Nature themed melee martial character

[Skrum]

Specifically, how does one make one without dumping AC. Kinda have to main dex, right?

What's tripping me specifically is the ranger's spellcasting focus. They use the same one as a druid, meaning they can use a moon sickle. Nifty; it's a light weapon, acts a focus, and boosts spells to boot. But it's not finesse. It's usable as an off-hand, but not with dex.

Alternatively, I use short swords or a bow, but now I've got no way to cast spells while using my weapons. Of the spells I want to cast in combat, absorb elements, entangle, and fog cloud all have somatic components.

Paladins run into the same problem: bless, shield of faith, cure wounds, protec from evil and good, and heroism are all somatic (and that's just 1st level spells). They frequently use a shield too.

[LudicSavant]

Specifically, how does one make one without dumping AC. Kinda have to main dex, right?

What's tripping me specifically is the ranger's spellcasting focus. They use the same one as a druid, meaning they can use a moon sickle. Nifty; it's a light weapon, acts a focus, and boosts spells to boot. But it's not finesse. It's usable as an off-hand, but not with dex.

Alternatively, I use short swords or a bow, but now I've got no way to cast spells while using my weapons. Of the spells I want to cast in combat, absorb elements, entangle, and fog cloud all have somatic components.

Paladins run into the same problem: bless, shield of faith, cure wounds, protec from evil and good, and heroism are all somatic (and that's just 1st level spells). They frequently use a shield too.

"Nature-themed" is a broad enough concept that you could do it with pretty much any class. For a Paladin, Ancients is often nature themed. Watchers could be too (think like the Gatekeepers from Eberron).

Could you elaborate a bit on where exactly the roadblock is, here? What part of the 'nature theme' is getting left out?

[solidork]

Absorb Elements is a bit tricky, but with Fog Cloud and Entangle it's pretty easy to put your offhand away for the turn you cast your spell and then draw it when you want to attack again.

Paladins that use shields can put their holy symbol on the shield, which allows them to cast anything with both Somatic and Material components like Bless, Protection from Evil and Good and Shield of Faith.

[Sorinth]

If I understand correctly your asking how to be a Strength based Ranger? If that's the case then you'd probably go with a starting array of something like 15, 14, 14, 12, 8, 8 and using the floating +2/+1 to get two 16s in Str and Wis and then a 14 and 12 in Dex and Con, probably with the 14 in Dex. But of course depending on planned feats you'd maybe change it up a bit.

[Skrum]

"Nature-themed" is a broad enough concept that you could do it with pretty much any class. For a Paladin, Ancients is often nature themed. Watchers could be too (think like the Gatekeepers from Eberron).

Could you elaborate a bit on where exactly the roadblock is, here? What part of the 'nature theme' is getting left out?

The character I have in mind specifically is Chris Hemsworth's character from Snow White and the Huntsman, but there's other examples too, basically any melee character that isn't a knight - melee, strong, but lightly armored and mobile. Basically, not wearing heavy armor.

Obviously, the MAD sets in. I need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. That's just not supportable.

[LudicSavant]

The character I have in mind specifically is Chris Hemsworth's character from Snow White and the Huntsman, but there's other examples too, basically any melee character that isn't a knight - melee, strong, but lightly armored and mobile. Basically, not wearing heavy armor.

Obviously, the MAD sets in. I need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. That's just not supportable.

Haven't seen Snow White and the Huntsman, but...

Sounds like part of the problem is ye olde "but what if I want to be good with a bow and an axe" problem that D&D 5e martials have regrettably always had.

Like, there are ways to combat the MADness, but since the Strength you'd be eliminating from the equation is apparently part of the flavor you want, well, pretty much the only Str-based character that doesn't use heavy armor that leaps to mind is the Barbarian. And they can be pretty nature-themed, but I don't know whether that lines up with Chris Hemsworth (again, haven't seen it).

Barbarians tend to main Strength but still have non-dumped Dex, Con, and Wis. And they can be strong, somewhat mobile, and lightly armored.

If you wanna be Dex or Str-based, instead of investing in both, the options open up a lot for other classes.

[Skrum]

Yup, barb is there. Chris doesn't cast any spells, for what it's worth, so barb could approximate him - but barb is *also* very MAD. Standard point buy, and they need 15 in Str, 14 in Dex, 14 in Con, and at best that leaves a 13 in Wis. On top of that, they're ASI starved. A +1 modifier for a +3 or +4 in survival is...not the survivalist I'm imagining.

But back to ranger, I'm just wondering how ranger can actually use TWF. Like I don't see how. If they're TWF, they can't use their spells with dropping their off hand weapon all the time.

[LudicSavant]

But back to ranger, I'm just wondering how ranger can actually use TWF. Like I don't see how. If they're TWF, they can't use their spells with dropping their off hand weapon all the time.

You could grab one of those weapons that lets you use it as a spell focus. There's one that's a cheap "Common" item in XGtE... Ruby of the War Mage, IIRC.

[RogueJK]

Specifically, how does one make one without dumping AC. Kinda have to main dex, right?


That's one option, but far from the only one.

You can easily do a 2H STR-based nature themed melee martial, using Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin (especially Ancients) as the chassis. Fighter or Paladin wouldn't need any DEX, and Barbarian and Ranger only need 14 DEX.


You can even do a WIS-based nature-themed melee martial, leveraging Shillelagh on a Ranger with the Druidic Warrior fighting style, or a Fighter with the Magic Initiate Druid or Wood Elf Magic feat, or even something like a Nature Cleric with the High Elf/High Half Elf/MotM Kobold race combining Shillelagh + Booming Blade for WIS-based melee. The Fighter or Cleric wouldn't even need DEX since they'd have access to heavy armor, and the Ranger wouldn't need more than 14 DEX. Plus, with WIS as your primary stat, your Survival, Animal Handling, and Perception are also going to be solid.

Swarmkeeper is a great Ranger subclass for a WIS-based martial build, since their Gathered Swarm shove effects key off WIS too. Fey Wanderer Ranger also gains quite a bit from a high WIS.

Samurai is likely the best Fighter subclass for a WIS-based martial, since they have other synergy with a high WIS, like gaining +WIS to Persuasion checks and getting WIS save proficiency.

[Psyren]

Alternatively, I use short swords or a bow, but now I've got no way to cast spells while using my weapons. Of the spells I want to cast in combat, absorb elements, entangle, and fog cloud all have somatic components.

A bow occupies both hands when attacking, but you can briefly hold it in one hand to cast spells without any issues.
As for dual-wielding, is War Caster off limits for some reason?

[Unoriginal]

Specifically, how does one make one without dumping AC. Kinda have to main dex, right?

What's tripping me specifically is the ranger's spellcasting focus. They use the same one as a druid, meaning they can use a moon sickle. Nifty; it's a light weapon, acts a focus, and boosts spells to boot. But it's not finesse. It's usable as an off-hand, but not with dex.

Alternatively, I use short swords or a bow, but now I've got no way to cast spells while using my weapons. Of the spells I want to cast in combat, absorb elements, entangle, and fog cloud all have somatic components.

Paladins run into the same problem: bless, shield of faith, cure wounds, protec from evil and good, and heroism are all somatic (and that's just 1st level spells). They frequently use a shield too.

Would a Shillelagh-using Ranger fit what you want?

A staff/club can be a Druidic focus.

[J-H]

Do you have to have spellcasting to be nature-themed? If not, you could just go rogue or fighter and dive into some skills. Maybe an X Initiate spell for Entangle 1/day.
Or discuss with your DM going Eldritch Knight, but swapping out Evo/Abj for the Druid list.

[Skrum]

A bow occupies both hands when attacking, but you can briefly hold it in one hand to cast spells without any issues.
As for dual-wielding, is War Caster off limits for some reason?

Sorta. You can take your hand off your bow for free, but it takes an interaction to draw your focus and another interaction to put it away. So when casting hunter's mark for instance, you need to drop your focus if you want to attack in the same turn.

It's just so incredibly clumsy.

I also don't like bows or ranged combat in general...and melee fighters suffer a lot more for dropping items/switching from a weapon to a focus.

I don't find heavy armor (or even medium armor for that matter) to really fit the theme of the character. Ancients paladin would make a great Green Knight, guardian of the forest type character, less good as a Rambo.


Would a Shillelagh-using Ranger fit what you want?

A staff/club can be a Druidic focus.

Idk...what I was trying to make work was a moon sickle in one hand and a short sword in the other and use two weapon fighting style. Moon sickle would also be my focus so I can cast, but that leaves me with very low AC. Even if I start as fighter and get heavy armor prof, wearing heavy armor just doesn't fit the character concept. I know heavy armor doesn't actually slow characters down, but it still narrates as heavy and clunky. Hunting and scouting in plate? Not so much.

Edit: can shillelagh be cast on your focus? it's a little unclear to me, looking at the spell components
Edit Edit: doesn't even matter; this has been ruled against at my table already

[Psyren]

Sorta. You can take your hand off your bow for free, but it takes an interaction to draw your focus and another interaction to put it away. So when casting hunter's mark for instance, you need to drop your focus if you want to attack in the same turn.

It's just so incredibly clumsy.

Why not use a component pouch instead of a spell focus? Drawing your components from the pouch is part of the casting action (and uses the same free hand as your somatic component) - no object interaction needed. The pouch does not have to be held in your free hand to be used, only the components do, and your hand counts as free because the components get consumed or replaced immediately in game terms.

Also, Hunter's Mark is verbal only, you don't have to do anything with your hands to cast it.


I also don't like bows or ranged combat in general...and melee fighters suffer a lot more for dropping items/switching from a weapon to a focus.

Yes, it's an intended drawback to melee combat that if you want to dual-wield and cast you'll need a special weapon or the War Caster feat, as I mentioned. But you can melee without dual-wielding too, e.g. with a polearm, and take your hand off to use a pouch just like with the bow.


I don't find heavy armor (or even medium armor for that matter) to really fit the theme of the character. Ancients paladin would make a great Green Knight, guardian of the forest type character, less good as a Rambo.

I'm not sure this part was addressed to me (I didn't say anything about armor) but you can be a lightly armored ranger or other gish just fine.

[kazaryu]

Specifically, how does one make one without dumping AC. Kinda have to main dex, right? it kinda depends on what you consider to be 'dumping AC'. rangers get medium armor proficiency natively which can get you up to 15 AC even with low dex which is a decent AC. if you start v.human for heavily armored then...well then you can get up to 18AC (eventually). alternatively going fighter 1/ranger X gets you heavy armor proficiency and only requires a 13 in dex.



What's tripping me specifically is the ranger's spellcasting focus. They use the same one as a druid, meaning they can use a moon sickle. Nifty; it's a light weapon, acts a focus, and boosts spells to boot. But it's not finesse. It's usable as an off-hand, but not with dex.
ruby of the warmage turns any weapon into a spellcasting focus. and...in spite of its name doesn't only work for mages. it *does* require attunement. but ideally by the time that becomes an issue you would have the resources to deal with it.

other alternatives might include a wooden staff that doubles as a quarter staff..i mean, if your DM would let you have a moon sickle, i don't see why you can't have a quarterstaff that can be used as a nature focus.



Paladins run into the same problem: bless, shield of faith, cure wounds, protec from evil and good, and heroism are all somatic (and that's just 1st level spells). They frequently use a shield too. interestingly...a paladin with a shield is fine so long as the spell requires both a material and a somatic component. since the shield itself can act as a focus. its just spells that require somatic but not material that are a problem.

that said, the obvious option is to play a V. human or a custom lineage so you can start with warcaster. then you only need to worry about the focus...which can be your shield.

[Skrum]

it kinda depends on what you consider to be 'dumping AC'. rangers get medium armor proficiency natively which can get you up to 15 AC even with low dex which is a decent AC. if you start v.human for heavily armored then...well then you can get up to 18AC (eventually). alternatively going fighter 1/ranger X gets you heavy armor proficiency and only requires a 13 in dex.

Another player at our table was playing a paladin, and started off using a greatsword, giving him a 19 AC. He got so lit up he quickly abandoned the greatsword in favor of a shield.

I have another character, a fighter 3 warlock 5, that had 21 AC. Similarly, his defense was simply not good enough to remain in melee combat. He had to take more of a hit and run approach using boots of speed.

The characters at our table that can withstand melee combat all have a minimum AC of 23, and frequently have defensive reactions on top of that (or they're a barb with lots of resistances).

So, yeah, maybe my AC expectations are skewed lol. I'm just a little concerned about having so little in the way of defense.



ruby of the warmage turns any weapon into a spellcasting focus. and...in spite of its name doesn't only work for mages. it *does* require attunement. but ideally by the time that becomes an issue you would have the resources to deal with it.

other alternatives might include a wooden staff that doubles as a quarter staff..i mean, if your DM would let you have a moon sickle, i don't see why you can't have a quarterstaff that can be used as a nature focus.


ruby is a solid option, and available...I just hate spending the attune on it. But it might be the only option

[kazaryu]

Another player at our table was playing a paladin, and started off using a greatsword, giving him a 19 AC. He got so lit up he quickly abandoned the greatsword in favor of a shield.

I have another character, a fighter 3 warlock 5, that had 21 AC. Similarly, his defense was simply not good enough to remain in melee combat. He had to take more of a hit and run approach using boots of speed.

The characters at our table that can withstand melee combat all have a minimum AC of 23, and frequently have defensive reactions on top of that (or they're a barb with lots of resistances).

So, yeah, maybe my AC expectations are skewed lol. I'm just a little concerned about having so little in the way of defense.

uhhh...this is...well beyond what most peoples expectations are when it comes to the sort of expected values of AC and such in 5e. that isn't a problem, if your group is playing that type of game and enjoying it. However, for such a skewed table, its probably a good idea to be more upfront about those types of things. in fact more details might be helpful, for examples how available are magic items? what level are y'all playing at? (still level 8? getting a 23 AC without magic items is...not easy. its not impossible but certainly not easy.




ruby is a solid option, and available...I just hate spending the attune on it. But it might be the only option without that further elaboration i do feel comfortable suggesting something like a nature or ancients paladin. both can be fairly nature themed. and with the defense fighting style, full plate armor is already a 19 AC baseline. throw a shield on there and go V.human for a feat to get warcaster and you've got your casting covered and an AC of 21. without spending any magic items. if you can get access to +x armor/shields on top of that then your AC can go...well however high you need it to. drop a single level in sorcerer or for shield and absorb elements or hexblade for just shield but also a level 1 spell slots per short rest. and again, thats before magic items.

if you wanna do ranger then you can do a similar setup but you'd need to go v.human for heavily armored instead (or put 13in dex so you can MC cleric or fighter. forge cleric lets you turn a mundane shield or armor piece into +1, so thats an option to consider depending on the specific limitations of magic armor. other than that life cleric also gets heavy armor and would buff your heals (especially potent if your DM allows it to affect goodberry). to be clear you'd probably end up shield and quarterstaff or the moon sickle if you're that interested in buffing your casting. a higher level hunter subclass gets some interesting defensive options...multiattack defense might be a potent option, depending on how often the monsters use multiattack as opposed to using a single hard hitting attack. swarm keeper starts with some indirect defensive options. both being able to push yourself 5 feet when you hit a creature (can be used as a 'free' disengage) or trying to move a foe can do the same thing.

[Psyren]

Yeah, if 21 AC isn't good enough to be in melee at your table then it's no wonder you're fretting over your defense. And it means a lot of the standard advice we have is unlikely to help you, you're in a very high-difficulty campaign and your DM should probably be handing out more magic items.

EDIT:



ruby is a solid option, and available...I just hate spending the attune on it. But it might be the only option

It's not your only option, you've been given several alternatives that you haven't addressed at all. It low-key makes me wonder why you're asking for advice in the first place if you're not going to even acknowledge it?

[Unoriginal]

Another player at our table was playing a paladin, and started off using a greatsword, giving him a 19 AC. He got so lit up he quickly abandoned the greatsword in favor of a shield.

I have another character, a fighter 3 warlock 5, that had 21 AC. Similarly, his defense was simply not good enough to remain in melee combat. He had to take more of a hit and run approach using boots of speed.

The characters at our table that can withstand melee combat all have a minimum AC of 23, and frequently have defensive reactions on top of that (or they're a barb with lots of resistances).

So, yeah, maybe my AC expectations are skewed lol. I'm just a little concerned about having so little in the way of defense.

Against what kind of foes is 21 AC not enough?

23 AC is what the heavyweight bruisers among the Demon Princes have.

[Arkhios]

If using heavy armor isn't absolute no-no, and you can take feats, pick Heavily Armored and don't be a Stranger (pun intended).

I mean, if you plan to stay Ranger from 1st level until the end, you don't need Dexterity to be 13 or more. Only if you plan to multiclass at some point.

[RogueJK]

I don't find heavy armor (or even medium armor for that matter) to really fit the theme of the character.

Well, then naturally, you're going to have to focus on DEX... You're kinda at odds with yourself here, wanting to make a different stat than DEX your primary focus, but then ruling out using medium or heavy armor.

There's not really a way to make a light armor Ranger (or similar martial) without focusing on DEX, short of going with an unarmored Tortle, or a Loxodon with a 20 CON.

And even that's not going to get you to the 23+ AC that you're apparently requiring, as without magic items, their AC would be maxing out at 19 (17 racial + 2 shield). But that 19 AC is the same AC that your Light Armor martial with 20 DEX would have with Studded Leather + 20 DEX + Shield...


So I'm just at a loss as to how you're planning to gain a baseline 23+ AC here, especially with a Light Armor martial who doesn't focus on DEX. It sounds like you're going to need to make some compromises, and temper your expectations.

[kazaryu]

So I'm just at a loss as to how you're planning to gain a baseline 23+ AC here, especially with a Light Armor martial who doesn't focus on DEX.

thats literally the point of this thread...they were asking if anyone knew a way to do that. the baked in premise to the OP is that it was impossible. but it seems like they wanted to check with the 'experts'.



for skrum, depending on magic item availability and how willing your DM is to homebrew a little bit defender weapons can trade their enhancement bonus for AC. the base example given in the books is a +3 but theres no reason you can't have a +1 or +2 variant. (or even a pair of the +3 variety). dual wielding them can get you up to a +6 to AC (more than you'd get from even a +3 shield) and with the dual wielder feat you get an extra +1.

as far as heavy armor or medium armor not really fitting the theme, is that due to the metal? because its totally possible to have heavy/medium armor that isn't metal, again...depending on how flexible your DM is.

and for rambo, barbarians are the quintesential rambo type. at least as far as im aware (i've not actually seen the movies so..) but their unarmored defense relies on dex. so...idk.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, it's a bummer that Strength types don't have a strength-based unarmored defense.

[Skrum]

I don't need to hit 23 AC necessarily - cloaks of displacement are available, as are +1 AC items. The rule of the table though is we can only have 1 AC- boosting crafted item (basically, bought). For additional AC, we have to find it.

18 + cloak of displacement is solid. I won't be a tank, but I won't be total glass either. I guess the option is 14 Dex + half plate, though I'll have to give up Con for it.

But even then half plate isn't very Rambo-y.

Might just be asking for too much. I just wish the system was more "relaxed" when it came to AC. Like let characters get armor from features, and not rely on wearing the heaviest armor they can.

[Leon]

Sounds like a classic case of trying to Match a Narrative character too closely rather than be inspired by theming within the fairly ridged bounds of D&D

[Psyren]

There's a DM issue here too. If 18 AC is only acceptable in conjunction with a cloak of displacement, it suggests a level of difficulty that's an outlier to most tables; roughly, it suggests that the average monster at that table is running around with +12 or so to hit (disadvantage working out somewhere around -4 or -5), or deals a high enough damage per hit to offset a lower accuracy. And that's before I get into other weird houserules like their DM decreeing that a quarterstaff can't be a both a spell focus and a shillelagh.

[CTurbo]

Another player at our table was playing a paladin, and started off using a greatsword, giving him a 19 AC. He got so lit up he quickly abandoned the greatsword in favor of a shield.

I have another character, a fighter 3 warlock 5, that had 21 AC. Similarly, his defense was simply not good enough to remain in melee combat. He had to take more of a hit and run approach using boots of speed.

The characters at our table that can withstand melee combat all have a minimum AC of 23, and frequently have defensive reactions on top of that (or they're a barb with lots of resistances).

So, yeah, maybe my AC expectations are skewed lol. I'm just a little concerned about having so little in the way of defense.

This is not normal, and it makes me wonder how much the DM is ramping up combat compared to the books. I've played in campaigns where no character ever got higher than an 18AC at any point and we always roll for stats which requires the DM to up the difficulty.

I don't think, in 5e, it's possible to have a lightly armored or unarmored warrior type with a super high AC while using point buy for stats.

I do think a Str Ranger fits the bill best. You could leave Dex at 14 forever and use Breastplate for AC of 16. Defense Style(or Mariner) adds +1. The Duel Wielder feat adds +1. Rings of Protection are easy to come by at early levels which is another +1. That an AC of 19 which honestly is really decent or at least it should be.

The 3rd point of Dual Wielder should solve any issues with holding weapons and casting spells.

You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Either Hunter or Gloom Stalker would work just fine, and for Hunter, both Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker are solid options depending on what style you're envisioning.

Depending on what level you start at or get to, you have several options to multiclass out of Ranger to.

If you're going to use Str based 1 handed weapons, dipping into Barb would be great. You have an optional Unarmored Defense option. If your Str is maxed, maxing out Con wouldn't be a bad thing at that point. The Defense fighting style wouldn't work though, but the other AC bonuses would.

If you're going to stick with light weapons, jumping over the Scout Rogue could work out really well and fits the theme while adding multiple defensive options.

Fighter is never a bad choice and would get you a 3rd attack and extra ASIs.

Switching to Monk also provides a new possible Unarmored Defense. Rangers like Wis anyway so maxing it out wouldn't be a bad thing. Monks also add some defensive options while increasing your movement a lot.

The conundrum with making a Str based character is it's ALMOST a waste to put points into Str early on when even the lowly Gauntlets of Ogre Power are "uncommon" and are easy to attain and by the end of 1st tier, Belts of Giants Str should be available.



I would probably make a typical Dex Ranger with a "decent" Str score of 13 or 14 and sneak in 2-3 Barb levels. I'd keep pumping Dex knowing I'd eventually get one of those magical Str boosting items.

[kazaryu]

I don't need to hit 23 AC necessarily - cloaks of displacement are available, as are +1 AC items. The rule of the table though is we can only have 1 AC- boosting crafted item (basically, bought). For additional AC, we have to find it.

18 + cloak of displacement is solid. I won't be a tank, but I won't be total glass either. I guess the option is 14 Dex + half plate, though I'll have to give up Con for it.

But even then half plate isn't very Rambo-y.

Might just be asking for too much. I just wish the system was more "relaxed" when it came to AC. Like let characters get armor from features, and not rely on wearing the heaviest armor they can.

the system is more relaxed with AC...as in, you're not supposed to need a crazy high AC (defined as 20+ ac) in order to be viable a 15-16 AC is supposed to be decent with 18-20 being on the high end.

This isn't a system issue...its a table issue. as in, the way your DM seems to be scaling difficulty is well beyond the bounds of what the system is meant to be run at. im curious, do the enemies have similar AC's?

[Quietus]

Wood elf ranger, take Shillelagh as your free cantrip. Get enough dex for medium armor, take your pick of the subclasses that don't care about your bonus action (Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker, Hunter, Monster Slayer, Swarmkeeper) and pump your wisdom. Medium armor, shield, shillelagh for 1d8 wis-based beatstick, fighting style of choice.

[LudicSavant]

I don't think, in 5e, it's possible to have a lightly armored or unarmored warrior type with a super high AC while using point buy for stats.

It's very much possible. Some of the builds in my sig do it with light or no armor, and that's before magic items. Since the OP's numbers are including magic items, it's even easier to achieve.


in order to be viable a 15-16 AC is supposed to be decent with 18-20 being on the high end.

If you have 15 AC on a martial melee character, that's not a very healthy place to be. That's like the low end of Wizard AC, if they're using Mage Armor and 14 Dex and nothing else whatsoever (and Wizards have way more defenses than their base stats).

[Skrum]

This isn't a system issue...its a table issue. as in, the way your DM seems to be scaling difficulty is well beyond the bounds of what the system is meant to be run at. im curious, do the enemies have similar AC's?

The core of the problem is the structure of the games: they're almost all "one shot" in nature. As in, a game runs for 3.5 - 4.5 hours, and it begins in civilization and ends the same. Characters get a "clean slate" (long rest) between every adventure.

So, to challenge characters, DM's step on the gas. There's effectively no attritional challenge; there's no time for it. I also DM, and my starting point when making an encounter is to use Kobold Fight Club and add monsters till I'm at the upper end of XP for a deadly encounter.

When designing my own monsters, I like to use the DMG's guide for monsters by CR. A boss I'll make CR = party level +3ish. Since we play at 7-10, a typical boss might have 200ish HP, 16-18 AC, +7 to +9 to hit, 40-70 damage a round from attacks, and spells/abilities (that they can use in conjunction with their attacks), legendary actions, etc.

[sandmote]

Sorta. You can take your hand off your bow for free, but it takes an interaction to draw your focus and another interaction to put it away. So when casting hunter's mark for instance, you need to drop your focus if you want to attack in the same turn. Rangers as presented in the PHB actually have no mention of being able to use a spell focus. There's nothing stopping the DM from letting a ranger use a focus, but the book is specifically trying to force you to use a component pouch to avoid this exact scenario.


ruby is a solid option, and available...I just hate spending the attune on it. But it might be the only option Again, the component pouch should be an option. The point is that you're using up whatever you pull out of the pouch in your spellcasting anyway (or just drop it after, as there's no material cost to it), so there's nothing still in your hand when you need to use the bow. Its a little bit harder to make flow when using two different weapons, but still less of a hassle than using a focus.

[LudicSavant]

Rangers as presented in the PHB actually have no mention of being able to use a spell focus.

While that's true, the option for them to use a focus was added in Tasha's.

[kazaryu]

If you have 15 AC on a martial melee character, that's not a very healthy place to be. That's like the low end of Wizard AC, if they're using Mage Armor and 14 Dex and nothing else whatsoever (and Wizards have way more defenses than their base stats).

its a perfectly fine place to be WRT whats expected. its not the tankiest. but its just as i described...decent. its not a great benchmark if you're optimizing. but 5e wasn't designed around optimizing. and even at higher levels AC isn't typically going to be a huge factor in survivability compared to things other defensive options that most classes get as they level. this is because a lot of high CR baddies have crazy high to-hit modifiers.

maybe you want up to an 18-19 by the time you hit 20 for a 'decent' AC. but 15-16 is fine for how the game is designed. that was all i was saying.

[LudicSavant]

its a perfectly fine place to be WRT whats expected. its not the tankiest. but its just as i described...decent. its not a great benchmark if you're optimizing. but 5e wasn't designed around optimizing.

What's expected by who? That's not what the designers of the game say -- they say their intent was to design the game to appeal to multiple distinct playstyles, including optimizers. There's no single playstyle expectation.

[kazaryu]

What's expected by who? That's not what the designers of the game say.

i mean..its how the game is designed...a light armor character caps out at 20AC without magic items and thats IF they invested fully in dexterity. AND have a shield. AND took the defense fighting style. they start at a 14ac (leather armor with +3 dex). heavy armor users are scarcely better. starting at 16 (18 with a shield) and scaling up to 21 with the defense fighting style and a shield.
and those are the caps outside of things like a 24/24 str/con barbarian.having a 26 ac (with shield). generally speaking 21 is a soft cap. meaning what you can easily reach with a pure class character. generally breaking that cap requires temporary bonuses or magic items.

further, the game is designed such that its viable for a character to stay at a 16-18 in their primary stat. which...for a light armor character slaps their AC at the 15-16 mark.

the numbers of the original game itself back up the idea that you were meant to be fine with a 15-16 AC. with higher ACs being achievable if you were specifically looking for a tank build. If you have a quote from someone that contradicts that, i would truly be curious to see it. because...i mean idk how it could possibly be true with the numbers themselves being what they are.

[LudicSavant]

a light armor character caps out at 20AC without magic items

You can find examples of light armored, zero magic item characters with more AC than that among the various builds posted by the community in my sig.

As to the rest, I don't really want to go digging for quotes on twitter at the moment (the site's less functional than it's ever been under its uh... new management), but I recall the designers saying that the game is intended to work for low-op players in casual games, and also for optimizers in challenging games. That they don't have a single model, they say they try to design for multiple models and playstyles at once, with varying degrees of success. Just like the MTG team tries to design for Timmy and Johnny and Spike etc.

That said, a good tenet of practical optimization is that you build for the table you're at. And it sounds like the OP's at a table where 15 AC isn't gonna cut it for a melee character.

[Skrum]

i mean..its how the game is designed...a light armor character caps out at 20AC without magic items and thats IF they invested fully in dexterity. AND have a shield. AND took the defense fighting style. they start at a 14ac (leather armor with +3 dex). heavy armor users are scarcely better. starting at 16 (18 with a shield) and scaling up to 21 with the defense fighting style and a shield.
and those are the caps outside of things like a 24/24 str/con barbarian.having a 26 ac (with shield). generally speaking 21 is a soft cap. meaning what you can easily reach with a pure class character. generally breaking that cap requires temporary bonuses or magic items.

further, the game is designed such that its viable for a character to stay at a 16-18 in their primary stat. which...for a light armor character slaps their AC at the 15-16 mark.

the numbers of the original game itself back up the idea that you were meant to be fine with a 15-16 AC. with higher ACs being achievable if you were specifically looking for a tank build. If you have a quote from someone that contradicts that, i would truly be curious to see it. because...i mean idk how it could possibly be true with the numbers themselves being what they are.

I can see this point of view, certainly. The cap on stats being 20, what values armor gives (factoring in dex); the AC of the base game certainly converges around that 20 or 21 figure.

My opinion though, that's as far as it was planned (if it was planned at all). Monsters in the CR 12+ range get attack bonuses that creep into the +13, +14, +15 range, which would make them hit an awful lot against AC 20. I guess you could make the argument that any game that got that high is probably handing out +2 and +3 armor and shields with frequency? It's the only way for AC to scale to match the attack rolls, especially for non-spellcasters.

[Psyren]

I can see this point of view, certainly. The cap on stats being 20, what values armor gives (factoring in dex); the AC of the base game certainly converges around that 20 or 21 figure.

My opinion though, that's as far as it was planned (if it was planned at all). Monsters in the CR 12+ range get attack bonuses that creep into the +13, +14, +15 range, which would make them hit an awful lot against AC 20. I guess you could make the argument that any game that got that high is probably handing out +2 and +3 armor and shields with frequency? It's the only way for AC to scale to match the attack rolls, especially for non-spellcasters.

Uh... could I ask where your math is coming from? Because DMG 274 doesn't have an expected monster to-hit value of +12 until CR 24. And even CR 30 doesn't hit +15...

[kazaryu]

You can find examples of light armored, zero magic item characters with more AC than that among the various builds posted by the community in my sig. that would fall under the category of optimization...which the game isn't designed around. recall that i used words like soft limit...and i did so for a purpose. it isn't a hard limit in that you *can't* break it. its a soft limit in that, generally speaking without specifically focusing on it and taking 1 or 2 rather specific build paths, you aren't going to break it. the game isn't designed aroudnt he assumption that all characters are built optimally.


As to the rest, I don't really want to go digging for quotes on twitter at the moment (the site's less functional than it's ever been under its uh... new management), but I recall the designers saying that the game is intended to work for low-op players in casual games, and also for optimizers in challenging games. That they don't have a single model, they say they try to design for multiple models and playstyles at once, with varying degrees of success. Just like the MTG team tries to design for Timmy and Johnny and Spike etc. except...they designed the classes in a specific way...they designed the monsters in a specific way. i agree with you that 5e is meant to appeal to a broad player base. but all you're doing is proving my point. 5e, if played based on the guidance in the DMG and using monsters in the MM, is not built to require AC's higher than 20. you *can* play that way, by focusing on optimizations and designing encounters on the deadly+ end of the spectrum. But that isn't where its designed to function. if it was, then any pure class would be capable of functioning at that level. and high op tables wouldn't so consistently talk about how easy encounters are if you use the built in challenge calculator.

in other words, the fact that 5e was designed for mid-low OP play to be viable (which it is) inherently means that the game is designed for mid-low op play. i you can, at your table, change that if you use stronger monsters than are recommended, or beef up the monsters that you do use, but it doesn't change the base gameplay design. it doesn't change how the classes all tend to scale by themselves.




That said, a good tenet of practical optimization is that you build for the table you're at. And it sounds like the OP's at a table where 15 AC isn't gonna cut it for a melee character. i think i understand where the contention is coming from. i've tried to be clear (possibly failed) that none of my points are meant to be 'skrums group plays the game wrong'. when i said that it wasn't a system issue it was a table issue my point was that they're simply playing at the high OP end of the system. it doesn't matter what the system is, that is always going to lead to restrictions. the only way it doesn't is if all classes are symmetrical. There are always going to be options that are 'better' based on the exact context of the game. even a system like 3.5 or pathfinder where you *can* get a higher AC. you could still operate at the high end of that, and thus limit the number of viable builds. because some classes/races/builds lend themselves to AC more than others.

TL:DR i wasn't saying that they were wrong to play high OP. just pointing out that it isn't the systems fault they're playing high OP. and when you're in high OP and you want to focus on a specific trait like AC, you are always going to be more limited. its intrinsically part of the design.


I can see this point of view, certainly. The cap on stats being 20, what values armor gives (factoring in dex); the AC of the base game certainly converges around that 20 or 21 figure.

My opinion though, that's as far as it was planned (if it was planned at all). Monsters in the CR 12+ range get attack bonuses that creep into the +13, +14, +15 range, which would make them hit an awful lot against AC 20. I guess you could make the argument that any game that got that high is probably handing out +2 and +3 armor and shields with frequency? It's the only way for AC to scale to match the attack rolls, especially for non-spellcasters.
as i mentioned to ludic (and have tried to allude to throughout) im not trying to say that you're wrong to play the way you do. Im just pointing out that the game has a range where it kind of expects AC to be for the PC's. if you're going to play outside of that range. then you will naturally limit the builds that are available, because only specific builds are capable of that (without magic items).

as far as monster scaling, i've heard that argument before, and what i think tends to get overlooked with that is...at those levels PC's are exponentially harder to hit/damage and they're certainly harder to make damage stick. healing spells are significantly stronger at that level. defensive cooldowns like shield and absorb elements are cheaper. casters have wall spells and other area denial/control spells that can massively affect how easy/hard it is to harm the party. burst damage tends to be easier to pull of at high levels. the point being that AC isn't the be all end all of defense, especially at that level. it can be a factor. but i don't think its really meant to be the biggest.

opinions aside, bounded accuracy was a core tenet of 5e's design. and part of that means limiting AC so that even low level creatures have a decent chance of hitting...and can thus still be dangerous. monsters AC tends to follow this too. its fairly uncommon for a monster to have an AC higher than 20, and when they do they frequently have FAR fewer hitpoints than their CR would suggest (see: solars and empyreans). but if you look in the 'expected monster statistics by challenge rating' section of the DMG even a CR30 monster is 'expected' to have an AC of 19. and CR 20 creatures to have 350-400HP...which is about 50 more than the empyrean (cr22) and a full 100-150 more than the solar (cr21). i don't know how many monsters are exactly on that line...i'd imaging that most are one side or the other of it. but the point remains that, by design, thats meant to be a rough limit for most creatures (~20 AC).

so i gotta assume that the reason so many creatures scale to-hit faster than AC scales..or at least to a larger degree, is that AC isn't meant to stay at the absolute top of defensive options. i suppose its also possible that one half of the design team was busy talking to the public about how magic items aren't designed to be core in dnd 5e. they're meant to be rare and therefore precious when they do come up...meanwhile the other half didn't realize that and were just assuming that most characters would end up in +3 armor. But i tend not to assume incompetence at that scale.



but now i feel like i've lost the plot..or maybe the book altogether...what were we talking about?

[Skrum]

Uh... could I ask where your math is coming from? Because DMG 274 doesn't have an expected monster to-hit value of +12 until CR 24. And even CR 30 doesn't hit +15...

Well, I started to write a post about the printed monsters having a high attack bonus than the chart (while having lower damage and HP), but glancing through the MM the attacks are about equal to the chart. Very strong creatures, like giants, have higher attack bonuses than the chart, but they're the exception.

Honestly this might just be a function of the particular table I play at. Like I said I above, we skew pretty hard towards a "rocket tag" playstyle. Not that DM's are inflating attack bonuses, usually, but with the overall deadliness of the encounters, trying to be a melee character can be rough. Get tagged a few times and your character is probably going to drop. It's absolutely led to a bit of an "arms race" towards AC and defense.




so i gotta assume that the reason so many creatures scale to-hit faster than AC scales..or at least to a larger degree, is that AC isn't meant to stay at the absolute top of defensive options. i suppose its also possible that one half of the design team was busy talking to the public about how magic items aren't designed to be core in dnd 5e. they're meant to be rare and therefore precious when they do come up...meanwhile the other half didn't realize that and were just assuming that most characters would end up in +3 armor. But i tend not to assume incompetence at that scale.


I mean, that would be an insane level of incompetence, but it does boggle the mind a bit what the thought process was. If a fighter or a paladin isn't getting a +2 shield and +3 plate by level 15ish, and are instead still hovering in that 18-21 range...what did the designers think those characters were going to do when facing an Adult Red Dragon (CR 17)? That is absolutely an appropriate threat, and would in fact probably have minions as well. The dragon attacking an AC 20 champion fighter is going to do....43 DPR. Unless it uses it's breath weapon for an expected damage of (nearly) 63 - there's very little chance the fighter can succeed on a DC 21 Dex save. I guess the fighter will have ~140 hit points. Could just eat for it for a few rounds.

Huh, maybe it's not as bad as I thought?

Idk. Idk what the thought is, or the expected values, or anything lol. All I know is melee characters at the table I play at either have 18 AC and a cloak of displacement, or 22+ AC. Plus defensive reactions, like shield. And that's what it takes to stand in melee.

[Psyren]

Honestly this might just be a function of the particular table I play at.

I mean, yeah... this is exactly what I've been trying to help you realize for a few posts now.


Like I said I above, we skew pretty hard towards a "rocket tag" playstyle. Not that DM's are inflating attack bonuses, usually, but with the overall deadliness of the encounters, trying to be a melee character can be rough. Get tagged a few times and your character is probably going to drop. It's absolutely led to a bit of an "arms race" towards AC and defense.

And there's nothing wrong with your DM wanting to buff the monsters, so long as they are similarly giving you the means to keep up. But what it seems like they're doing is breaking the game's expected math so you fall behind, and then not helping you catch up. At least, that's the conclusion I'm drawing from the existence of this thread.

If you can, I would point him to the DMG table and highlight the fact that he is buffing the monsters' attack rolls by as much as 50%, and by doing so, making melee far too lethal to be fun.

[Arkhios]

Yeah, I'm with Psyren on this. This is definitely a function of your particular table, not the norm.

My own view from what was said is that your DM (or group in general) seem to try and make 5th edition more like its predecessors (especially 3.5, but 4e isn't far behind) in terms of general challenge levels, not fully realizing that 5e runs somewhat differently from those, even though several factors are very close to each other.

The numbers range is intentionally much lower to reduce the need to stack gazillion different bonuses to both offense and defense, and reduce the impact of itemization to the point that it's not absolutely necessary.

One particular element that I've learned from 5e is that merely being magical an item doesn't need to provide a static bonus to rolls. Unique traits are more interesting.

[Slipjig]

The dragon attacking an AC 20 champion fighter is going to do....43 DPR. Unless it uses it's breath weapon for an expected damage of (nearly) 63 - there's very little chance the fighter can succeed on a DC 21 Dex save. I guess the fighter will have ~140 hit points. Could just eat for it for a few rounds.

Huh, maybe it's not as bad as I thought?

I think you hit the nail on the head there at the end. Your defenses are both your AC *and* your HP, and major enemies are EXPECTED to be hitting the martials most of the time. If a martial can survive going toe-to-toe with the Big Bad for a few rounds, they've done their job, because the rest of the party should have gotten off nearly a dozen spells in that time span, either burning down the dragon's HP or keeping the martial in the fight.

[Skrum]

I don't disagree with what y'all are saying, but the DM's (myself included) are caught between a rock and a hard place. How do you challenge a group of 4-5 level 9 characters when you have 4 hours to play and the characters come in completely fresh every game. There has to be meaningful challenges to match the narrative. We occasionally will run multipart games, but they are not the norm and not in the spirit of the original concept of the game (West Marches).

So, enemies get super threatening because the assumption is the party is going to have full resources, hit points, etc.

[Keltest]

I mean, the characters don't have to come in completely fresh every game. The game is built around the expectation of multiple encounters per long rest.

[Psyren]

I mean, the characters don't have to come in completely fresh every game. The game is built around the expectation of multiple encounters per long rest.

This, and I'll add - multiple encounters per long rest doesn't have to mean multiple encounters per session. If you only have time for one combat in a session that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that part of the expected challenge in D&D comes from the players needing to manage and even ration their resources. So your DMs should consider not refreshing everyone after a single combat and having effectively a 5-minute adventuring day.

[kazaryu]

I don't disagree with what y'all are saying, but the DM's (myself included) are caught between a rock and a hard place. How do you challenge a group of 4-5 level 9 characters when you have 4 hours to play and the characters come in completely fresh every game. There has to be meaningful challenges to match the narrative. We occasionally will run multipart games, but they are not the norm and not in the spirit of the original concept of the game (West Marches).

So, enemies get super threatening because the assumption is the party is going to have full resources, hit points, etc.

this is, indeed, the eternal challenge. there are a few methods.
1. use multiple enemies in a given fight. action economy is huge, and its made even stronger by PC's having all their resources up. for level 9s you're talking about multiple level 4-5 spells being dropped. fighters doing their action surge alpha strike BS, yada, yada, all of which combined with blitz down single enemies...almost regardless of who they are. and enemies that DO survive that first round or 2 are likely to come out of it limited in some way, possibly fuil on CC'd. this can be fixed with more action economy on the enemies side. and nor like a few ****ty mooks with 1 big boss. instead consider 3-4 'mini boss' level monsters/creatures. that was if they burst down the 'boss' the fight doesn't lose the vast majority of its danger.

2. fight tactically. the most optimal PC tactic is going to be the one that removes a combatant from the fight the quickest. for damage dealers that means trying to focus their damage on 1 target as much as possible. for casters it can mean casting crowd control/area control spells to limit only allow the enemies to field a certain number of units at a time. tactically speaking...the same is true for monsters. however, generally speaking its less fun to just...hard CC a pc. if a Player can't do anything on their turn...why are they playing? its ok to hard CC occasionally. but it should be your focus. instead look at tactics that reduce PC's abiltiy to focus fire. things like having monsters come in from multiple angles so front line martials needs to split up. look into high mobility monsters that can get on top of ranged attackers as a form of soft CC. generally the idea is to consistently change who the high priority target is by threatening the squishier characters. But also don't completely ignore the 'tanks. the players are playing tanks to begin with. they want to be targeted. So rather target them sometimes, and when you go around them, do so in a way that respects them. i.e. don't just walk past them and be like 'eh, he'll take the OA'. have them demonstrably try to avoid the tank. have them react with frustration as the PC's adapt to block such maneuvers.

3. have non-combat challenges mixed into the combats. this can include things like:
A. needing to control various control points: think like...5th element where they need to put the boxes on the pedestals. but spread it out a little bit more so you can have a tension between the players and their adversaries. maybe theres some kind of ancient device that grants...something idk.. a wish, just as a basic suggestion. and both the PC's and the enemy want it...but obviously the bad guys wanna do bad things with the wish.
B. having a squishy NPC they need to guard: its probably a good idea to not have ranged enemies for this type of challenge, because its much harder to guard against ranged attacks. But this can work especially well if they need ot guard an NPC, but they also need to dive into the enemies 'territory' in order to end the encounter. think like a summon is...summoning things and sending them after the party, but the summoner is also hiding behind things. so the PC's need to close range on the summoner...but bringing the PC there is dangerous.
C. having the bad guys have a severe environmental advantage. think like a shooting gallery. enemies have high ground and cover while the PC's are stuck (at least initially) out in the open. the enemies in this case don't need to be terribly strong on their own, its the fact that the environment is in their favor that makes them dangerous.

basically think of things to add to the combat that aren't just 'this enemy has X hit points and Y defenses, you need to reduce hitpoints to 0'. give the players objectives that *will* require their actions to complete, meaning they can't use that action doing actual fighting that turn. budget a portion of the enemies power into something that the PC's cant affect with smart tactics. obviously this is harder to design for but still.

[Skrum]

This, and I'll add - multiple encounters per long rest doesn't have to mean multiple encounters per session. If you only have time for one combat in a session that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that part of the expected challenge in D&D comes from the players needing to manage and even ration their resources. So your DMs should consider not refreshing everyone after a single combat and having effectively a 5-minute adventuring day.

We can't really do that though - it's a very large table with multiple, rotating DM's and multiple characters per player. To account for the fact that a particular character most certainly won't be playing at the same DM's "table" multiple times in a row, individual adventures are structured to be episodic (having a clear start and finish).

It's a great format for a very freewheeling and flexible schedule, but it does make it difficult to attritionally drain characters.

[Skrum]

Anyway, the build I settled on that I think works pretty well is orc monk 1 swarmkeeper ranger 6. Point buy + racial mods for 8 17 14 10 16 8. Skill expert bumps dex to 18, and gives expertise in animal handling (a flavor pick that'll make sense in a minute xD). Deft Explorer for expertise in stealth. AC is a little low at 17, but a cloak of displacement and being careful with placement should be enough to stay alive (swarmkeeper can help here, as well as adrenaline rush). Overall skills are acrobatics +7 animal handling +9 insight +6 medicine +6 stealth +10 survival +6. Spells are zephyr strike, absorb elements, pass without trace, and summon beast (plus swarmkeeper and primal awareness spells).

This is Ullo. She was once the princess of the Beatleback Tribe, but when she was very young an evil hag drove her father mad. She only survived by fleeing into the woods. Soon after, she was found by a group of dwarves, 7 miners on a long-term expedition into the deep wilderness. Despite an initial language barrier, the dwarves soon came to care for the fiery princess and raised her as if she was their own. Years passed, and in a sign of her royal lineage, by time she was an adult she had befriended every bird and beast in the wood. Woe betide anyone that gets on her bad side, as a swarm of songbirds that follow her everywhere will instantly begin to peck and harass the interloper. Quick to throw a punch (she is an *orc* princess after all) but even quicker to make friends, her adopted family of 7 dwarves have finally convinced her it is time to leave her beloved woods and find out what happened to the rest of her tribe.

[Amechra]

Huh, maybe it's not as bad as I thought?

Also, bear in mind that everyone will probably have fire resistance unless the red dragon's a random encounter - if nothing else, Potions of Resistance are uncommon magic items, so you can blunt the breath weapon.

[Clause]

You can do at archfey warlock. And go to tome to more spell choices, or chain to animal companion.

At the focus, the book is a focus itself. And pactkeeper staff can be used with sillhelarg. Take any race that remember florest things and be happy

[Arkhios]

One thing I'd like to try is an Oath of the Ancients paladin with the Ranger's spell list, a(ny) Ranger with the Paladin's spell list, or either with the paladin and ranger spell lists fully combined.

Alternatively, Eldritch Knight drawing their spells from the latter, combined spell list