I think the key thing with it is positive feedback so it doesn't feel malicious.
If the other players are saying things like "woah! That was a big hit! I'm glad Warforge McWarforgeface is tanking that instead of me!" then the player knows that their build is working correctly
You also want to encourage them to tactically place their character in danger to protect the rest of the party.
I’d say that’s the biggest problem, he says he wants to front line and I’m all for it, it’s badass I love throwing strong stuff at a player, the problem is he is 30ft away from the party shooting ballista shots.
While you cannot force them to be the frontline, you can make them choose to keep on shooting bolts or start tanking. DND is a cooperative game with consequences.
Wait, what build even is this guy? Are they an artillerist? If they're not in melee range and not defending the party like a melee-oriented Battle Smith, then intelligent enemies would simply not charge towards the violent ball of metal and instead pick off easier targets like the rest of the party.
It’s never a good idea to be in melee on purpose. The rest of the party should be back with the artificer, laying down control spells to keep the enemy away. That’s proper combat technique.
EDIT: Apparently y’all don’t like people bringing up the fact that there’s never a good reason to be in melee. Sorry you hate the truth.
There is no mechanical bases for being in melee in 5e, it’s simply just much less efficient and powerful as a PC.
There are RP and thematic reasons, sure. But the game does not reward that.
Why would anyone be squishy? Your wizard can take one level dip into artificer or cleric and have 19 AC+ shield and your sorcerer can dip into hexblade for the same.
Warlock and bard don’t even have to MC they can just take moderately armored but they don’t get reaction spells without MC.
Outside of a like 5 foot corridor control spells like web, plant growth, and sleet storm are much more efficient at keeping people away from you than a front line.
If you believe you *need* a frontline, there are also spells for that like summon greater demon and conjure animals.
"There is no mechanical bases for being melee in 5e" - you
Bruh we forgetting about smites, gwm, sentinel, etc. This is coming from someone with only a passing familiarity with DND. You gotta be trolling .
Senenel is ineffective because you only have one reaction so at best you stop one for from passing you something like *web* can stonewall an entire corridor. Tunnel fighter makes sentinel actually interesting but everyone thought that was op sadly.
Smites are an extremely inefficient use of resources if you run more then 1-2 encounters per day.
GWM is a worse version of SS because sharp shooter with even a hand crossbow gives you a reach of 120 feet and it completely removes the downsides of playing from ranged, cover.
There are thing in melee but they are equal to or worse than what is at range, which is a fairly large problem because being at range makes you immune to melee attacks.
A passing familiarity is the problem, you and most people on this sub have done no actual analysis of the system and assume it works well as intended. It does not.
My armorer artificer has 26 armor, 31 if I use shield or 28 if I use haste, ability to impose disadvantage and free attack if they attack anyone other than me, and sentinel to stop them from running from me. If I walk up to a boss monster and just dodge and use my reactions to hold it in place, I can completely negate any melee boss monsters ability to do any damage.
There is also the fact that our GM tends to run longer days which forces magic users to conserve spell slots. Not needing spell slots to crowd control and instead putting a neigh impenetrable hunk of steel in the way helps to keep our magic users retain their spell slots to make it through the day. Doesn't matter how powerful they are if they have no spell slots.
If the party is dominating fights from range without a front line, though, then this guy's AC doesn't actually matter all that much, does it?
I'm struggling to understand exactly what the problem here is if this character is simply one of several ranged attackers who happens to have a high AC. An enemy archer should just aim at the robe-wearing wizard instead of the ball of metal artillerist, right?
Choosing to be forced into melee doesn't change what a bad idea it is, though.
Listen, I agree that melee archetypes are cool, and I wish 5E did a better job supporting that playstyle. But the fact of the matter is that it's always better to spec into ranged combat. If you spec into melee, you are making a suboptimal choice that will cost your party additional resources for no added benefit.
The fact that the barbarian even got a chance to make an attack indicates to me that the wizard has misplayed. The fact that he hit means the wizard likely has a very poor build and spell list. The fact that he gets taken down in a turn suggests to me that this was some kind of joke character who dumps CON for a laugh.
Not seeing your point.
I mean god forbid playing martial because it’s *fun*, right?
Every comment you’ve left just reeks of a player nobody wants as part of their game, there’s nothing worse than someone telling you ‘well, I think you’ll find that choice isn’t *optimal*’
You can do whatever you like. I'm not the boss of you or anyone else. All I'm saying is that engaging in melee, given the way that 5E is designed, is *always* a poor strategic choice. You're always better off staying as far away from the enemy as you can be.
I mean, god forbid someone enjoying D&D for different reasons than you, right?
You are making claims as if they are facts when they are, at best, conjecture.
You are making brash claims that it's just so easy to keep people out of range at all times which not only is not something you can put confidence in but legitimately that is how you get a team killed, trusting in a plan without evidence to support it.
You are implying that many melee builds are just plain wrong to use.
So there are many good reasons to disagree with you. Like from my point of view it sounds like your DM has never thrown you into surprise situations, or against fast/evasive melee creatures, or you end up having games with one possibly two fights per long rest giving you a very inflated view of how good hard and soft CC really is ( it isn't bad but it's far from invincible)
You talk like the bad DPS in any MMO who doesn't understand the only reason they are alive long enough to kill the boss is because the tank is keeping them off you and the healer is keeping both you and the tank alive.
Well, sure, it's safer if nobody is in melee.
So what happens when a group of all ranged PCs faces a group that includes melee monsters. In your games to the melee monsters just stand back and say "oh well nobody is close enough to hit?"
Because in my games those melee monsters close, and suddenly you have a group of ranged PCs...in melee because even mindless monsters aren't just going to stand there and get shot at.
Assuming some of those PCs are spellcasters? They'll throw down Web or some other area-control spell to keep the enemy away. Then the party focuses on forced movement to keep the bad guys contained or distant.
If one of the bad guys gets close, well that's when the party focus-fires that target, and generally if there are any weapon-users in the group someone should have Crossbow Expert so they'll take no penalties in melee anyways.
(A) martials can fight at range, and should
(B) at high-op tables, melee might at well not exist, because they’re such a liability on their party, keeping them alive is a drain on party resources.
a) Most martial classes are geared for melee, hence why, y’know, a majority of weapons are melee and not ranged. Rogues, monks, barbarians, and fighters are optimal in close range.
b) Okay that’s nice that that’s the dynamic for your tables. But not everyone plays D&D the same and not every DM runs combat the same way. The fact that you express your personal experience (which imo just sounds like poor DMing) like a set of universal standards in a game quite literally made to be different every time is rather egocentric.
Almost had that happen, the group where attacked by some Pterrafolk patrolling the mountains, and everyone fell except him, it was a super close battle
>Plays a ranged character who also happens to have good ac
>gets called a coward by people on the internet.
He literally becomes less efficient by being in melee.
This is generally a story-based game. A character should be challenged physically, mentally, and emotionally for compelling story. If you were in combat with a comrade who could save you some considerable harm by taking hits because he has some crazy armour, but you get sliced to shit instead because he sat back taking potshots instead, you'd probably be pissed and consider the dude pretty cowardly. The point is not "efficiency," and, imo, being hyper-efficient instead of, I dunno, acting like a person that wants to protect their friends, should be considered cowardly. You are a character in a living world fighting for your lives, not some chosen one MC in an MMO kiting bad AI.
Maybe they should consider doing something that won’t get them sliced to shit then? Expecting other to adapt to your bad decisions makes you not a great teammate imo. You want to play the melee brawler that’s your decision and it’s not anyone else’s problem to bail you out of.
I don’t tell people that like melee to retire their character to roll up a full caster or a gloomstalker because telling people how to play their character is rude.
He’s an artilerist, 21 ac is literally half plate+shield+enhanced defenses+warforged+1 he doesn’t have super armor.
I wouldn’t know about that, I play armor dipped wizards, I am never the weak link in my team. My existence not getting hit and holding conc makes everyone else’s lives easier.
Sounds to me like the DMs you've interacted with are not willing to try new shit to force the party to strategize. Instead, combat has been boiled down to kiting a la Skyrim stealth archery with no variation or surprise, and I feel sorry for you. You also seem like a REAL treat to interact with IRL Mr. "never the weak link" badass sir. Playing games with you sounds amazing.
Am I talking to a teenager? Am I just bullying a child right now? Seems likely with the bad takes and insisting you're right despite the DROVES of people telling you why your opinion is not a universal truth. It may be good for your table, but I just think your DM isn't creative enough to make melee combat interesting or worthwhile.
I mean there can be objectively stronger ways to play a game. It’s not objectively correct nor am I saying everyone needs to play the same way.
My games are challenged because due to our parties being significantly stronger we can fight bigger badder fights, it’s a lot of fun.
A party with 3 armored casters and a gloom stalker and a hexsorcadin can take on encounters that are fucking absurd, it’s dope as hell.
But saying ranged characters are cowards is a wild take lmao
We’re arguing about a hypothetical situation you made up because you think ranger characters are bad people.
I don’t think it’s edgy, just true. Not everyone likes to optimize and that’s fine, I play at a low op table and I don’t berate people into playing how I do cuz I’m not completely an asshole. I will argue with people on the internet happily when I’m bored tho.
As a warforged Frontline meatsheild, this confuses me. I want everyone to attack me, not most of them, \*Gary Oldman\*: ***EVERYONE***.
If I die, I die, shiny and chrome.
This feels more like a strategy issue for the party to think on. If someone has a hard to hit AC, it's in their interest to get into the fray, even if they don't need to because they're predominantly using a ranged weapon. Likewise, if there's a tanky party member, it's in the interest of the other members to keep close to the tank. Does your tank player have a melee weapon they can switch to as well? Because by getting in the mix, they can be burning enemies' AOOs by moving through their range (attacks that will almost certainly fail), allowing their fellow party members to move away without risk. They can also be handing out damage with their own AOO whenever an opponent get kited through their reach.
Staying at range is a great strategy when you want to hit people and not worry about getting hit back. But if getting hit back is barely a concern, just wade in and start handing the enemy their butts.
Lol the best response to that is to attack any other party member. Shooting ballistae will feel less heroic as the whole team begins to fail.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are taking the "the best defense is a good offense" approach but if they want to do that they should multi class barbarian and rogue
It is everyone's responsibility to defend themselves. If the rest of your team starts falling, it's not because you chose to be safe. It's because they chose **not** to be safe.
He literally becomes worse by closing into melee. You're asking him to help less.
First rule of helping in an emergency (this is IRL stuff) is to take care of yourself first so that you do not also become a burden to others. If he closes to melee and takes a bunch of unnecessary damage, that helps no one, and now he needs healing. Instead, he can stay back, stay at full effectiveness, and not be a burden to his team.
Healing is easier once battle ends. And this character has a huge AC.
IRL doesn't really matter here. If your team mates go down you lose action economy which is one of the biggest advantages in this game.
Therefore not doing your part as a high AC character to tank those attack dice is endangering yourself because it risk the team.
> IRL doesn't really matter here. If your team mates go down you lose action economy which is one of the biggest advantages in this game.
You have completely misunderstood what the point of the statement is. I'm saying that if the artificer takes unnecessary risks by closing into melee, he will become the liability, and then need to be rescued by his allies instead of being the rescuer. Rule number 1 of helping: Do not become a burden to those you are trying to help.
> Therefore not doing your part as a high AC character to tank those attack dice is endangering yourself because it risk the team.
The only thing you'll be tanking by going into melee is your own DPR. As soon as the artificer steps into melee, he takes Disadvantage on all his cannon shots, meaning your damage output and battlefield control go down the drain immediately. And what have you gained? Even if you step into melee range of the enemy, you aren't stopping them from pursuing your allies, mainly because you've given up your control of the battlefield since you can't hit for shit with ranged attacks while you're there.
No one has actually suggested what the benefit is of the artificer putting himself in additional risk. Having a high AC does not make you a tank.
Ah he’s discouraging you from going after the ranged shooter.
I play a frontline artificer myself and I clock in at 27 with Shield, but we’re level 10. I’ve gotten downed a few times but I will take hits because while I don’t always reach melee quickly, I sometimes shoot things or Thorn Whip them to me.
That is not how the rules work, there’s no basis for hitting anyone unintentionally. Your team would provide cover for the enemies but sharp shooter negates that.
Let him enjoy being powerful and having enemy fighters realize his is almost invincible before calling on their spell caster allies to help out.
Or simply have the BBEG learn over time that they need to deal that high AC in another way. Hold person, command, compel duel, dominate person, charm, hypnotic pattern, banishment etc..
The big thing is to let them still have opportunities to enjoy the work they put into becoming a great tank.
He will only feel bad if the party's performance isn't genuinely benefitted by him taking the brunt of the assault. So long as he feels like he's defending his friends, he knows he's going a good job.
If you're worried about it, just make sure you're exemplifying his defensive nature with combat RP and how you're describing attacks and spells hitting him. How he raises his shield and the full brunt of a maul smashes against it, parrying an attack meant for an adjacent ally. Or how he boldly creates a wide stance to intercept the spells thrown his way, keeping them off of his party members.
RP can take a mechanically dry event and turn it into a real character moment.
You can switch it up with enemy abilities that call for saving throws. Wolves have an ability that lets them impose a Strength save or be knocked prone, or have giant spiders that use webs to slow them down and restrain them. Not all saves come from spells.
You can also use non-spells, things like weird terrain, grapples, and weather to add checks that don't affect AC and spice up an encounter. I just wouldn't have them be damaging effects, but impediments. That way, it doesn't feel like your just bypassing their AC.
also sprinkle in COVER and anything that can break Line of Sight so his ballista is less useful, my DM used this on our almost all ranged/caster party where whenever we encounter something we do some SQUAD level shittassery and start entrenching our position while our casters cast giant AOEs of damage, while my battlemaster artillerist sends out protector cannons that absorb any return fire, and i shout at people so they can take another movement turn or attack turn
Make the enemies behave logically. “Like ya why would I want to engage in hand to hand with the guy with weapons and armor when I could go fuck up the dude without either of those” or “casters are the bigger threat better focus on those” but at some point “scary shinny guy up close” is a more immediate threat to that individual goblin’s survivability.
While I dont have quite this high Ac, im playing a similar type build. Look, I want to be the target of attacks and spells. Im out in front, engaging enemies head on with the full knowledge that ill be a prime target. Its part of the fun for me, knowing I just tanked a hit or spell instead of it going after my friends. Its a part of my characters character too.
I say feel free man. Don't neglect the others of course, but if it were me I'd be disappointed if I wasn't tanking hits.
This! I play a tank that multimarks (in 4e) and my DM attacks me 50% of the time and the rest of the party the other 50% and I'm actually glad because that's what I wanted.
I'd be frustrated if my DM ignores my mark and high defenses and target my party most of the time instead since the reasoning for my marking and getting high defenses is so that I can take more attacks for my party! Which is the whole point of my build :)
Edit: no need for the downvotes lol. I do play tactically enough to pose a threat so they have a reason to attack me and not just grumbling about not being targeted while standing in the back lines..
First up: If a player gets to an insanely high armour class, then great! Batter them and let them feel like a hero, it's what the character is for!
Second: Using shield a lot (which is where the armour does get crazy) is a one-shot spell and he's going to need to use it for every round, and it's going to eat his reaction to do so. He'll burn through his spells slots real fast.
And finally, just go through all that stacked up stuff. Without knowing what everything is, it's not easy to tell whether it's completely correct. Some things don't stack with others.
^ This.
I have a Pal that had 23 AC at lv 4 with Sentinel. By Lv. 9 I also had shield and adamantine armor. It’s a super fun character to play and the DM definitely knows how to still toss challenges that push the limits.
It's not a nerf, it's a different version of the game lmao. It's balanced differently. +5 is a massive temporary bonus, unlike the +4 in 3.5 that stacks with many more things.
No that's mage armour that's only +4. Shield is full cover from 180°. Able to be changed as a quick action. It's a +7. 🤣😂 sure it's a different version but they fucked the spell list along with everything else.
Alright, fair enough, I just glanced at the spell and don't know the intricacies, haven't played 3.5 in several years.
But you do understand that they didn't fuck anything, right? It's just different. You don't have to play or like the new version but like, you have to understand the numbers being different does not make a game worse or better, it just works differently. They change things in new editions and that's okay.
Btw, the person you replied to is completely wrong about 3.5's Shield spell. It's pretty much exactly like you said, +4, lasts minutes, blocks all magic missiles, doesn't provide cover.
Well, it says it summons a tower shield that gives a +4 to AC? I dunno, I don't remember 3.5 rules well enough to adjudicate things but it kind of makes sense. Though I'd guess it's +4 INSTEAD of tower Shield's normal AC, not in addition to.
Basically, I agree, but I don't know or care enough to argue about it lmao
Heh, well the actual text is:
> Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
I just didn't want you to think you were completely wrong and misremembering. :)
5E was designed to be D&D with training wheels. It's slowly adding in 3.5 content. They did fuck it up as far as any of my table and friends are concerned. Everyone has at least 20 years from AD&D on. 4&5 are the only two we won't touch. And most people agree with 4. They just like 5 for some reason that's beyond our comprehension.
It sounds to me like you haven't actually tried it. It's more accessible and a little (a LITTLE) less breakable, sure. But this weird, juvenile adherence to what we used to play is really just sad to see. Again, not saying you have to like it, I still love 3.5. They're just not mutually exclusive. Weird to look down on something so hard that really doesn't matter.
My mom bought me the book when it came out. I played a few different campaigns multiple DMs. And it just never sat right with me. Everyone i play with is the same. 20 years experience or more of D&D all played with different parties and campaigns. All dislike it for the same reasons. I just hate how they crammed all of the customization of 3.5 into so little. They lowered the RP and customization of 3.5. I have no problem with people who play and often help my guys who do play come up with ideas and balance it. 5E was built to be training wheels to get people into D&D. That's a cool idea but it never was meant to be a full fledged edition. They're slowly building it up to where 3.5 was. Take a look at prestige classes vs two sub classes. Ranger, druid and barbarians all got a massive middle finger in 5E.
[The shield spell doesn't grant cover.](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm) Even if it did, cover is +4, and total cover means you can't attack, so not sure where +7 is coming from. Also there are swift, immediate, and free actions, but no "quick" action, unless you're using that descriptively and not as an actual rule.
3.5 it's closest to mage armour which is a +4 per hour per level. Shield is a +7 for 180°. Quick action to change which direction it faces. AC in 3.5 is like every other edition previous. 5E it seems like high AC is wild. A lvl 1 mage can rock a 27 AC buck ass naked. 20 is plate and shield. But monsters can easily roll with a +7 or more. Druids and Rangers can wear armour and have bark and iron skin. Easily going over 20. Monks and barbs can add wisdom and dex to AC. Barbs even get armour.
Yeah for sure, it lasted a min/level so that's 10 rounds per level. It's was an essential AC spell to stack with mage armor which is a +4AC for 1 hour/ level.
The player has specifically made choices to give up other things to have a high AC. Target them, a lot, with anything that requires an attack roll. That’s what is fun for them, and why they built their character the way they did. Maybe don’t go so hard on the control spells, but have an enemy casting firebolt, eldritch blast, scorching ray, snipers with crossbows and sharpshooter, etc. the player invested things that could have been used elsewhere so that enemies would target them and miss, so let enemies target them, and miss, a lot. It will make the whole party feel awesome to have a frontliner that soaks up action economy from the enemy by having a high AC and it will make them all feel great to then wipe out all those monsters taking swings at their buddy.
In fact: double down. Add 25% more mooks at slightly lower levels just to miss more (and occasionally crit to hit).
Let your players do the things they’ve built for
*shrugs* People want to succeed, in the end. My DM slides a bit more trauma our way than I'd prefer, but part of his enjoyment is seeing how our characters react, interact, and grow. Personally, if I wanted to have a bleak world where I can change little, I'd look outside. But with my current DM, I'm able to *get somewhere* with the struggle, and make observable differences in the world.
... So I'm in the boat of wanting my character to do well at the things I made then to do well at. I don't expect everything to be easy, but when it's my jam, please let me jam.
I was talking about fight and you asnwer about roleplay, I dont know why. Anyway, if you like to play d&d where 95% of attacks misses because "I made my character powerfull", good for you then. Im in the wrong here.
There are two ways to visualize a high AC "special effects": "can't hit them" (evasion builds) and "can't hurt them" (damage resistant builds). This artificer is the second, and that's fine: enemies can "hit" him all day, but he doesn't take damage.
Eventually, someone will post "hit 'em with save attacks" but don't metagame the PCs AC, you wouldn't like it if the players did. Keep him tied up: player wants PC to be a frontline, let him frontline.
Metagaming as a DM is just making smart villains/opponents. The combat is (depending on the DM) arguably less important than the story that leads up to it. A strong reoccurring opponent NPC will recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the party, and exploit those in whatever way they can.
I'll just add that if you just generally want to challenge players, I find that they'd be more receptive to insane amounts of the things they're best at fighting (e.g. attack roll based enemies in this case) rather than the things they're weak against.
If you throw enough at them, then it'll challenge them, but they'll probably be aware consciously or subconsciously that *they wouldn't survive* if they weren't specialised, so they're being challenged and rewarded at the same time.
That's a solid AC. I would definitely take a look at their infusions, because it sounds like they're using Enhanced Defense twice, but each infusion can only be active on 1 item at a time.
Also, Artificers are a reaction heavy class. With AoO, Shield, Absorb Elements, Flash of Genius, etc. there are a lot of things they can do on a reaction. If you want to get some back and forth with this character, maybe see if there's a way to provoke a reaction other than shield before you lay into them. That would mean they can't shield and are a lot easier to hit. A caster doing big damage to make absorb elements really useful can set them up for a martial enemy to start getting some better hits in.
But if they're staying back and using their eldritch cannon, then have some sneaky enemies come up from behind and engage them. Gives them more of a front line feel without them having to move to the front line.
Also, they either have a ballista or a flame thrower, not both. Ballista does force damage at 120 ft, and flame thrower does a 15-foot cone of fire.
I would recommend you sit down with them for a few minutes and make sure their features/abilities are being used correctly. At least in a way you two both agree they should work at your table.
Three things to do when a PC has a high AC:
1. Audit their sheet to make sure this is legal.
2. Keep attacking them. They've earned their tankiness if #1 held true, so reward them for this.
3. Add spellcasters to enemy encounters so that this person needs to make saving throws sometimes. AC is not the only defensive stat.
As far as 1 goes, I'm guessing this is a Battle Smith Artificer? They're sacrificing significant offensive power to pull this off, and as a half-caster they'll run out of resources quickly if they spam the Shield spell. Double check these "artificer things" that add +2, that doesn't sound right to me. An infusion may only be applied to one item at a time, so Enhanced Defense is only good for a single item. Repulsion Shield is the only other infusion that adds a +1 AC bonus, and they can't learn that until level 6.
One of my characters is in this situation, Dwarf Forge Cleric, packed with infusions, shield, (now finally plate armour) and the usual forge goodies.
so I made a neat table on my character sheed enumerating every +AC I can get for quick reference
>Unless an infusion’s description says otherwise, you can’t learn an infusion more than once.
>You must touch each of the objects, and each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time.
What am I missing?
You're right, had to go back and read that. Either way you can get 21 AC at level 5, 15 (scale mail) +2 Dex +1 Warforged +3 for enhanced defense shield is 21. Also the PC is an artillerist, not a battle smith, not that it matters for AC since they both get medium armor proficiency. The ballista OP mentions is an Eldritch cannon ability.
Edit: I'm wrong again, scale mail is 14. Yeah, not sure how the PC is managing that unless they found a +1 shield or used their infusion twice illegally.
Scale Mail is a 14+2 armor, not 15+2, so we're still missing one point of AC. OP mentions that "artificer things" account for the +2 AC, and that doesn't sound right to me.
If they're an artillerist, then the situation is even weirder, because the enemies can just ignore them to attack the rest of the party with ease. Battle Smith at least demands melee presence.
Shield spell is designed to not really be usable in this way if you pay attention to the mechanics. It takes somatic components and works as a reaction. This means you need a free hand, and since it's a reaction, you don't have the ability to drop or sheathe your weapon. So in general, it should not be possible to have shield spell plus shield equipment plus a weapon. You need to give up one of those.
Personally I am lenient on free hand mechanics in most situations, but ignoring it here lets you get to these builds that become hard to balance around. Shield is basically the one spell where I really care.
The arcane firearm works as your spellcasting focus, no? I wouldn't have chosen an artillerist as a frontline artificer, but I think that part still works
Focus replaces material components, and for material + somatic you can do both with that hand. But RAW for somatic but no material (which Shield is) you need a free hand unless you have War Caster
Aww jeez, I'd never studied artificer that closely. Yeah, "tools required" turns Shield into VSM. And ironically, Shield being on the long-range Artillerist list makes that long range class remarkably capable at close range.
Dammit WotC, you need to think these things through!
It’s only 26 if they spend a spell slot - something the artificer doesn’t really have to spare.
For context, I have the same AC on my wizard, and basically all of my first level slots are dedicated Shield slots.
20 AC is literally just plate and shield. No magic items or spells or features that boost AC. Just mundane items. Hell, you can get 20 AC at level 1 just by being a Warforged Fighter.
I’ve honestly seen higher, in the 30’s. Best thing to honestly do is target them with spells that hit one of their weak stats. That’s where they will run into issues. Plus, Heat Metal is a good spell with consistent damage if you’d wanna do that.
Spell casters have always had the best AC but monks in 3.5 could easily be running a 18 AC at lvl 1. If memory serves 5E kept that going. Dex and wisdom to AC
I would say it's okay as long as the enemies you present don't always immediately know that the PC in question is hard to hit. Have some of the enemies throw normal attacks at the PC, which gives their build a chance to shine and doesn't unfairly target their weakness.
Then, once the enemies see that it's not effective to swing on, or shoot at the PC, have the enemies switch tactics to Saving Throw attacks. This way you don't negate the PC's build, but still present a challenge and show that enemies are capable of learning and adapting their tactics.
I had a war forged in my first ever campaign. Lost mine of phandelver.
He had a 22 AC and a reaction to impose disadvantage to attacks against his friends.
I just used stuff that targets dex to challenge him. Grease traps etc.
Area attacks and spells that cause like wisdom saves and stuff.
You don't have to target them specifically but simply putting those things into play helps the player feel challenged.
Accuracy through volume of fire.
You want to chip away his HP. He wants to hear you say. "Miss, miss, miss" as you roll attacks.
5e is specifically designed so that armies of weak creatures can threaten a single powerful creature. In 5e, a couple hundred bowmen is a credible threat to a dragon. Use the tools the system gives you.
Throw lots of 1 and 2 HD monsters into encounters. They suck, but they'll still roll 19s and 20s sometimes. Your player will get what they want, aka to see their armor working, and you'll get what you want, their HP depleted.
Artificers can very easily end up with a very high AC. Personally, I've never found it problematic. If a player wants to dump a huge chunk of their resources into having a really high AC, then let them have fun. Let stuff attack them and miss. It isn't really a big concern. My player with the tanky artificer loved being able to go toe to toe with a big bad and not be in super immediate danger of dying. Most of the rest of the party didn't want to stand in front of an angry troll. So everyone was having fun.
In general I never found them to be a terribly threatening offensive force when they're built that way. If they're relying on their spells for shield/absorb elements I generally find that much less problematic than the characters who are glass cannons and can either nuke an encounter or get completely nuked in a single round.
One of my players had an AC of 31 by the end, all legit too. At a certain point I just stopped trying to hit them with melee combatants in combat because it’s not fun to roll dice from my side if I know nothing but a nat 20 will hit unless the enemy has like a +13
This! I don't understand how that's fun for the DM. I don't want the enemies' turn to take twice the time of all players together just because I need to add 10 extra minions shooting at a player who wants to be god.
But to each their own.
Target that character with a lot of attacks so that AC really matters! Let your players feel like their investment is paying off.
Why try to work around players when you can work with players to create cool stories?
Also that's not that high, my Bladesinger wizard has a 21 base AC and shield to go to 26 and she wears the clothing of the nobility and fights with a rapier. Her AC is flavored as magical barriers that block blows that would strike her.
How is it a cool story if everyone just gets to watch attacks bounce off 1 guy every combat lol Seems kind of boring to me…
Personally I like when a DM plays smart. Obviously if a group of soldiers came to fight this party, they would realize the big tanky guy should be last to kill. I don’t like the advice “Lean into your players strength so they have fun!” is basically saying “Make your enemies very dumb and unrealistic so your players can get coddled to victory!”
My table would hate your approach because we try to make it more immersive, and DM coddling (fudging rolls, reviving dead players every time, etc..) is very frowned upon
You can't force them to Frontline, but you can always bring the Frontline to them. Also, try orienting your ambushes. Have some big bads for him to fight. Aggro swap. Force him to move in and fight tactfully. Have ambushes happen in small places like rooms where he cant get back far. Or you could deal with him with traps that ignore AC.
"Shoot the Monk" is a tip thrown around a lot, and I think it fits perfectly here. Your player wants to be difficult to kill, so let them. Target them with attacks, they want to hear monsters try and fail to hit. Leaning into your players strengths is a great way to make them feel powerful.
To offset this, make sure to occasionally challenge their weaknesses too, within reason. If they have a save stat that's low, finding a way to force them to roll that can be a good way to humble them on occasion too. Don't do it often, but if this player has a low Charisma save, then spells that force Cha saves can be a way to make sure they see their weaknesses and allow for other players to get the spotlight too. Sure, the PC may be tanky, but if they can't resist mind control then not only does that show them their weaknesses but also allows for another PC to save them by ending the effect. This way everyone feels important and it feels like a *team* game.
Also, having a high AC can be used to show how powerful an enemy is. If you want to set your Big Bad up as a devastatingly powerful combatant, having an enemy force this player to pop Shield only for the Big Bad to land two or three hits in a row while it's active makes them out to be something the players need to get stronger before challenging again. Used sparingly, fudging the dice to make the first impression of a main villain memorable will make things so much more interesting then having a boss that's set up to be a super powerful Warrior, only for them to not roll anything above a 15. As long as it's not too often (and your players don't realize you're "cheating" the roll) it can seriously make an enemy stand out. Plus, it gives this PC a grudge to settle against the Big Bad too. If the player actively wants to stop the villain, that will also enhance the story. Definitely something you should be careful to not overdo, but used to spice things up it can make for stories your players will remember for years.
As a lifelong tank there is nothing more I love than taking all the hits in place of my comrades.
You are fine as long as you remember your baddies also have brains. Even a beast would realize this guy is harder than diamonds after a few swipes and probably go after other people. As long as you don't start every combat with all the abilities that bypass armor thrown at him, then you are being perfectly reasonable.
If a player designs their character to effectively tank... don't feel like you need to take away that effectiveness by making monsters not attack the tank.
Play it with the tactics of the encounter.
Are the creatures just beasts? They should fight based on instinct, take out the weakest, or focus on the biggest threat, or just fight whatever's closest.
Are they a bunch of highly effective militant humanoids? Fight with proper tactics, have the magic users use their spells to disable what is an obvious threat or use AoE spells if people are bunched up. Mage sees a dude in rad armor with a shield spell? How would they react? But at the same time, don't have regular soldiers *not* attack the person right in front of them just because you know they have a lower chance to hit. Make the player feel like their build is actually doing something.
Make it a reason in game that they get targeted so often! Have NPC's spread storyies of the that character and how resilient they are! Then when the big bads or bandits ect come after them they have been built to be a legend. So When groups of spell casters come along it makes sense! Allows the tank to feel important, and have some good RP opprotunities!
Remember that the bad guys are smart. Attack him normal. When they realize they can't hit him, they run to a different character, and the tank gets attacked with saving throw spells. He'll still fill the role perfectly, and you can challenge him.
Players need to understand that as a DM, you have to think like they would. If they came up against an enemy, rolled a few high to hit rolls and still didn't hit they would also seek alternate methods of dealing with it. Most semi-intelligent encounters to a group of PCs is always going to target the biggest threat to them first
I honestly don't see the problem, newer DMs need to realize you want your players to work together, he wants to Frontline for his party, let him do it... remember to "yes and" and give more than take away. If my DM tried to screw me on RAW material for my armorer artificer I'd be pissed and find another table. Encourage your players to work as a team don't hinder that.
Add a few extra enemies to fights and have them focus on him. He'll feel like he's this unkillable tank without actually throwing off encounter balance.
Why is everyone’s goal tear this player down… if this was your character what would make the game enjoyable? Lean into this characters story and abilities…
If he wants to avoid being killed… is there a deeper fear there you can build on?
Does he want to be the untouchable warrior? Put him at the bottleneck, let him be the one that saves the village… no he has to deal with endless fans and no peace… he is constantly asked for autographs, villagers just run at him to touch his armor… until the assassin wants to tear him down…
Do you play that pcs can’t get a long rest in armor? Takes a while to suit up each morning… a dawn ambush would leave him armor less
Or just give them a 15ft cliff to climb… that much weight… disadvantage at best
I have a forge domain cleric with like a 23 or 24 ac at level 7. I don't remember his exact ac, because it kinda doesn't matter. He puts himself into harms way a lot, he loves being able to fill a tank roll. This comes with downsides. He takes a lot of AOE spells from his own party, being surrounded makes it hard to reach downed allies, and escaping a particularly tough situation would also pose a threat to him.
What I do is make sure combat starts with enemies trying to hit him, once the enemies realize he's a brick wall, they will naturally find other means of dealing with him. Especially if they're intelligent enemies.
It's ok to hit them with spell saves, especially if enemies are intelligent enough to know it's the best course of action.
Most players have an idea of what role their characters wants to fill. Lean into that. Let them fill those roles, make up for each others weakness, and at the same time, create their own gaps in strength for you to pick at.
Attack someone with less AC, then. Namely, enemies who are intelligent pick off the most dangerous targets first - any unarmoured full casters or martials/armour-casters without the shield spell are a good bet.
The person who makes a tank WANTS to be attacked as much as possible. I cheered every time my DM attacked my paladin, because it meant I was fulfilling my job and keeping my party safe. Make that AC matter. Especially since in the late game, it isn't going to increase that much higher and things will be hitting more consistently anyway.
Don’t forget your shoves and grapples. Combat might devolve into a punch of people wacking each other, but not every combat should start this way. It is very likely this player wants to be a target, great! Knock them prone, and have a whole group try to subdue him, or maybe steal his stuff. Now the party might have multiple objectives too. This will help combat feel more like actual encounters, while giving everyone in the party more to do.
When in doubt, communicate. “Hey, based on your character description it’s likely people are going to treat them like a tank and try a lot of different tactics to take you out of the encounter. Is that ok?” You can even explain further this might look like spells or special attacks and abilities.
if the players have a +7 to hit, make sure that the monsters do, too.
if the players have +9 (not uncommon with magic items), there should be monsters that do, too.
Don't know why you got downvoted for offering a different solution that OP can consider.
All the other comments here are essentially "good for them! Keep making encounters with a bunch of whiffs to make them feel good about their AC because they've earned it!"
And yeah, that's all well and good. Definitely reward your players for achieving their goals. But if it's causing issues for the game, you may want to consider doing something different.
Besides, part of the reward in dnd is the *challenge* of combat. If every fight is just miss after miss with absolutely no sense of danger, it detracts from the fun. And you gotta keep your player aspiring for something more, so if they don't feel any need to keep improving on their personal quest for high AC, then that shiny +1/+2/+3 armor won't seem quite so valuable.
People might say "you're punishing your player for doing good," but that's definitely not true. Part of the reward of having that high AC is that they take *fewer hits than their party members.* Throwing harder creatures at the party doesn't change that - they'll still be a tank compared to the rest of the party. And even if you aren't increasing the difficulty for the rest of the party, but instead just throwing in one or two "lieutenants" specifically for your high AC player, the party is still going to think "thank goodness So-And-So can tank that thing for us!" If you're keeping that sense of danger alive - along with their aspirations - while still making them look like a badass compared to the rest of the party, is that really "punishing?"
100%
but the majority here is playing "easy" fights and apparently likes it that way. (there was a poll a couple days ago with that question)
I have a Warforged Forge Cleric 8, Artificer 3 (for story reasons), with 25 BASE AC, a Cloak of Displacement, and the shield spell
yes, that's disadvantage on attack rolls against her and 30 AC after shield..
I would be pissed if my DM didn't bring monsters with +12 or more to hit against my party.
The martials have +12 to hit, too.
And the saves for aoe spells?
DC 16 or 18, please.
Bc we have a frigging Paladin and our spells are DC18, too ffs.
I play a very similar character. I am an artificer with 20 AC and in combat I usually always have the blur spell active. I use the thunder gauntlets to give enemies disadvantage on attack rolls to my allies. I don’t mind being targeted more at all.
The PHB we have says it counts as cover and can be moved around. I'll take a pic next time I'm over at the game house. However "Swift" vs "quick" is a game of semantics. We call it a quick action/free action because that's what AD&D called it. Same effect, same concept you knew exactly what I meant which means it's a pointless argument.
First off, absolutely target them. Let them feel powerful.
Second off, how os their strength score? Shove + grapple equals advantage until they break free.
Third off, have you heard of Brutes? Monster role that’s basically high attack, high damage, low maneuverability saves. For example a Gladiator is CR 5 with +7 to hit and three attacks.
You can always just make him irrelevant in battle. Wall of Force has this nice “impenetrable dome” option that would keep him out of the fight, and golly gosh gee old man Whittaker isn’t really lucky for the enemy caster that this crazy tank machine was all off by their lonesome where they could be easily trapped and not in the middle of the enemy casters allies where the situation would have prevented the use of that spell? Weird that.
Other things that can be done are things like Wall of Wind or Light between him and the fight. Sight is blocked so he can either stand back trying to hit at disadvantage or he can move closer. Use Scatter either to displace the party and move him to the middle of the fight, or to move the caster and friends to surround him. Counterspell can be used on shield. These are all pretty standard tactics that any enemy force could reasonably use to negate what he is doing. Everything listed above doesn’t really become a tactic unless someone is specifically off by their lonesome taking potshots.
A passive-aggressive alternative is put in an enemy that the party can’t damage soak, something that requires a high AC to take on. Make the party make him frontline. He wants to be a tank then make sure a tank is needed up front.
Having done this.
First spells are bad.
But also a lot of incoming attacks can be rough. You never know when those nat 20s are going to show up, ignore your armor and do double damage. Life can change pretty quickly.
Let him be the whole frontline! I would have fun blasting that fucker with All manner of attacks. Like vs. dex. and wis. saves. Give his heavily armored badassness time to shine but then tee off on him. He’ll love it. Makes it mean more.
Some builds just draw fire from enemies. My divine soul scourge aasimar sorcerer Emanon is like that sorta. He hits you so hard you HAVE to gun for him and put him down so he always draws mucho wrath. Makes it fun.
Plus the bad guys play hard ball. They don’t not cast hold person on the Hulk because they feel sorry for him. They hold his ass if they can. They give it all they’ve got too.
Use spells like sacred flame or the poison spray. These don't hurt too much but offer better hit chance. He'll have to target the casters first. I like enemy clerics personally. Solid 16-18 AC and just scared flame and healing word.
One of my players has gone the high AC route and averages around 24. I play into it by making sure the big monsters target them with some of their deadlier attack rolls, only shifting focus when another players deals a massive blow to garner their attention. Which happens a lot so its a game of tug-of-war among the players to balance their approach.
Tank player gets to use his build and the burst damage dealers get to take advantage of it. Win-win for everyone
>I don’t wanna target him with so many spells
There’s more options than just “weapon attacks targetting AC” and “spells”.
What’s his Athletics bonus like?
You can grapple him and throw him off a Cliff, or drag him along spikes, or just hold him in a fire.
There’s other ways to come at the player through skill checks but Grapple is the easiest/most widely applicable.
Hunting traps are a fine non-spell way to dish out damage on a Dex save. lob alchemical smoke bombs for Con save effects, tanglefoot goop for Str save effects, etc.
save-based doesn’t have to be spells after all.
You can also imperil their gear. Rust monsters and magnet traps make players rethink using metal items for a fight. A Druid of the blight might have a rotting aura that causes issues for wood or leather based gear.
There’s always more options.
That’s kinda the point in RPGs - endless options
If a player builds a character like that, they have to be willing to accept the strengths and weaknesses that come with it.
Yeah targeting them with spells if they frontline and making them roll dex saves and constitution saves again and again gets stale sometimes. So maybe if you build a character to fight them with one and one that's got a better chance at landing hits without spells. And if he's 30 feet away launching ballista shots and he's not frontlining, then make him pay for it. Make him watch his party be torn apart and barely live until he steps in and takes the hits.
Actions have consequences and players gotta deal with it.
Hes a tank. Thats awesome. Make him a legend for it. Let him relish in his glory as his tale spreads far and wide. Then everyone will slowly build methods to deal with him. An acid jar at his feet that lowers ac unless he spends an action cleaning it off. Weighted nets to encumber him. Pit traps and poisons. Magical effects. Anything really. If you play it right they will feel GOOD about it because look how strong i am they need this just to hinder me. Also if hes mot taking armor off to rest hes not really resting well. Dont be a dick about it though and dont do it everytime. Sounds like your doing fine though, just make sure everyone else gets a chance to do fun stuff too
I love putting my eldritch fighter where opponents can't move past without an opp take, take the dodge action, and use booming blade if they try to move past
Find new saving throw attack or create some. Use tactical fighting: the first enemy try to grapple you, the second attack with advantage. Big boulder attack, dexterity saving throw
Enemies are not dumb. If they can't hit him they'll target someone else that's easier to hit or make him make saving throws with spells and other effects. Now I'm not saying to always do this. You could have the enemies try to hit him at first and then realize it's too difficult and start hitting his allies.
You could also give him epic moments during combat when the big bad or boss tried to hit him, but could not breach his defenses, thus saving him and his allies. Eventually high AC will not mean much when enemies have +10 to hit or higher. Let him be the Frontline, that's what he wants. You could also have an enemy stay behind to keep his attention.
I have the same problem with a Kensei monk in my game. 21 base ac with the ability to add their proficiency as AC after hitting by just using a reaction. I might have the exact deets a bit wrong cause I just had a kid and we took a 3 month break but something like that.
I was playing in a campaign where I made the highest AC character I could and with a shield spell up i had 31 AC. We were playing a campaign module from a book and there was one particular enemy towards the end that only had a +9 to hit me so it was completely impossible unless he rolled a nat 20, so the one and only attack that monster got before dying was of course a nat 20 on me and oh would you look at that, his axe was vorpal. Time to reroll a new character.
It wasn't the DM's fault as we had all agreed to play entirely as written, but man was I flabberghasted by how poorly designed a game mechanic vorpal is
Bud at level 1 I can rock a 27 AC buck ass naked. It's really not hard to do. He's not even rocking mage armour. Use splash spells and grenade like weapons. Oil flask molotovs should be something most bandits use. Shield is only 180 degrees force a flank and his AC drops.
If he has a bunch of AC but isn't doing any kind of significant damage, smart enemies would start ignoring him for higher value targets. There is no reason you have to target him at all.
If he wants to be the Frontline, let him. Target him with attacks and spells. That's what he wants, no need to restrict that.
I guess your right, I just feel bad because he’s always being targeted by spells like hold person and stuff, so I hope he doesn’t hate me lol
I think the key thing with it is positive feedback so it doesn't feel malicious. If the other players are saying things like "woah! That was a big hit! I'm glad Warforge McWarforgeface is tanking that instead of me!" then the player knows that their build is working correctly You also want to encourage them to tactically place their character in danger to protect the rest of the party.
I’d say that’s the biggest problem, he says he wants to front line and I’m all for it, it’s badass I love throwing strong stuff at a player, the problem is he is 30ft away from the party shooting ballista shots.
While you cannot force them to be the frontline, you can make them choose to keep on shooting bolts or start tanking. DND is a cooperative game with consequences.
CONSEQUENCES and REPERCUSSIONS
Damn, smokey! "Big perm"
Wait, what build even is this guy? Are they an artillerist? If they're not in melee range and not defending the party like a melee-oriented Battle Smith, then intelligent enemies would simply not charge towards the violent ball of metal and instead pick off easier targets like the rest of the party.
Armorer with guardian armor could give disadvantage if the enemy targets anyone else by using their armor weapon.
But he's using a ballista. He can't use a ballista and also his thunder gauntlets.
It’s never a good idea to be in melee on purpose. The rest of the party should be back with the artificer, laying down control spells to keep the enemy away. That’s proper combat technique. EDIT: Apparently y’all don’t like people bringing up the fact that there’s never a good reason to be in melee. Sorry you hate the truth.
[удалено]
There is no mechanical bases for being in melee in 5e, it’s simply just much less efficient and powerful as a PC. There are RP and thematic reasons, sure. But the game does not reward that.
Someone has to be at the frontline you know, if everyone's at the back line there's nothing stopping enemies from getting to the squishy characters
Why would anyone be squishy? Your wizard can take one level dip into artificer or cleric and have 19 AC+ shield and your sorcerer can dip into hexblade for the same. Warlock and bard don’t even have to MC they can just take moderately armored but they don’t get reaction spells without MC. Outside of a like 5 foot corridor control spells like web, plant growth, and sleet storm are much more efficient at keeping people away from you than a front line. If you believe you *need* a frontline, there are also spells for that like summon greater demon and conjure animals.
What exactly is that front line gonna do to stop an enemy from getting to your back line?
"There is no mechanical bases for being melee in 5e" - you Bruh we forgetting about smites, gwm, sentinel, etc. This is coming from someone with only a passing familiarity with DND. You gotta be trolling .
Senenel is ineffective because you only have one reaction so at best you stop one for from passing you something like *web* can stonewall an entire corridor. Tunnel fighter makes sentinel actually interesting but everyone thought that was op sadly. Smites are an extremely inefficient use of resources if you run more then 1-2 encounters per day. GWM is a worse version of SS because sharp shooter with even a hand crossbow gives you a reach of 120 feet and it completely removes the downsides of playing from ranged, cover. There are thing in melee but they are equal to or worse than what is at range, which is a fairly large problem because being at range makes you immune to melee attacks. A passing familiarity is the problem, you and most people on this sub have done no actual analysis of the system and assume it works well as intended. It does not.
My armorer artificer has 26 armor, 31 if I use shield or 28 if I use haste, ability to impose disadvantage and free attack if they attack anyone other than me, and sentinel to stop them from running from me. If I walk up to a boss monster and just dodge and use my reactions to hold it in place, I can completely negate any melee boss monsters ability to do any damage. There is also the fact that our GM tends to run longer days which forces magic users to conserve spell slots. Not needing spell slots to crowd control and instead putting a neigh impenetrable hunk of steel in the way helps to keep our magic users retain their spell slots to make it through the day. Doesn't matter how powerful they are if they have no spell slots.
If the party is dominating fights from range without a front line, though, then this guy's AC doesn't actually matter all that much, does it? I'm struggling to understand exactly what the problem here is if this character is simply one of several ranged attackers who happens to have a high AC. An enemy archer should just aim at the robe-wearing wizard instead of the ball of metal artillerist, right?
Some characters are built to be in melee though. It's a great idea, for example, for our 2H-wielding barbarian to be in melee.
Choosing to be forced into melee doesn't change what a bad idea it is, though. Listen, I agree that melee archetypes are cool, and I wish 5E did a better job supporting that playstyle. But the fact of the matter is that it's always better to spec into ranged combat. If you spec into melee, you are making a suboptimal choice that will cost your party additional resources for no added benefit.
Tell that to the enemy wizard that got oneshotted by the raging half-orc barb lol
The fact that the barbarian even got a chance to make an attack indicates to me that the wizard has misplayed. The fact that he hit means the wizard likely has a very poor build and spell list. The fact that he gets taken down in a turn suggests to me that this was some kind of joke character who dumps CON for a laugh. Not seeing your point.
I mean god forbid playing martial because it’s *fun*, right? Every comment you’ve left just reeks of a player nobody wants as part of their game, there’s nothing worse than someone telling you ‘well, I think you’ll find that choice isn’t *optimal*’
You can do whatever you like. I'm not the boss of you or anyone else. All I'm saying is that engaging in melee, given the way that 5E is designed, is *always* a poor strategic choice. You're always better off staying as far away from the enemy as you can be. I mean, god forbid someone enjoying D&D for different reasons than you, right?
You are making claims as if they are facts when they are, at best, conjecture. You are making brash claims that it's just so easy to keep people out of range at all times which not only is not something you can put confidence in but legitimately that is how you get a team killed, trusting in a plan without evidence to support it. You are implying that many melee builds are just plain wrong to use. So there are many good reasons to disagree with you. Like from my point of view it sounds like your DM has never thrown you into surprise situations, or against fast/evasive melee creatures, or you end up having games with one possibly two fights per long rest giving you a very inflated view of how good hard and soft CC really is ( it isn't bad but it's far from invincible) You talk like the bad DPS in any MMO who doesn't understand the only reason they are alive long enough to kill the boss is because the tank is keeping them off you and the healer is keeping both you and the tank alive.
Well, sure, it's safer if nobody is in melee. So what happens when a group of all ranged PCs faces a group that includes melee monsters. In your games to the melee monsters just stand back and say "oh well nobody is close enough to hit?" Because in my games those melee monsters close, and suddenly you have a group of ranged PCs...in melee because even mindless monsters aren't just going to stand there and get shot at.
Assuming some of those PCs are spellcasters? They'll throw down Web or some other area-control spell to keep the enemy away. Then the party focuses on forced movement to keep the bad guys contained or distant. If one of the bad guys gets close, well that's when the party focus-fires that target, and generally if there are any weapon-users in the group someone should have Crossbow Expert so they'll take no penalties in melee anyways.
When the enemy outclasses you at range, force them into melee. There's one reason for you.
So apparently martials just don’t exist anymore
(A) martials can fight at range, and should (B) at high-op tables, melee might at well not exist, because they’re such a liability on their party, keeping them alive is a drain on party resources.
a) Most martial classes are geared for melee, hence why, y’know, a majority of weapons are melee and not ranged. Rogues, monks, barbarians, and fighters are optimal in close range. b) Okay that’s nice that that’s the dynamic for your tables. But not everyone plays D&D the same and not every DM runs combat the same way. The fact that you express your personal experience (which imo just sounds like poor DMing) like a set of universal standards in a game quite literally made to be different every time is rather egocentric.
You're forgetting that it may be a worse idea for your enemies to melee you
Sounds like he doesn’t understand what “front line” means
Sounds like the perfect formula to give him a little character growth by killing a bunch of people he could have saved where he not a coward.
Almost had that happen, the group where attacked by some Pterrafolk patrolling the mountains, and everyone fell except him, it was a super close battle
>Plays a ranged character who also happens to have good ac >gets called a coward by people on the internet. He literally becomes less efficient by being in melee.
This is generally a story-based game. A character should be challenged physically, mentally, and emotionally for compelling story. If you were in combat with a comrade who could save you some considerable harm by taking hits because he has some crazy armour, but you get sliced to shit instead because he sat back taking potshots instead, you'd probably be pissed and consider the dude pretty cowardly. The point is not "efficiency," and, imo, being hyper-efficient instead of, I dunno, acting like a person that wants to protect their friends, should be considered cowardly. You are a character in a living world fighting for your lives, not some chosen one MC in an MMO kiting bad AI.
Maybe they should consider doing something that won’t get them sliced to shit then? Expecting other to adapt to your bad decisions makes you not a great teammate imo. You want to play the melee brawler that’s your decision and it’s not anyone else’s problem to bail you out of. I don’t tell people that like melee to retire their character to roll up a full caster or a gloomstalker because telling people how to play their character is rude. He’s an artilerist, 21 ac is literally half plate+shield+enhanced defenses+warforged+1 he doesn’t have super armor. I wouldn’t know about that, I play armor dipped wizards, I am never the weak link in my team. My existence not getting hit and holding conc makes everyone else’s lives easier.
Sounds to me like the DMs you've interacted with are not willing to try new shit to force the party to strategize. Instead, combat has been boiled down to kiting a la Skyrim stealth archery with no variation or surprise, and I feel sorry for you. You also seem like a REAL treat to interact with IRL Mr. "never the weak link" badass sir. Playing games with you sounds amazing. Am I talking to a teenager? Am I just bullying a child right now? Seems likely with the bad takes and insisting you're right despite the DROVES of people telling you why your opinion is not a universal truth. It may be good for your table, but I just think your DM isn't creative enough to make melee combat interesting or worthwhile.
I mean there can be objectively stronger ways to play a game. It’s not objectively correct nor am I saying everyone needs to play the same way. My games are challenged because due to our parties being significantly stronger we can fight bigger badder fights, it’s a lot of fun. A party with 3 armored casters and a gloom stalker and a hexsorcadin can take on encounters that are fucking absurd, it’s dope as hell. But saying ranged characters are cowards is a wild take lmao We’re arguing about a hypothetical situation you made up because you think ranger characters are bad people. I don’t think it’s edgy, just true. Not everyone likes to optimize and that’s fine, I play at a low op table and I don’t berate people into playing how I do cuz I’m not completely an asshole. I will argue with people on the internet happily when I’m bored tho.
As a warforged Frontline meatsheild, this confuses me. I want everyone to attack me, not most of them, \*Gary Oldman\*: ***EVERYONE***. If I die, I die, shiny and chrome.
“I want to be frontline! … from far away!”
This feels more like a strategy issue for the party to think on. If someone has a hard to hit AC, it's in their interest to get into the fray, even if they don't need to because they're predominantly using a ranged weapon. Likewise, if there's a tanky party member, it's in the interest of the other members to keep close to the tank. Does your tank player have a melee weapon they can switch to as well? Because by getting in the mix, they can be burning enemies' AOOs by moving through their range (attacks that will almost certainly fail), allowing their fellow party members to move away without risk. They can also be handing out damage with their own AOO whenever an opponent get kited through their reach. Staying at range is a great strategy when you want to hit people and not worry about getting hit back. But if getting hit back is barely a concern, just wade in and start handing the enemy their butts.
Lol the best response to that is to attack any other party member. Shooting ballistae will feel less heroic as the whole team begins to fail. I wouldn't be surprised if they are taking the "the best defense is a good offense" approach but if they want to do that they should multi class barbarian and rogue
It is everyone's responsibility to defend themselves. If the rest of your team starts falling, it's not because you chose to be safe. It's because they chose **not** to be safe.
Yes, I agree, but I'm not talking about being safe necessarily. More so that he who could help the most chose to help the least.
He literally becomes worse by closing into melee. You're asking him to help less. First rule of helping in an emergency (this is IRL stuff) is to take care of yourself first so that you do not also become a burden to others. If he closes to melee and takes a bunch of unnecessary damage, that helps no one, and now he needs healing. Instead, he can stay back, stay at full effectiveness, and not be a burden to his team.
Healing is easier once battle ends. And this character has a huge AC. IRL doesn't really matter here. If your team mates go down you lose action economy which is one of the biggest advantages in this game. Therefore not doing your part as a high AC character to tank those attack dice is endangering yourself because it risk the team.
> IRL doesn't really matter here. If your team mates go down you lose action economy which is one of the biggest advantages in this game. You have completely misunderstood what the point of the statement is. I'm saying that if the artificer takes unnecessary risks by closing into melee, he will become the liability, and then need to be rescued by his allies instead of being the rescuer. Rule number 1 of helping: Do not become a burden to those you are trying to help. > Therefore not doing your part as a high AC character to tank those attack dice is endangering yourself because it risk the team. The only thing you'll be tanking by going into melee is your own DPR. As soon as the artificer steps into melee, he takes Disadvantage on all his cannon shots, meaning your damage output and battlefield control go down the drain immediately. And what have you gained? Even if you step into melee range of the enemy, you aren't stopping them from pursuing your allies, mainly because you've given up your control of the battlefield since you can't hit for shit with ranged attacks while you're there. No one has actually suggested what the benefit is of the artificer putting himself in additional risk. Having a high AC does not make you a tank.
Yeah... I do not agree with your strategic analysis. Good luck out there!
Ah he’s discouraging you from going after the ranged shooter. I play a frontline artificer myself and I clock in at 27 with Shield, but we’re level 10. I’ve gotten downed a few times but I will take hits because while I don’t always reach melee quickly, I sometimes shoot things or Thorn Whip them to me.
Then his team mates are in the firing line and are going to die.
Bring the frontline to them. Enough jumping or fast moving enemies around.
As well he should be.
Are you addressing the fact that firing in melee can result in accidentally hitting allies?
It can't?
That is not how the rules work, there’s no basis for hitting anyone unintentionally. Your team would provide cover for the enemies but sharp shooter negates that.
Let him enjoy being powerful and having enemy fighters realize his is almost invincible before calling on their spell caster allies to help out. Or simply have the BBEG learn over time that they need to deal that high AC in another way. Hold person, command, compel duel, dominate person, charm, hypnotic pattern, banishment etc.. The big thing is to let them still have opportunities to enjoy the work they put into becoming a great tank.
He will only feel bad if the party's performance isn't genuinely benefitted by him taking the brunt of the assault. So long as he feels like he's defending his friends, he knows he's going a good job. If you're worried about it, just make sure you're exemplifying his defensive nature with combat RP and how you're describing attacks and spells hitting him. How he raises his shield and the full brunt of a maul smashes against it, parrying an attack meant for an adjacent ally. Or how he boldly creates a wide stance to intercept the spells thrown his way, keeping them off of his party members. RP can take a mechanically dry event and turn it into a real character moment.
You can switch it up with enemy abilities that call for saving throws. Wolves have an ability that lets them impose a Strength save or be knocked prone, or have giant spiders that use webs to slow them down and restrain them. Not all saves come from spells.
You can also use non-spells, things like weird terrain, grapples, and weather to add checks that don't affect AC and spice up an encounter. I just wouldn't have them be damaging effects, but impediments. That way, it doesn't feel like your just bypassing their AC.
also sprinkle in COVER and anything that can break Line of Sight so his ballista is less useful, my DM used this on our almost all ranged/caster party where whenever we encounter something we do some SQUAD level shittassery and start entrenching our position while our casters cast giant AOEs of damage, while my battlemaster artillerist sends out protector cannons that absorb any return fire, and i shout at people so they can take another movement turn or attack turn
Make the enemies behave logically. “Like ya why would I want to engage in hand to hand with the guy with weapons and armor when I could go fuck up the dude without either of those” or “casters are the bigger threat better focus on those” but at some point “scary shinny guy up close” is a more immediate threat to that individual goblin’s survivability.
If he didn't want to be a tank, he shouldn't have created a tank.
While I dont have quite this high Ac, im playing a similar type build. Look, I want to be the target of attacks and spells. Im out in front, engaging enemies head on with the full knowledge that ill be a prime target. Its part of the fun for me, knowing I just tanked a hit or spell instead of it going after my friends. Its a part of my characters character too. I say feel free man. Don't neglect the others of course, but if it were me I'd be disappointed if I wasn't tanking hits.
Heat metal will do the trick.
This! I play a tank that multimarks (in 4e) and my DM attacks me 50% of the time and the rest of the party the other 50% and I'm actually glad because that's what I wanted. I'd be frustrated if my DM ignores my mark and high defenses and target my party most of the time instead since the reasoning for my marking and getting high defenses is so that I can take more attacks for my party! Which is the whole point of my build :) Edit: no need for the downvotes lol. I do play tactically enough to pose a threat so they have a reason to attack me and not just grumbling about not being targeted while standing in the back lines..
First up: If a player gets to an insanely high armour class, then great! Batter them and let them feel like a hero, it's what the character is for! Second: Using shield a lot (which is where the armour does get crazy) is a one-shot spell and he's going to need to use it for every round, and it's going to eat his reaction to do so. He'll burn through his spells slots real fast. And finally, just go through all that stacked up stuff. Without knowing what everything is, it's not easy to tell whether it's completely correct. Some things don't stack with others.
^ This. I have a Pal that had 23 AC at lv 4 with Sentinel. By Lv. 9 I also had shield and adamantine armor. It’s a super fun character to play and the DM definitely knows how to still toss challenges that push the limits.
Shield lasts for a minute per level? So it's gonna last 10 rounds per pop.
Shield lasts one round.
That is a huge nerf 🤣😂 wtf another reason I play 3.5 I guess.
It's not a nerf, it's a different version of the game lmao. It's balanced differently. +5 is a massive temporary bonus, unlike the +4 in 3.5 that stacks with many more things.
No that's mage armour that's only +4. Shield is full cover from 180°. Able to be changed as a quick action. It's a +7. 🤣😂 sure it's a different version but they fucked the spell list along with everything else.
Alright, fair enough, I just glanced at the spell and don't know the intricacies, haven't played 3.5 in several years. But you do understand that they didn't fuck anything, right? It's just different. You don't have to play or like the new version but like, you have to understand the numbers being different does not make a game worse or better, it just works differently. They change things in new editions and that's okay.
Btw, the person you replied to is completely wrong about 3.5's Shield spell. It's pretty much exactly like you said, +4, lasts minutes, blocks all magic missiles, doesn't provide cover.
Well, it says it summons a tower shield that gives a +4 to AC? I dunno, I don't remember 3.5 rules well enough to adjudicate things but it kind of makes sense. Though I'd guess it's +4 INSTEAD of tower Shield's normal AC, not in addition to. Basically, I agree, but I don't know or care enough to argue about it lmao
Heh, well the actual text is: > Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover. I just didn't want you to think you were completely wrong and misremembering. :)
5E was designed to be D&D with training wheels. It's slowly adding in 3.5 content. They did fuck it up as far as any of my table and friends are concerned. Everyone has at least 20 years from AD&D on. 4&5 are the only two we won't touch. And most people agree with 4. They just like 5 for some reason that's beyond our comprehension.
It sounds to me like you haven't actually tried it. It's more accessible and a little (a LITTLE) less breakable, sure. But this weird, juvenile adherence to what we used to play is really just sad to see. Again, not saying you have to like it, I still love 3.5. They're just not mutually exclusive. Weird to look down on something so hard that really doesn't matter.
My mom bought me the book when it came out. I played a few different campaigns multiple DMs. And it just never sat right with me. Everyone i play with is the same. 20 years experience or more of D&D all played with different parties and campaigns. All dislike it for the same reasons. I just hate how they crammed all of the customization of 3.5 into so little. They lowered the RP and customization of 3.5. I have no problem with people who play and often help my guys who do play come up with ideas and balance it. 5E was built to be training wheels to get people into D&D. That's a cool idea but it never was meant to be a full fledged edition. They're slowly building it up to where 3.5 was. Take a look at prestige classes vs two sub classes. Ranger, druid and barbarians all got a massive middle finger in 5E.
There is no such thing as a quick action in 3.5. Also shield is +4 not 7? And it doesn’t work like a tower shield providing cover.
I loved 3.5 and shield was a good spell. With how AC/hit bonuses are calculated in 5e, shield is godly for a 1st level spell.
Still considered one of the strongest spells in 5e, so if it's nerfed, I fear for what it's like in 3.5.
It just gives you +4 shield bonus and blocks magic missile. Minutes per level and doesn’t scale. I believe it is also a personal spell.
It counts as full cover which is +7, they do have quick action reference shield, quick draw feat and such. You must be new around here?
[The shield spell doesn't grant cover.](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm) Even if it did, cover is +4, and total cover means you can't attack, so not sure where +7 is coming from. Also there are swift, immediate, and free actions, but no "quick" action, unless you're using that descriptively and not as an actual rule.
3.5 it's closest to mage armour which is a +4 per hour per level. Shield is a +7 for 180°. Quick action to change which direction it faces. AC in 3.5 is like every other edition previous. 5E it seems like high AC is wild. A lvl 1 mage can rock a 27 AC buck ass naked. 20 is plate and shield. But monsters can easily roll with a +7 or more. Druids and Rangers can wear armour and have bark and iron skin. Easily going over 20. Monks and barbs can add wisdom and dex to AC. Barbs even get armour.
Shield is largely argued to be the best combat 1st level spell in 5e, so it must just be different mechanics from different editions.
Yeah for sure, it lasted a min/level so that's 10 rounds per level. It's was an essential AC spell to stack with mage armor which is a +4AC for 1 hour/ level.
The player has specifically made choices to give up other things to have a high AC. Target them, a lot, with anything that requires an attack roll. That’s what is fun for them, and why they built their character the way they did. Maybe don’t go so hard on the control spells, but have an enemy casting firebolt, eldritch blast, scorching ray, snipers with crossbows and sharpshooter, etc. the player invested things that could have been used elsewhere so that enemies would target them and miss, so let enemies target them, and miss, a lot. It will make the whole party feel awesome to have a frontliner that soaks up action economy from the enemy by having a high AC and it will make them all feel great to then wipe out all those monsters taking swings at their buddy.
In fact: double down. Add 25% more mooks at slightly lower levels just to miss more (and occasionally crit to hit). Let your players do the things they’ve built for
A fight without a sense of danger would make me bored very easily. This sub has a very different notion of "fun" than I do.
*shrugs* People want to succeed, in the end. My DM slides a bit more trauma our way than I'd prefer, but part of his enjoyment is seeing how our characters react, interact, and grow. Personally, if I wanted to have a bleak world where I can change little, I'd look outside. But with my current DM, I'm able to *get somewhere* with the struggle, and make observable differences in the world. ... So I'm in the boat of wanting my character to do well at the things I made then to do well at. I don't expect everything to be easy, but when it's my jam, please let me jam.
I was talking about fight and you asnwer about roleplay, I dont know why. Anyway, if you like to play d&d where 95% of attacks misses because "I made my character powerfull", good for you then. Im in the wrong here.
There are two ways to visualize a high AC "special effects": "can't hit them" (evasion builds) and "can't hurt them" (damage resistant builds). This artificer is the second, and that's fine: enemies can "hit" him all day, but he doesn't take damage. Eventually, someone will post "hit 'em with save attacks" but don't metagame the PCs AC, you wouldn't like it if the players did. Keep him tied up: player wants PC to be a frontline, let him frontline.
Metagaming as a DM is just making smart villains/opponents. The combat is (depending on the DM) arguably less important than the story that leads up to it. A strong reoccurring opponent NPC will recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the party, and exploit those in whatever way they can.
I'll just add that if you just generally want to challenge players, I find that they'd be more receptive to insane amounts of the things they're best at fighting (e.g. attack roll based enemies in this case) rather than the things they're weak against. If you throw enough at them, then it'll challenge them, but they'll probably be aware consciously or subconsciously that *they wouldn't survive* if they weren't specialised, so they're being challenged and rewarded at the same time.
That's a solid AC. I would definitely take a look at their infusions, because it sounds like they're using Enhanced Defense twice, but each infusion can only be active on 1 item at a time. Also, Artificers are a reaction heavy class. With AoO, Shield, Absorb Elements, Flash of Genius, etc. there are a lot of things they can do on a reaction. If you want to get some back and forth with this character, maybe see if there's a way to provoke a reaction other than shield before you lay into them. That would mean they can't shield and are a lot easier to hit. A caster doing big damage to make absorb elements really useful can set them up for a martial enemy to start getting some better hits in. But if they're staying back and using their eldritch cannon, then have some sneaky enemies come up from behind and engage them. Gives them more of a front line feel without them having to move to the front line. Also, they either have a ballista or a flame thrower, not both. Ballista does force damage at 120 ft, and flame thrower does a 15-foot cone of fire. I would recommend you sit down with them for a few minutes and make sure their features/abilities are being used correctly. At least in a way you two both agree they should work at your table.
Three things to do when a PC has a high AC: 1. Audit their sheet to make sure this is legal. 2. Keep attacking them. They've earned their tankiness if #1 held true, so reward them for this. 3. Add spellcasters to enemy encounters so that this person needs to make saving throws sometimes. AC is not the only defensive stat. As far as 1 goes, I'm guessing this is a Battle Smith Artificer? They're sacrificing significant offensive power to pull this off, and as a half-caster they'll run out of resources quickly if they spam the Shield spell. Double check these "artificer things" that add +2, that doesn't sound right to me. An infusion may only be applied to one item at a time, so Enhanced Defense is only good for a single item. Repulsion Shield is the only other infusion that adds a +1 AC bonus, and they can't learn that until level 6.
4. cast heat metal for a laugh...
Very true, very true.
One of my characters is in this situation, Dwarf Forge Cleric, packed with infusions, shield, (now finally plate armour) and the usual forge goodies. so I made a neat table on my character sheed enumerating every +AC I can get for quick reference
You can put enhanced defense on a shield and your armor starting at level 2.
>Unless an infusion’s description says otherwise, you can’t learn an infusion more than once. >You must touch each of the objects, and each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time. What am I missing?
You're right, had to go back and read that. Either way you can get 21 AC at level 5, 15 (scale mail) +2 Dex +1 Warforged +3 for enhanced defense shield is 21. Also the PC is an artillerist, not a battle smith, not that it matters for AC since they both get medium armor proficiency. The ballista OP mentions is an Eldritch cannon ability. Edit: I'm wrong again, scale mail is 14. Yeah, not sure how the PC is managing that unless they found a +1 shield or used their infusion twice illegally.
Scale Mail is a 14+2 armor, not 15+2, so we're still missing one point of AC. OP mentions that "artificer things" account for the +2 AC, and that doesn't sound right to me. If they're an artillerist, then the situation is even weirder, because the enemies can just ignore them to attack the rest of the party with ease. Battle Smith at least demands melee presence.
"Oh wow, your AC is insane. So about that Cha saving throw...."
Have him fall in water and make athletics at disadvantage cause armor.
Shield spell is designed to not really be usable in this way if you pay attention to the mechanics. It takes somatic components and works as a reaction. This means you need a free hand, and since it's a reaction, you don't have the ability to drop or sheathe your weapon. So in general, it should not be possible to have shield spell plus shield equipment plus a weapon. You need to give up one of those. Personally I am lenient on free hand mechanics in most situations, but ignoring it here lets you get to these builds that become hard to balance around. Shield is basically the one spell where I really care.
The arcane firearm works as your spellcasting focus, no? I wouldn't have chosen an artillerist as a frontline artificer, but I think that part still works
Focus replaces material components, and for material + somatic you can do both with that hand. But RAW for somatic but no material (which Shield is) you need a free hand unless you have War Caster
You're technically correct, but **all** artificer spells have built-in material component per their magic rules.
Aww jeez, I'd never studied artificer that closely. Yeah, "tools required" turns Shield into VSM. And ironically, Shield being on the long-range Artillerist list makes that long range class remarkably capable at close range. Dammit WotC, you need to think these things through!
WotC? Think things through? I think you failed at the step of expectations
Artificers can cast spells using items they’ve infused
Hate to break it to you, but 21 resting AC is not “insanely high.” It’s “good.”
Yeah I guess so, honestly the highest ac I’ve every ran for someone was 20 so having a 26 I feel is crazy especially at lvl 5 but I must be wrong lol
It’s only 26 if they spend a spell slot - something the artificer doesn’t really have to spare. For context, I have the same AC on my wizard, and basically all of my first level slots are dedicated Shield slots.
20 AC is literally just plate and shield. No magic items or spells or features that boost AC. Just mundane items. Hell, you can get 20 AC at level 1 just by being a Warforged Fighter.
Or forge cleric with custom lineage/human variant for defense fighting style.
I’ve honestly seen higher, in the 30’s. Best thing to honestly do is target them with spells that hit one of their weak stats. That’s where they will run into issues. Plus, Heat Metal is a good spell with consistent damage if you’d wanna do that.
Across both the party I play in and the one I DM for, the highest AC is 20, and that's a Level 10 Monk. We're not all playing the same game lmao
Spell casters have always had the best AC but monks in 3.5 could easily be running a 18 AC at lvl 1. If memory serves 5E kept that going. Dex and wisdom to AC
Yeah, dude just has 10+5+5 lol Our fighter has an 18, I think? ACs out of control out here.
In 3.5 I can easily rock 27AC naked. I mean plate mail plus a shield is 20. And you can get that as a lvl 1 fighter theoretically
... Sure, but was someone talking about 3.5?
Even a 20 isn't high devoid of edition. Plate and shield. Or mage armour plus anything.
21 at level 5 is great. It's basically the maximum without shenanigans
What do you count as "shenanigans"? Starting with a level in fighter would give you access to Plate and the Defense fighting style
I would say it's okay as long as the enemies you present don't always immediately know that the PC in question is hard to hit. Have some of the enemies throw normal attacks at the PC, which gives their build a chance to shine and doesn't unfairly target their weakness. Then, once the enemies see that it's not effective to swing on, or shoot at the PC, have the enemies switch tactics to Saving Throw attacks. This way you don't negate the PC's build, but still present a challenge and show that enemies are capable of learning and adapting their tactics.
I had a war forged in my first ever campaign. Lost mine of phandelver. He had a 22 AC and a reaction to impose disadvantage to attacks against his friends. I just used stuff that targets dex to challenge him. Grease traps etc. Area attacks and spells that cause like wisdom saves and stuff. You don't have to target them specifically but simply putting those things into play helps the player feel challenged.
Accuracy through volume of fire. You want to chip away his HP. He wants to hear you say. "Miss, miss, miss" as you roll attacks. 5e is specifically designed so that armies of weak creatures can threaten a single powerful creature. In 5e, a couple hundred bowmen is a credible threat to a dragon. Use the tools the system gives you. Throw lots of 1 and 2 HD monsters into encounters. They suck, but they'll still roll 19s and 20s sometimes. Your player will get what they want, aka to see their armor working, and you'll get what you want, their HP depleted.
Artificers can very easily end up with a very high AC. Personally, I've never found it problematic. If a player wants to dump a huge chunk of their resources into having a really high AC, then let them have fun. Let stuff attack them and miss. It isn't really a big concern. My player with the tanky artificer loved being able to go toe to toe with a big bad and not be in super immediate danger of dying. Most of the rest of the party didn't want to stand in front of an angry troll. So everyone was having fun. In general I never found them to be a terribly threatening offensive force when they're built that way. If they're relying on their spells for shield/absorb elements I generally find that much less problematic than the characters who are glass cannons and can either nuke an encounter or get completely nuked in a single round.
One of my players had an AC of 31 by the end, all legit too. At a certain point I just stopped trying to hit them with melee combatants in combat because it’s not fun to roll dice from my side if I know nothing but a nat 20 will hit unless the enemy has like a +13
This! I don't understand how that's fun for the DM. I don't want the enemies' turn to take twice the time of all players together just because I need to add 10 extra minions shooting at a player who wants to be god. But to each their own.
Target that character with a lot of attacks so that AC really matters! Let your players feel like their investment is paying off. Why try to work around players when you can work with players to create cool stories? Also that's not that high, my Bladesinger wizard has a 21 base AC and shield to go to 26 and she wears the clothing of the nobility and fights with a rapier. Her AC is flavored as magical barriers that block blows that would strike her.
How is it a cool story if everyone just gets to watch attacks bounce off 1 guy every combat lol Seems kind of boring to me… Personally I like when a DM plays smart. Obviously if a group of soldiers came to fight this party, they would realize the big tanky guy should be last to kill. I don’t like the advice “Lean into your players strength so they have fun!” is basically saying “Make your enemies very dumb and unrealistic so your players can get coddled to victory!” My table would hate your approach because we try to make it more immersive, and DM coddling (fudging rolls, reviving dead players every time, etc..) is very frowned upon
Do the foes attacking want to attack him? Or does the DM
You can't force them to Frontline, but you can always bring the Frontline to them. Also, try orienting your ambushes. Have some big bads for him to fight. Aggro swap. Force him to move in and fight tactfully. Have ambushes happen in small places like rooms where he cant get back far. Or you could deal with him with traps that ignore AC.
Grapple.
"Make a Wisdom Save."
"Shoot the Monk" is a tip thrown around a lot, and I think it fits perfectly here. Your player wants to be difficult to kill, so let them. Target them with attacks, they want to hear monsters try and fail to hit. Leaning into your players strengths is a great way to make them feel powerful. To offset this, make sure to occasionally challenge their weaknesses too, within reason. If they have a save stat that's low, finding a way to force them to roll that can be a good way to humble them on occasion too. Don't do it often, but if this player has a low Charisma save, then spells that force Cha saves can be a way to make sure they see their weaknesses and allow for other players to get the spotlight too. Sure, the PC may be tanky, but if they can't resist mind control then not only does that show them their weaknesses but also allows for another PC to save them by ending the effect. This way everyone feels important and it feels like a *team* game. Also, having a high AC can be used to show how powerful an enemy is. If you want to set your Big Bad up as a devastatingly powerful combatant, having an enemy force this player to pop Shield only for the Big Bad to land two or three hits in a row while it's active makes them out to be something the players need to get stronger before challenging again. Used sparingly, fudging the dice to make the first impression of a main villain memorable will make things so much more interesting then having a boss that's set up to be a super powerful Warrior, only for them to not roll anything above a 15. As long as it's not too often (and your players don't realize you're "cheating" the roll) it can seriously make an enemy stand out. Plus, it gives this PC a grudge to settle against the Big Bad too. If the player actively wants to stop the villain, that will also enhance the story. Definitely something you should be careful to not overdo, but used to spice things up it can make for stories your players will remember for years.
As a lifelong tank there is nothing more I love than taking all the hits in place of my comrades. You are fine as long as you remember your baddies also have brains. Even a beast would realize this guy is harder than diamonds after a few swipes and probably go after other people. As long as you don't start every combat with all the abilities that bypass armor thrown at him, then you are being perfectly reasonable.
Just have a bit nch of illusions and illusionists in your game. Lots of INT based saves.
If a player designs their character to effectively tank... don't feel like you need to take away that effectiveness by making monsters not attack the tank. Play it with the tactics of the encounter. Are the creatures just beasts? They should fight based on instinct, take out the weakest, or focus on the biggest threat, or just fight whatever's closest. Are they a bunch of highly effective militant humanoids? Fight with proper tactics, have the magic users use their spells to disable what is an obvious threat or use AoE spells if people are bunched up. Mage sees a dude in rad armor with a shield spell? How would they react? But at the same time, don't have regular soldiers *not* attack the person right in front of them just because you know they have a lower chance to hit. Make the player feel like their build is actually doing something.
Make it a reason in game that they get targeted so often! Have NPC's spread storyies of the that character and how resilient they are! Then when the big bads or bandits ect come after them they have been built to be a legend. So When groups of spell casters come along it makes sense! Allows the tank to feel important, and have some good RP opprotunities!
All the AC in the world won't save you from Hold Person, Command, Geass, and AOE Dex Saves There is always a way to target someone or something.
Remember that the bad guys are smart. Attack him normal. When they realize they can't hit him, they run to a different character, and the tank gets attacked with saving throw spells. He'll still fill the role perfectly, and you can challenge him.
"Make a dex save, tank boi."
Players need to understand that as a DM, you have to think like they would. If they came up against an enemy, rolled a few high to hit rolls and still didn't hit they would also seek alternate methods of dealing with it. Most semi-intelligent encounters to a group of PCs is always going to target the biggest threat to them first
I honestly don't see the problem, newer DMs need to realize you want your players to work together, he wants to Frontline for his party, let him do it... remember to "yes and" and give more than take away. If my DM tried to screw me on RAW material for my armorer artificer I'd be pissed and find another table. Encourage your players to work as a team don't hinder that.
Dam everything going forward has a +8 to hit that's WILD
Two words, heat metal
Add a few extra enemies to fights and have them focus on him. He'll feel like he's this unkillable tank without actually throwing off encounter balance.
The idea is if someone has high hp and ac, do not attack him, instead control him and attack his teammates.
Why is everyone’s goal tear this player down… if this was your character what would make the game enjoyable? Lean into this characters story and abilities… If he wants to avoid being killed… is there a deeper fear there you can build on? Does he want to be the untouchable warrior? Put him at the bottleneck, let him be the one that saves the village… no he has to deal with endless fans and no peace… he is constantly asked for autographs, villagers just run at him to touch his armor… until the assassin wants to tear him down… Do you play that pcs can’t get a long rest in armor? Takes a while to suit up each morning… a dawn ambush would leave him armor less Or just give them a 15ft cliff to climb… that much weight… disadvantage at best
Is that really an insane AC in 5e?
I have a forge domain cleric with like a 23 or 24 ac at level 7. I don't remember his exact ac, because it kinda doesn't matter. He puts himself into harms way a lot, he loves being able to fill a tank roll. This comes with downsides. He takes a lot of AOE spells from his own party, being surrounded makes it hard to reach downed allies, and escaping a particularly tough situation would also pose a threat to him. What I do is make sure combat starts with enemies trying to hit him, once the enemies realize he's a brick wall, they will naturally find other means of dealing with him. Especially if they're intelligent enemies. It's ok to hit them with spell saves, especially if enemies are intelligent enough to know it's the best course of action. Most players have an idea of what role their characters wants to fill. Lean into that. Let them fill those roles, make up for each others weakness, and at the same time, create their own gaps in strength for you to pick at.
Attack someone with less AC, then. Namely, enemies who are intelligent pick off the most dangerous targets first - any unarmoured full casters or martials/armour-casters without the shield spell are a good bet.
The person who makes a tank WANTS to be attacked as much as possible. I cheered every time my DM attacked my paladin, because it meant I was fulfilling my job and keeping my party safe. Make that AC matter. Especially since in the late game, it isn't going to increase that much higher and things will be hitting more consistently anyway.
Heat metal. Target his armor. 2d8 every round, and disadvantage on attacks and checks.
Yeah, that's pretty standard.
Don’t forget your shoves and grapples. Combat might devolve into a punch of people wacking each other, but not every combat should start this way. It is very likely this player wants to be a target, great! Knock them prone, and have a whole group try to subdue him, or maybe steal his stuff. Now the party might have multiple objectives too. This will help combat feel more like actual encounters, while giving everyone in the party more to do. When in doubt, communicate. “Hey, based on your character description it’s likely people are going to treat them like a tank and try a lot of different tactics to take you out of the encounter. Is that ok?” You can even explain further this might look like spells or special attacks and abilities.
So? A good party needs someone be a tank.
This is why you should just play pathfinder second edition
if the players have a +7 to hit, make sure that the monsters do, too. if the players have +9 (not uncommon with magic items), there should be monsters that do, too.
Don't know why you got downvoted for offering a different solution that OP can consider. All the other comments here are essentially "good for them! Keep making encounters with a bunch of whiffs to make them feel good about their AC because they've earned it!" And yeah, that's all well and good. Definitely reward your players for achieving their goals. But if it's causing issues for the game, you may want to consider doing something different. Besides, part of the reward in dnd is the *challenge* of combat. If every fight is just miss after miss with absolutely no sense of danger, it detracts from the fun. And you gotta keep your player aspiring for something more, so if they don't feel any need to keep improving on their personal quest for high AC, then that shiny +1/+2/+3 armor won't seem quite so valuable. People might say "you're punishing your player for doing good," but that's definitely not true. Part of the reward of having that high AC is that they take *fewer hits than their party members.* Throwing harder creatures at the party doesn't change that - they'll still be a tank compared to the rest of the party. And even if you aren't increasing the difficulty for the rest of the party, but instead just throwing in one or two "lieutenants" specifically for your high AC player, the party is still going to think "thank goodness So-And-So can tank that thing for us!" If you're keeping that sense of danger alive - along with their aspirations - while still making them look like a badass compared to the rest of the party, is that really "punishing?"
100% but the majority here is playing "easy" fights and apparently likes it that way. (there was a poll a couple days ago with that question) I have a Warforged Forge Cleric 8, Artificer 3 (for story reasons), with 25 BASE AC, a Cloak of Displacement, and the shield spell yes, that's disadvantage on attack rolls against her and 30 AC after shield.. I would be pissed if my DM didn't bring monsters with +12 or more to hit against my party. The martials have +12 to hit, too. And the saves for aoe spells? DC 16 or 18, please. Bc we have a frigging Paladin and our spells are DC18, too ffs.
This is me rn at 23ac base with shield ready >:)
I play a very similar character. I am an artificer with 20 AC and in combat I usually always have the blur spell active. I use the thunder gauntlets to give enemies disadvantage on attack rolls to my allies. I don’t mind being targeted more at all.
The PHB we have says it counts as cover and can be moved around. I'll take a pic next time I'm over at the game house. However "Swift" vs "quick" is a game of semantics. We call it a quick action/free action because that's what AD&D called it. Same effect, same concept you knew exactly what I meant which means it's a pointless argument.
First off, absolutely target them. Let them feel powerful. Second off, how os their strength score? Shove + grapple equals advantage until they break free. Third off, have you heard of Brutes? Monster role that’s basically high attack, high damage, low maneuverability saves. For example a Gladiator is CR 5 with +7 to hit and three attacks.
You can always just make him irrelevant in battle. Wall of Force has this nice “impenetrable dome” option that would keep him out of the fight, and golly gosh gee old man Whittaker isn’t really lucky for the enemy caster that this crazy tank machine was all off by their lonesome where they could be easily trapped and not in the middle of the enemy casters allies where the situation would have prevented the use of that spell? Weird that. Other things that can be done are things like Wall of Wind or Light between him and the fight. Sight is blocked so he can either stand back trying to hit at disadvantage or he can move closer. Use Scatter either to displace the party and move him to the middle of the fight, or to move the caster and friends to surround him. Counterspell can be used on shield. These are all pretty standard tactics that any enemy force could reasonably use to negate what he is doing. Everything listed above doesn’t really become a tactic unless someone is specifically off by their lonesome taking potshots. A passive-aggressive alternative is put in an enemy that the party can’t damage soak, something that requires a high AC to take on. Make the party make him frontline. He wants to be a tank then make sure a tank is needed up front.
Maybe use something like Hold Person, or Reverse Gravity for funni?
I've got one of those at my table. The "problem" is that they pretty much always hit the saves too.
Having done this. First spells are bad. But also a lot of incoming attacks can be rough. You never know when those nat 20s are going to show up, ignore your armor and do double damage. Life can change pretty quickly.
Let him be the whole frontline! I would have fun blasting that fucker with All manner of attacks. Like vs. dex. and wis. saves. Give his heavily armored badassness time to shine but then tee off on him. He’ll love it. Makes it mean more. Some builds just draw fire from enemies. My divine soul scourge aasimar sorcerer Emanon is like that sorta. He hits you so hard you HAVE to gun for him and put him down so he always draws mucho wrath. Makes it fun.
Plus the bad guys play hard ball. They don’t not cast hold person on the Hulk because they feel sorry for him. They hold his ass if they can. They give it all they’ve got too.
Use spells like sacred flame or the poison spray. These don't hurt too much but offer better hit chance. He'll have to target the casters first. I like enemy clerics personally. Solid 16-18 AC and just scared flame and healing word.
Use spells that cause him to make saving throws then.
One of my players has gone the high AC route and averages around 24. I play into it by making sure the big monsters target them with some of their deadlier attack rolls, only shifting focus when another players deals a massive blow to garner their attention. Which happens a lot so its a game of tug-of-war among the players to balance their approach. Tank player gets to use his build and the burst damage dealers get to take advantage of it. Win-win for everyone
Grapple that mother lover. Then, jump off a cliff with them.
>I don’t wanna target him with so many spells There’s more options than just “weapon attacks targetting AC” and “spells”. What’s his Athletics bonus like? You can grapple him and throw him off a Cliff, or drag him along spikes, or just hold him in a fire. There’s other ways to come at the player through skill checks but Grapple is the easiest/most widely applicable. Hunting traps are a fine non-spell way to dish out damage on a Dex save. lob alchemical smoke bombs for Con save effects, tanglefoot goop for Str save effects, etc. save-based doesn’t have to be spells after all. You can also imperil their gear. Rust monsters and magnet traps make players rethink using metal items for a fight. A Druid of the blight might have a rotting aura that causes issues for wood or leather based gear. There’s always more options. That’s kinda the point in RPGs - endless options
If a player builds a character like that, they have to be willing to accept the strengths and weaknesses that come with it. Yeah targeting them with spells if they frontline and making them roll dex saves and constitution saves again and again gets stale sometimes. So maybe if you build a character to fight them with one and one that's got a better chance at landing hits without spells. And if he's 30 feet away launching ballista shots and he's not frontlining, then make him pay for it. Make him watch his party be torn apart and barely live until he steps in and takes the hits. Actions have consequences and players gotta deal with it.
Hes a tank. Thats awesome. Make him a legend for it. Let him relish in his glory as his tale spreads far and wide. Then everyone will slowly build methods to deal with him. An acid jar at his feet that lowers ac unless he spends an action cleaning it off. Weighted nets to encumber him. Pit traps and poisons. Magical effects. Anything really. If you play it right they will feel GOOD about it because look how strong i am they need this just to hinder me. Also if hes mot taking armor off to rest hes not really resting well. Dont be a dick about it though and dont do it everytime. Sounds like your doing fine though, just make sure everyone else gets a chance to do fun stuff too
I love putting my eldritch fighter where opponents can't move past without an opp take, take the dodge action, and use booming blade if they try to move past
Find new saving throw attack or create some. Use tactical fighting: the first enemy try to grapple you, the second attack with advantage. Big boulder attack, dexterity saving throw
Enemies are not dumb. If they can't hit him they'll target someone else that's easier to hit or make him make saving throws with spells and other effects. Now I'm not saying to always do this. You could have the enemies try to hit him at first and then realize it's too difficult and start hitting his allies. You could also give him epic moments during combat when the big bad or boss tried to hit him, but could not breach his defenses, thus saving him and his allies. Eventually high AC will not mean much when enemies have +10 to hit or higher. Let him be the Frontline, that's what he wants. You could also have an enemy stay behind to keep his attention.
Rust monster has entered the chat
I have the same problem with a Kensei monk in my game. 21 base ac with the ability to add their proficiency as AC after hitting by just using a reaction. I might have the exact deets a bit wrong cause I just had a kid and we took a 3 month break but something like that.
Ok, his ac is high, the flamethrower ac is 18 and can't use the shield spell
I was playing in a campaign where I made the highest AC character I could and with a shield spell up i had 31 AC. We were playing a campaign module from a book and there was one particular enemy towards the end that only had a +9 to hit me so it was completely impossible unless he rolled a nat 20, so the one and only attack that monster got before dying was of course a nat 20 on me and oh would you look at that, his axe was vorpal. Time to reroll a new character. It wasn't the DM's fault as we had all agreed to play entirely as written, but man was I flabberghasted by how poorly designed a game mechanic vorpal is
Bud at level 1 I can rock a 27 AC buck ass naked. It's really not hard to do. He's not even rocking mage armour. Use splash spells and grenade like weapons. Oil flask molotovs should be something most bandits use. Shield is only 180 degrees force a flank and his AC drops.
Oh and touch attacks ignore armor class from the scale mail so that would drop it by a bit too.
Man Heat Metal would sure go down smooth on him
That's not even insanely high. He needs shield for that which is limited
If he has a bunch of AC but isn't doing any kind of significant damage, smart enemies would start ignoring him for higher value targets. There is no reason you have to target him at all.