? That won't bother some tables, but it will bother others.

[Psyren]

Just ask your DM to not let you be proficient with a rapier, and use one anyway. The lack of proficiency on your attacks will be a pretty steep disadvantage that you can't simply overcome by flanking or whatever.

[Zuras]

Honestly, if you want a bard-style PC who rushes into battle and ineffectively tried to stab enemies while not being a drag on the team, I’d just ask for a custom feat that lets you dodge as a bonus action any time you use Vicious Mockery on an enemy within 5 feet.

Just flavor the dodging as you flailing around with your rapier but being so bad at it your opponents anticipate your moves wrong and can’t hit you either.

[Wuzza]

The thing is that 5e isn’t a point based advantage/drawback system, nor does it have a solid metagame currency system, so it doesn’t have the mechanical support for the concept.

This is what i am finding/struggling with.



What it sounds like you want is the ability to charge up your karmic battery by playing sub-optimally, then doing something spectacular every 3rd turn or so.
Pretty much, although more 3 or 4 times a session.


You mentioned that you don’t have a lot of experience with D&D 5e, so you might not be aware of what the build you are asking for will mean in play.

I've actually got a few years in 5E, a couple as DM It's just been put on the backburner with lockdown, our Current DM is first time DM'ing 5E, we started the campaign in WHF and just switched to 5E.



although less of a big deal IMO than the various workarounds to "I promise to use the rapier."

I guess i must be quite lucky in having a trustworthy group. For the sake of internet discussion, consider it part of the rules.



But I have to wonder why you started this thread asking for advice if it won’t change your mind.

Not at all, initially is was to gauge whether the trade off was seen as too powerful. I have looked into some of the suggestions, and may well end up going in one of those routes.

[kazaryu]

Hi All, +2, +2, +1, +1, 0, -1

This hasn't been allowed at my table, yet. Wanted to get a few opinions on if anyone though it was unfair? (to my mind it seems like a fair trade off)

We've just transitioned over from WHRPG, and starting at 2nd level. My character was a typical flamboyant Bard, good with a bow, crap with a blade, i'm playing him as if he is a master with a blade, but he's not. Will be going college of valour. Dex +2, Con+2, Cha+3 all other are at 0. This is below the table average as everyone else rolled and i went standard array.

To give him the flavour I'm after, my idea is to give him permanent disadvantage with his rapier, in exchange for the 3rd level Battle Master manoeuvres. (3 manoeuvres and 4 dice -commanders strike, distracting strike and parry) When I broached this at the table, the DM seemed fine with it, but another player immediately said "Oh yes, I'll take a rocket launcher with disadvantage" so in the end i didn't go with it. I just don't think the feat version would be a fair trade off. Maybe 2 feats, defensive duellist and lucky could kinda get the same result, but lacks the occasional moment of rapier brilliance i was after.

I'm not worried about the player, we've all been mates for 30 odd years, and as mentioned they're pretty min/max'd anyway. Just want to know if you would allow this at your table?

first of all... +2,+2,+3,0,0,0 isn't standard array, not even after accounting for racials. in order to get that from standard array you'd need racial/starting feat adjustments equal to: 4x +1's, 1x -1's. perhaps you meant point buy? either way that doesn't really matter.

as far as your idea...i do think its weird that the pentalty you're taking, doesn't interact with the beneift you're taking...mostly. if you were to take maneuvers that only trigger when you hit, it'd be more fair. and i think alot of people in this thread are overestimating how bad disadvantage is. Yes, it dramatically lowers your chance to hit, but to act like it means you'll *never* hit is unfounded. unless you think its impossible to miss when attacking at advantage? so no, assuming you always roll melee attacks with disadvantage, and the maneuvers you choose are all gated behind those attacks hitting, mechanically its probably fine overall, assuming the other PC's are actually stronger than you...(although it does seem highly unlikely that they are).

Where the actual problem can come in, IMO, is in how the character/you are perceived by the other players, (players, not characters). not the actual balance of the game. there are 2 potential places this could rub
1. your character is a bard. they're a full caster. at some point you're going to want to cast spells. it doesn't matter if you earnestly *intend* to only cast spells every once in a while, or your character is supposed to make melee attacks as their 'primary' mode of combat. Every time you cast a spell, you run the risk of a player feeling like you're not living up to your end of the bargain. it may not be the players fault. indeed the player themselves may even recognize that its an unfair assessment. but that won't really affect how they feel, and if they're spending mental effort on keeping their emotions in check...they're not really enjoying the game (i say this as a player that has had that exact problem at the table. I don't anyone else for my emotions, but it can affect my play).
2. as you have it written, you're wanting maneuvers that don't interact with the disadvantage. similar to the spells above, what this means is that every time you use one of those maneuvers, you risk it feeling like you're doing the maneuvers too often, and as a result it feels like you're 'cheating' on the deal. whereas if all of the maneuvers are locked behind the disadvantage, then thats far less likely to come up.


my advice? don't worry about actually gimpling your character. if you want the fancy stuff that battlemasters get, then go swords bard (or a cha secondary battlemaster). leave your Dex at a +2 and roleplay the character as though they think they're at a dex of +5. you can get much of the 'bumbling swordsman thats not as good as he thinks he is' just through flavor. Think of it this way. Most people would say (quite correctly) that the odds of winning a fight against a full adult dragon are basically 0. and yet high level adventurers do it on the regular. There no mechanic to back up the odds. its not like if you were to run the math, that certain parties actually have near-0 odds of beating a dragon. Doesn't mean that story wise their odds would *seem* low. similarly, just because your bard is semi-successful...doesn't mean they're actually competent. they could just be lucky. you could even talk to other party members about flavoring some of your characters success off the back of their actions. (think drax in the beginning of GoTG 2 he thinks he killed the big work thingy by jumping in its belly, even though what really killed it was the rest of the team attacking a weak point that they opened up outside of it

[Damon_Tor]

Choose the College of Swords, not valor. Their flourishes are very similar to battle master maneuvers. If you want to be bad at using your rapier just use str instead of dex: no houseruling necessary, you can give yourself a -2 penalty by RAW.

We're I another player at your table I would also be wary of you getting free features in exchange for a penalty to something you intend to be bad at anyway. "Minmaxing" is exactly this impulse, accruing penalties to things you don't intend to use anyway to pay for bonuses in areas in which you intend to excel.

Maybe you have the best of intentions and really do just want all of this for a roleplay concept, but plenty of minmaxers come to the table with exactly that excuse. So I can forgive his scepticism.

[meandean]

How about this:


You have the ability "Ill-Advised Power Attack". Before you make a melee attack, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +5 to the attack's damage.

If you have Extra Attack and use Ill-Advised Power Attack, you must use it on all melee attacks taken with your Attack action.
You cannot have advantage on an Ill-Advised Power Attack roll. If you would normally have advantage on an Ill-Advised Power Attack roll, treat it as a straight roll instead.
By my calculations, this is worse DPR than standard attacks, unless the target's AC is lower than average.


You have the ability "Did I Do That?" When you score a critical hit with your Ill-Advised Power Attack, you do an extra 1d12 damage and knock the target prone.

If I figured things out correctly, this combination will make you generally worse than if you simply attacked like a normal person. (Especially if you've replaced the versatile Combat Inspiration feature with one that just makes your other "feature" less terrible. Your DM may well allow you to keep Combat Inspiration, because again, the end result of the two combined abilities is still a net negative.) But you'll just be a [I]little worse, not so much so as to annoy anyone, and you'll occasionally get big, exciting hits.

[Zuras]

How about this:


You have the ability "Ill-Advised Power Attack."

Before you make a melee attack, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +5 to the attack's damage.
If you have Extra Attack and use Ill-Advised Power Attack, you must use it on all attacks taken with your Attack action.
You cannot have advantage on an Ill-Advised Power Attack roll. If you would normally have advantage on an Ill-Advised Power Attack roll, treat it as a straight roll instead.
By my calculations, this is worse DPR than just regular attacks, unless the target's AC is lower than average.


Instead of Combat Inspiration, you have the ability "Did I Do That?" When you score a critical hit with your Ill-Advised Power Attack, you do an extra 1d12 damage and knock the target prone.

Again by my quick calculations, this will make you generally worse than if you just attacked like a normal person. (Especially since you've replaced the versatile Combat Inspiration feature with one that just makes your other "feature" less terrible.) But you won't be so much worse as to annoy anyone, and you'll occasionally get big, exciting hits.


I don’t think any of this is bad, but at this point you’re trying to design a College of Slapstick bard, not a feat.

[MoiMagnus]

In absolute? I wouldn't allow it. There are enough manoeuvres that are quite good and don't even require you to attack with a weapon (Parry, Rally, Ambush (Tasha), Bait and Switch (Tasha), Commanding Presence (Tasha), Tactical Assessment (Tasha)). And the Bard is in general quite good of a class even without using their sword.

Given a specific player who I know and trust to not optimise and actually use the sword as the core of their strategy, maybe, especially if they're relatively underpowered. In fact, disadvantage to attacks is pretty rough, I'd be worry that would make the character even weaker.

As a GM, I'd consider creating an homebrew magical sword that would give to its users some battle manoeuvers. And I'd definitely allow for the character to retroactively change 3 of their level into Fighter levels (using multiclassing) if they ever want to.

[Damon_Tor]

Given a specific player who I know and trust to not optimise and actually use the sword as the core of their strategy, maybe, especially if they're relatively underpowered. In fact, disadvantage to attacks is pretty rough, I'd be worry that would make the character even weaker.

This is a part of the problem. There are two scenarios, neither of them good:
The player doesn't really intend to use their sword when there are any real stakes, in which case this is a pure power boost.
The player DOES intend to use their sword, in which case they're being so ineffective they're a drag on the party and put everyone at risk.

[Tanarii]

I'd say Dex 14 College of Swords Bard. Your AC will be fine due to medium armor, you can do some cool stuff with your rapier with flourishes, but you won't be a rapier damage monster or even hitting monster by any means.

[Frogreaver]

I’d allow with the caveat that maneuvers should primarily be focused around you attacking vs the ones that do other things. I’d reserve the right to veto any specific maneuver or combination of manuevers.

The bigger concern is that this would be a big nerf to your pc. So I would go over what that means mechanically to make sure you understood and were still good with it. If you were I’d allow it with the above caveat.

[Xihirli]

May I suggest playing a Battlemaster Fighter?

[Damon_Tor]

Rereading the OP: I had missed the part where he listed the maneuvers he wanted to take: they included commander's strike and parry. So... yeah that's a big "nope" from me there champ. Giving the bard 4 free damage reduction reactions per day on top of their normal toolkit isn't reasonable.

[Skrum]

This is raising giant red flags to me, especially since you mentioned the rest of the group is pretty min-maxed. I think this is going to cause problems. Playing a character that is intentionally bad to this degree is GOING to be a strong drag on the group's overall effectiveness. 5e combat is such that each member pulling (something approximating) their weight is really important to winning tough fights. Obviously you know your group best, but this kind of character would massively grate on my nerves. A goofy one-shot, fine. But a longer term game that involved a character necessarily being wrapped deeper and deeper into the delusion that they aren't terrible at fighting with a sword? Idk.

Frankly, the dice themselves capture this kind of dynamic. Think of a character that has proficiency with a weapon, but no other particular features or benefits to using it. They've got a +2 in the relevant stat or whatever. Essentially beyond 1st level, they are terrible at fighting like that. By 4th or 5th, they will be incredibly behind characters that have meaningful features related to using that weapon. Well despite that, if this character insists on using this sub-optimal tactic, they will occasionally crit. And maybe it even happens at a meaningful time. That's essentially the same concept as what you're describing - a wizard who instead of casting spells, dinks away with a sword. Sorry, not feeling that one.

As a DM, I would not allow you to do the described trade. I don't think this is going to contribute to a healthy party or table dynamic.

[Wuzza]

first of all... +2,+2,+3,0,0,0 isn't standard array, not even after accounting for racials.


You're correct sir, i'll have to amend my stats.

Thank you al for the replies and opinions, as i said i haven't used at the table and i dont think i'll push for it after the comments that have been made. I'm certainly not trying to power-game.

In retrospect i think going Bard 6, Battlemaster 3 will give me enough of the flavour i'm after. I was probably a little naïve in trying to get it all sorted in the first couple of levels.

[da newt]

I don't understand what you are going for.

You want to use the rapier melee attack as your normal go to action in combat, you want to make this attack at DISADV, but you want 4x/day Parry, Commanders Strike, or Distracting Strike, and you want to play a Bard but not cast spells as an action? What? Why?

If I was a DM and someone I didn't know brought this to me I'd assume you were trying to pull some BS like using Lucky to turn DISADV into ADV and then spend most of your time at range casting anyway and will never actually attack w/ your rapier, or you are the sort of player who likes to play ineffective meme PCs and you are going to die soon anyway ...

[Jervis]

Either take swords bard or that one feat that gives limited battle master maneuvers. I don’t think you understand how crippling always on disadvantage is.

[KorvinStarmast]

The thing is that 5e isn’t a point based advantage/drawback system, nor does it have a solid metagame currency system (like Fate Points in FATE or bennies in Savage Worlds), so it doesn’t have the mechanical support for the concept. This seems to me a good counter point to the OP.

What it sounds like you want is the ability to charge up your karmic battery by playing sub-optimally, then doing something spectacular every 3rd turn or so. Conceptually, that’s hard to get working in 5e because fights are relatively short, and it gets annoying for the other players the instant fights start getting deadly.
Do you really want your PC to be someone else’s escort quest? Isn't that kind of PC referred to as "the Load" or something like that? Memory hazy.

I have an oddball suggestion for a defensive duelist who has moments of brilliance: Oath of Redemption Paladin.
... You could flavour Rebuke The Violent as your character taking advantage of an opponent’s aggression to make a lethal strike. You could even take the Superior Technique fighting style to get your hands on a Battle Master maneuver. Neat idea. And you've given me a concept for this fall's campaign.

Choose the College of Swords, not valor. Their flourishes are very similar to battle master maneuvers. If you want to be bad at using your rapier just use str instead of dex: no houseruling necessary... Were I another player at your table I would also be wary of you getting free features in exchange for a penalty to something you intend to be bad at anyway. "Minmaxing" is exactly this impulse, accruing penalties to things you don't intend to use anyway to pay for bonuses in areas in which you intend to excel.
+1. We have a winner.

For the OP: if you are not that familiar with 5e in the first place, the better approach is to first get used to playing it, as is, and once you have a bit of experience do some variations on a theme. As a modest example of what I am talking about: Jimi Hendrix first mastered how to play the guitar, and then be began to improvise...he didn't play Purple Haze the first time he picked up a guitar.

[Wuzza]

I don’t think you understand how crippling always on disadvantage is.

I do, it's about a 9% chance to hit AC 15, getting progressively worse until, i think it was less than 1% to hit AC20.

It's moot now, as I've decided against the idea as there is enough negativity to the proposal and that i don't want to cause any issues at the table.

What has surprised me in the replies though, is all of the suspicion. It was about creating a buffoon who occasionally has moments of brilliance. I've not heard of a "loaded" character, not looked into what an Edge Lord is, didn't realise a Meme character was a thing, i just thought it was a fun concept. My group is mostly in our 40's/50's, and came back together a few years ago after playing AD+D. I watch a few Youtube vids on D+D, but that's about it.I hadn't looked into Swords bard as we generally stick with the core books, we're old enough that remembering the main rules is sometimes problematic enough. :smallbiggrin:

Thanks all again for the responses.

[da newt]

Please understand I didn't mean anything personally - I don't know you, and I do acknowledge that I have a pretty low opinion of most of my fellow humans, so I'm pretty suspicious of ploys that don't make any sense to me, but if you are looking to create a PC that specifically is a counter puncher / someone who puts all their efforts into making the other party PCs succeed - I think that could be rewarding and interesting. If that's something you'd like advice on, maybe a rephrased post about what you'd like to do with a build, and then the hive mind could help out with things that are supported by RAW. (magic buffs, maneuvers like CDR's strike, inspiration, the help action, etc ...)

[Leon]

I would but i would also ask you do you think in the longer term you would enjoy missing a heck of a lot in every combat your part of for that lil bit of flavor.

[Wuzza]

Please understand I didn't mean anything personally
No worries dude, i'm big enough and ugly enough not to take things to hart. :smallcool: