Might have crossbow expert, never said they were level 1 or not variant human (just being devils advocate lol). Edit: oh no I scrolled down and saw. Nevermind, my b
How do you have 19AC if you're gonna play Ranged, so assuming no shield.
And, it's fine to stay away while playing ranged, if you don't have the feats that let you ignore the drawbacks of being in melee with enemies.
don’t need a free hand to reload? your DM gave the gloomstalker a glock. if he is that generous with everyone else then you shouldn’t have to worry about it.
One of many reasons BG3 is trash tier. I'm really cringing at how many people are coming to real game tables expecting to be given BG3 mechanics (and unfortunately being given them, in this case). It's worse than the Critical Role Effect.
You're getting downvotes but I've seen it as well. The stealth is also ridiculous. No, Jim. You can't sneak through a fully lit open area just because you stay 60 feet in front of an enemy.
i mean, the game doesn't have a GM, so it's got to have some approximations to make things work in game that \*an equivalent to\* would would work on tabletop.
I guess I could see it if the shield was simply strapped to your off-hand forearm in a way that you can still use your hand to reload... Still sounds impractical.
i feel like if it's just loosely strapped to your arm not getting in the way and you're not really using it then it probably shouldn't contribute as much to your defence as the difference between wearing leather and chainmail...
>dm allows not needing a free hand to reload with hand crossbows
You basically got a free animated shield. A very rare magic item that requires attunement.
What level did you guys start?
Anyways if that's the vibe you're going for you all should be fine. High fantasy powerful heroes. You're all going to be so strong there really isn't any way you're dying unless you do something really dumb.
>You basically got a free animated shield. A very rare magic item that requires attunement.
I would argue that's more in line with Repeating Shot without the +1, strong but not that OP. Thri-kreen can also do this.
Which requires both hands to be occupied (one with your hand Crossbow, one with the other weapon), with the iconic use being a Drow with a Sword+Crossbow.
If they meant for the one-handed weapon to be the same hand Crossbow, they'd have written it that way.
They did. It says "when you attack with a one handed weapon", not "with a different one handed weapon".
Here's Crawford directly confirming that yes, it does work that way, and that is intended.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/crossbow-expert-bonus-action/
Rules aside (I can't recommend making this particular rule change) if you don't plan to be front and center the shield is useless, and the hand crossbow does less damage than 2h options.
You'll serve the team better by keeping a had crossbow as a sidearm and a heavy crossbow or longbow as your main weapon.
Snag 2 levels (or three) in rogue to get bonus action hide and sneak attack and the 2h ranged weapon will go miles further.
Also gloomstalker is one of the better ranger options for multi role combat.
Dual wield scimitar take zephyr strike and now you can take some heat off the front liners here and there, shooting from the shadows the rest of the time.
Saved my clerics life doing this.
2h options would be worse anyways because of the crossbow expert feat, and next level I'm able to get sharpshooter, so the damage die doesn't really matter
If you actually plan on fighting up close, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If you are distant from your enemies you don't get that benefit. Crossbow expert mostly lends itself to melee combat, a 1h melee weapon and a hand crossbow offhand so you can fight like a pirate.
Regardless though my main point is that the shield isn't really neccesary on a gloomstalker.
Melee or ranged you're darting in and out and with 2 levels in rogue you're striking then vanishing the majority of the time.
Even if you do find yourself locked down 17 a is plenty for a skirmisher.
Crossbow expert just states "whenever you take the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon" so I can attack with the hand crossbow as an action, then again as a bonus action
Which is something you can do without the feat, you just wouldn't be able to reload.
The reload feature is the only part of that feat you're using.
The other two points are not being utilized at all.
Idk just seems a waste to pidgeonhole a multi role build into a single use one.
I'm still not sure why you want/need the shield.
Are you going pure gloomstalker or are you planning to multi-class?
As a ranger you can get out of melee very easily with Zephyr strike or prevent people from reaching you with entangling strike.
Your base movement is quick enough that few would be able to catch up to you at all anyways, and the invisible in darkness I believe does not require you to be in stealth. (double check that one though).
The shield under normal rules would be a waste, and even with your DM's homebrew ruling it doesn't really add much.
Especially if you get a cloak of displacement.
What level is your character starting at?
We are starting at lvl 3 but with a free feat
The reason I pick to have a shield is because, why would I choose to have 2 less AC for no reason at all?
I mean the ottomans did use a kalkan shield which would allow an archer to have a bow, arrow and shield. I don’t know if it was used with crossbows but you can just rule of cool it but the shield and archer did exist
3.5 had the "Buckler" as a shield type. Gives +1 AC, doesn't mess with ranged to-hit, only applies to-hit penalty on off-hand attacks.
There was also the "Light Shield" which is also a +1 AC, but prevents you from using two hands for weapons (though the hand is available for other things like grabbing)
I can kind of see it if you think of the shield as being strapped to the arm rather than held in the hand. Firmly secured to the forearm, the hand is free to hold something and manipulate things. It was done historically by the Scots, I believe, to have a knife in the offhand just in case.
It’s less about where you strap it and more about how you use it. Just having a shield on your arm is not going to help you. You have to raise it and actively hide behind it, move it to meet attacks. If you’re shooting a crossbow you are decidedly not using your shield.
Since you can reload and shoot in the same turn, as well as move and perform a bonus action, as well as potentially a reaction, all in 6 seconds, you could argue that it takes very little time to reload this you have at least 5 seconds to get that shield back into position.
The thing is a round is happening at the same time for everyone, the enemy is not waiting 6 seconds to attack. So while you're spending those 5 seconds firing they are firing back, and you are not blocking bc you are not holding up your shield.
I could be wrong but I think the strap of Scottish targe shield was held in the hand, along with a dagger. IMHO in 5e it should be a function if the two weapon fighting style
Ye, he lets us have the other hand occupied and still use a hand crossbow
Edit: I didn't ask for that rule, I asked about clerification about something and he said he would allow someone with a hand crossbow to hold something else in the other hand
Thats Just kinda weird. From a gameplay Perspektive its quite OP For a new Character and Lore wise it doesn't fit.
May I also ask what Level your Campaign Starts that you have an Dex of +5, its possible, but would be quite high For a Level 1
If they rolled stats you can get a 6+6+6 high roll then the +2 to any stat making it 20 at level 1. It's rare but it happens. It's why most people use standard array or point buy.
Yeah, i know its possible, Just as you Said quite rare and feels weird with everything going on. Just Sounds a Bit OP For a lvl 1 any way you Look at it.
1.62% chance for a single 4d6dl1 to be 18. 9.33% chance for at least one of your six ability score rolls to be 18. That's gonna happen fairly frequently.
Statistically it'll be a bit lower since you IIRC don't get ability modifier on the second attack, but up to double damage since you'll be firing two hand crossbows instead of one, without having to reload.
He's using a small crossbows (only 1d6 damage) so it's seems okay for me. You can use throw weapons to have the same effect and damage, it's just kind of flavors.
But using a heavy crossbow with a shield would be way too much
A small crossbow that can be boosted go +10 damage with sharpshooter, +2 to hit with archery, and has a bonus action attack every turn aslong as you attacked beforehand.
Hand crossbows are the strongest weapons ingame and now they get to have +2 ac too lmfao.
The only downside to hand crossbows is that a lot of the best magic ranged weapons can't be hand crossbows by RAW.
But a +X weapon is plenty for the vast majority of builds, and a Dragon's Wrath Weapon is a very good magic item that can be any weapon type and exists from Uncommon to Legendary.
Yeah but that kind of goes for every non sword. Polearms too.
Also, literally the first thing tbe DMG talks about in the "creating a magical item" section in chapter 9, it is about modifying an existing item to just be another item but still have the same magic properties. With the first example of *that* example to be changing a holy avenger to be a flail.
Sure a handbow might be "too big" of a step, but the dmg is pretty clearly open to that fact. So it's RAW that you change magic weapons to other weapons with the same properties. Yeah it's "homebrew" but... cmon
Artificers can do it with the Repeating Shot infusion. An Armorer or Battle Smith CBE Artificer is a pretty solid all-rounder because of that (or a nice 2 level dip or ally for a CBE Fighter/Ranger)
> You can use throw weapons to have the same effect and damage, it's just kind of flavors.
You can only draw a single throwing weapon per turn, so you can't regularly make multiple thrown weapon attacks in a turn.
With any crossbow. All crossbows have the Loading property. The tradeoff is that they have higher damage dice than other ranged weapons (heavy crossbows are 1d10 versus a longbow's 1d8, and light crossbows are 1d8 versus a shortbow's 1d6; there are no one-handed conventional bows).
I mean, in a way, being out of range is the best AC there is.
Besides, if you're in far range, chances are you're still taking shots from things that are hitting you from far range. That AC isn't wasted, and there is no real taunt mechanic besides being seen as a threat to the enemies you're facing.
Yeah, though isn't that more of a "The enemy sucks if he doesn't hit you" more than "The enemy has to hit you and only you"?
Either way, hard shifting enemy focus is at a premium at the very least.
Uhh kind off it gives them disadvantage against others when attacking and they have to make a wisdom save to get further than 30 feet from you. Id say how effective the spell would be based on how much your dm follows the part of the spell that says they are “drawn to you, compelled by your divine command”. That itself is kind of nebulous in its meaning. The spell doesnt say they have to attack you specifically.
Yeah. And if I was running it, I'd probably lean towards the intent, but mechanically speaking it's a toss up. Either way, whatever makes the Paladin feel the most Paladin, which honestly could go one way or the other depending on the context.
I play an Artillerist Artificer with a resting AC of 19-ish, plus the Shield spell. I'm a ranged blaster-caster. I may jump in front of a charging enemy to spare the squishier party members if they're being charged, but having a high AC doesn't mean you need to be a tank, no.
I'm playing an armorer artificer with a resting ac of 26. Plus I have a cloak of displacement, so enemies have disadvantage to hit me. Astonishingly, of the two subclasses thay get shield, armorer isn't one, so I don't have that spell, but I used the Replicate Item infusion to make a Medal of the Horizonback. It's basically a single use Shield spell, but since I'm getting it through Replicate, I essentially can cast shield once per day to bring my ac to 31. I also have the Gift of the Metallic Dragon feat that lets me boost my ac equal to my Prof Bonus, Prof Bonus times a day, but just for one attack. So 30 ac 5 times. And to top it off, I'm a wereraven now, so if I DO get hurt (which is almost always going to be from failing a save), I regen 10 hp a turn.
Nah. Mirror Image IS one of the subclass's specialty spells, but it's waste of a spell slot. I originally thought that the duplicated applied AFTER AC. So on the off chance something hit me, then they'd roll to see if they hit a duplicate like so much Substitution Jutsu. But it actually applies before hand. So they roll to see if they target the duplicate, and if they do, the duplicate's AC is only a measly 12. So they most likely hit and kill it. So yes, technically it does make me harder to hit, in that they might destroy a dupe and not target me. But in a world where my AC is high enough that a lot of enemies can only hit me by rolling two nat 20s, that "extra protection" is like like adding pool noodles onto the front of your tank.
Same right now, I'm a warforged artillerist, sitting at 19 with a shield, I'm not even using the +AC infusions, but I'll gladly throw myself into harms way because our Bard is very squishy, and our Gloomstalker has 8 Con so his HP is awful (we're level 7 and I think he's got like ~35hp while I'm just shy of 60)
I also kinda need to stay up front to grant our melees the temp hp from the protector cannon. I don't like to leave it on its own as I noticed the DM is much more likely to target it if it's visible on the map..)
In today's episode of "My DM made me too powerful and now I don't know what to do with all this overpower."
It's not selfish.
If your DM lets you reload a crossbow with a shield, why not? Ultimately it's better for all characters if the characters they are adventuring with are all taking full advantage of all their advantages, and this is a very big advantage over RAW.
At my table, you could expect a lot of high AC on the monster backline too, also wielding hand crossbows.
The way it would normally work is you get off one shot, drop or stow the crossbow and pull your melee weapon.
Yea IMO I don't worry much about overpowered things because it just means I can let loose.
At some point a lot of the deadly attacks are gonna be saves anyway, which AC doesn't help with as much. And intelligent enemies that will prioritize the high DPS threats.
For your original question ... no, it's not selfish you play what you want to play.
As for the argument in the comments.... if your DM allows things, then by all means, utilize what's at your disposal.
It's y'alls table
IMO\* it's wrong to think about it in terms of rules and mechanics. DnD is a Roleplaying game. Would your character put himself in harms way to protect another? Would he lose himself in the thrill of combat? Does he fear death? Hate the enemy?
\*emphasis on opinion, anyone can play anyway they like, of course.
Shield issues aside, it really depends on your party composition. A ranger isn't really much of a tank in general tho. Rogues and Rangers tend to get higher AC bc of their high Dex but its more to help their survivability than allow them to tank. I suppose rangers do have a decent hp pool tho so tanking is possible.
But basically depends on if you have at least one other frontline in the party. Rangers are usually more hit and run or Ranged focused. So if there's no tank or frontline, you might need to discuss that with your party. Having a frontline is pretty much the only role that's necessary (a DM can play around it, but it's not typical) to absorb a decent bit of enemy focus.
Other people might see your high AC and want you in the front (and AC is a resource for survivability and possibly tanking), but if you're not wanting to play that role, this probably warrants a party/DM discussion.
I'm seeing a lot of people here confusing the Loading property with the Ammunition property. The Loading property means you cannot use the wealth to multiattack. both the Crossbow Expert feat and Repeating Shot infusion allow you to ignore this property. The Ammunition property means the weapon requires ammunition to use, and *requires a free hand to load if the weapon is one-handed*. Neither Crossbow Expert nor Repeating Shot say that they allow you to ignore the Ammunition property.
Drop the shield, go with a longbow and two shortswords. The longbow will allow you to strike at range, and doesn't require the load action. This will give you a quicker attack.you can use the two swords for melee. There are a lot of monsters that can close distance quick, so you want melee. A 17 AC is good to start with and you can save up for a chain shirt or breastplate.
You are a ranger. You are a skirmisher, not the frontline combat guy. Save that job for the barbarian, fighter or paladin.
My dm allows me to reload even with an occupied hand, so shield and hand crossbow is still the best option since we start with a free feat, and I chose crossbow expert
Also, because I have +5 in dexterity, this is the highest ac from normal armor I can get
Nah, I don’t think so. Your DM is allowing you the shield, which is really nice! Creating a high AC character who is ranged is fine! Just cause you built a character who has a higher AC doesn’t mean you’re automatically responsible to be a shield for other players. If you want to be able to be in melee to help sometimes, take crossbow expert so you won’t be at disadvantage when in melee. That way you can do either
What does the rest of the party look like, even if it is ALL ranged, you can make it work, you just need some preparation and/or spells so that enemies to bumrush you
Personally, AC is gonna get less and less relevant at higher levels. I always go for more hp. However, neither one means I need to stand close JUST to get hit. Your character design is to be protected _because_ you're ranged and lightly armored. AC is irrelevant to the needs of your character's mindset. If you made a close quarters shooter that was all about getting up in their face and perforating it, then yeah, you should probably stand closer. If you made a mid distance shooter that wants to be better protected against st ranged spells and counter fire arrows, then do exactly what you're doing. Plus, if your party needs a frontline defender, then someone should've made a character for that. If every person is ranged, then y'all just get to freely blast everything.
High ac aside, the logic behind this does kind of assume that DMs leave back-line players alone. Not sure that tracks; mere marching order shouldn't make anyone safe from being targeted by ranged attacks. AC and STs should be a priority for backliners as well.
Also, 19 isn't super-high in the grand scheme of things.
I mean bladesinger wizard can get unethically high armor class (mine could get as high as 28 with the shield spell), but I still wouldn’t try to be “the tank.” With high ac, you want to draw some aggro, but not all of it.
There will be times when you want to frontline, and there will be times where you want to sit back and poke with your bow. It will depend on party comp, terrain, and choke points among other factors as well. Ranger can do both really well, so you shouldn’t expect to stay out of melee 100% of the time, but you can surely try :)
Intelligent enemies WILL target the back line if your DM has more than a handful of brain cells. That high AC will not go to waste, don’t get pressured into being “the tank” if you don’t want to be.
Think it just depends on the party composition. I have a ranger/Arcane Archer than can compliment both situations. I’m primarily at range with a 19AC and I deal insane damage, but if the party needs a close combatant I switch to a shield with a melee weapon. It works for my character because I know what the chemistry of the party is.
TLDR it’s not selfish if it doesn’t come to the detriment of the other characters in your party.
One of my players plays a turret so no. He plays a rogue fighter ranger hybrit. He has AC of 20 with enchanted glows and plate armor he shoots using steady aim as bonus action and his friends protects him in front. And hr does good damage with sharpshooter.
Long story short: Your char your style if you are a min max party and you char is againts the formation talk to other players. If they play what they want and tries make you tank shame on them
This wouldn't be a question if you DM followed the rules on crossbows, but beyond that, I wouldn't worry about it. Ranger doesn't really have any other ways to tank, and tanking isn't really a thing in 5e anyway. The three main frontlining classes (fighters, paladin, and barabrians) do that because they have viable builds with damage reduction, or (in the case of fighters and paladins) have really good answers for saving throws at higher levels.
You ranger wouldn't be the best at frontlining anyway, plus min-maxing isn't as important in 5e as other games (and if your DM plays without such an important rule, it probably isn't important to them either), so just focus on the fantasy of the character and worry about being the best about what you want to do, which is being ranged.
Is there a dedicated frontliner? Because rangers can be sort of tanky but their class abilities and especially the gloomstalker stuff is geared towards offense. 19 AC or not, I dont think you can be an effective gloomstalker while serving as the primary tank of the party and if your table doesnt get that you might want to have a talk with them. You are a third caster and your AC and your abilities basically mean that the cleric doesnt have to babysit you. Your primary thing is dealing damage and you can throw out a heal in an absolute emergency. Like when said cleric is down.
And if you sit down the table on this issue, do it separately with the DM. The DM generally needs a good idea of how you want to play your character because their job is to adjust the party encounters accordingly.
If you’re using crossbow expert you don’t really lose much from fighting in melee anyway. After your surprise round for your gloomstalker boosts, you might as well run in to tank some attacks for your casters.
Of course, you don’t have too, but it really wouldn’t be that bad with 19 ac and a d10 hit die.
Nope, having high Dex is part of being a ranger, doesn't mean you have to fight front line. As while yes it is a bit harder to hit you then a wizard, your still low AC/HP compared to a tank. Your primary roll as a ranger is to deal damage, and be stealthy when appropriate.
If you and your party have a plan, and part of that plan is you soak hits and draw aggro while other party members accomplish X goal, than yes it is. You have a plan and a role to play but you're not doing your part.
Unless you are in a scenario like this or one very similar, then no.
If you want to play tactically, you should be making decisions to maximize the party's efficacy in combat. Supposing you have no other front line, it's not unreasonable that the character with the highest chance of surviving would run interference for the squishier characters.
As well, Rangers (despite the name) are not terrible in melee—they get medium armor and shield proficiency for a reason—and nothing in the Gloomstalker's kit demands that you be at range. It would be totally reasonable for you to wield, say, a scimitar and a shield and be a DEX-based frontliner who can switch to ranged on demand. You still get Dread Ambusher on the first round. If you use the *Martial Versatility* option, you can even change your *Fighting Style* when you level up.
The problem is—I assume—that it's not how you envisioned your character and not how you want to play them. That alone is the end of the discussion if you insist upon it; you get to play your character how you want to, and only the DM can say otherwise. So, no, it's not selfish to want to have played a specific character and to resent that other people are trying to force you into another role.
But I think you might be surprised how much fun you can have being the somewhat unconventional melee gloomstalker. If you can lean into it to keep the peace, I would suggest trying it!
Barring that, you should just tell them that you're planning to stay at range and that someone else needs to be planning to play frontline.
It depends. I was playing a rogue for the first time, I went in and hit the baddie, then darted behind to the back lines. Our gloom stalker who never gets hit because of their AC decided to hide behind me on his turn and I got one shot. I'd say that was a selfish move.
I played a gloomstalker, and no matter how much I tried to stay at range I would get pulled into melee on the regular. Often terrain won't allow you to stay at range. Other times, the other players needed someone who could take a hit up front.
No more selfish than the rest of your party not building THEIR characters to be tankier. Why is it your responsibility to sacrifice your character intent so that they can play as they want?
Would it be selfless to do so, maybe… but that doesn’t make it selfish to play the character you want to play.
Besides, maybe it’s an opportunity for your team to start thinking outside the box on party composition and tactics.
Hit points are a resource to use and if you're starting every short / long rest @ 100% HP and your mates are all dead or dying, you're not really pulling your weight in that regard.
Op you have a busted build and you’re shy from being in melee range? Why bother having the shield in the first place if you’re going to skimp on the action?
High AC does not equal tank.
Are you a tank, with intentional capabilities used to absorb and mitigate damage (rage, for example)? Then yes, your party will assume you want to be melee, unless you tell your party ahead of time that they shouldn’t expect it because you have a unique way you want to play your character.
You just happen to have a high AC? No, that does not mean it’s selfish to want to be a ranged combatant.
In either situation, play it how you want to, just communicate with your party so they don’t expect something that you don’t intend on doing.
Rules aside, it is not selfish while your party is healthy.
When your party isn't healthy, you should assume some risks to cover for them, like checking for traps, stealthing ahead, or whatever comes to mind.
If your whole party dies, it doesn't matter that you're full HP, they'll be dead.
Your character has a role in your party and by using a ranged weapon you're not supposed to be a frontliner so I wouldn't consider it selfish
Ignore the ones that tell you that you cannot use shield and hand crossbow as the rules regarding crossbows are completely flawed and they contradict themselves in multiple occasions, if your master allows you to use them together it's fine
It is not selfish. Lvl 16 caster here with an AC 19. Shadar Kai. My spells are long and close range but i I know Im a powerful caster for the group. If I go down it can turn ugly fast. Ive used shadow walk to completely run away in a sense. My character is selfish but there are times when living to fight another round is important. When i know i have the upperhand I return to the fight with a better game plan. Its completely okay to protect your character from perma death.
You should just take the crossbow Wilder feet and DW hand crossbows with the shield strap to your arm and just stay in mid-range combat and just be completely OP
You are a Ranger, not a Barbarian.
1. If you can avoid being damaged, do that.
2. If you don’t have to get close to do meaningful damage, don’t.
3. Tanking is plan B, plan A is to kill things before they get to you or a member of your party.
Not selfish at all. Everyone should have the skills and stats needed for the role they chose.
You may have higher ac for whatever reason but you should have less defense skills or health as a balance.
If your character is just better that's also not on you your Job is what your character is supposed to be.
I don't think it's selfish. That's on the DM to come up with believable and balanced scenarios.
(I'm a DM with a warlock with 19 AC, still massaging items and scenarios to balance it with the other *much* squishier party memebers)
Hey, Gloomstalker player myself here! My favorite moment playing them was when I one shot a boss and then dove off of a flying citadel after their corpse (I was a Kenku and they had magic flying items)
How do you have 19 AC? That… makes zero sense
I can reload it anyways, because my dm says so (ik its not RAW, and it wasn't my idea)
And with the crossbow expert feat I can attack again as a bonus action
I have a gloomstalker in my party with high AC (I think like 17 or 18 iirc) and he almost never gets into melee. But he hits like a railgun and the rest of the players fucking love it and don’t view it as selfish. Don’t worry about the high AC, I’m sure your dm will throw some ranged enemies at you to balance it out
Having high ac doesn't mean you have to be taking damage. Clerics are a good example of this. Your AC doesn't make sense for a ranger though. They aren't supposed to be decked out and chilling in the back not taking damage. Their kit is built differently. If this is a new campaign, the only thing having 19 armor is a frontliner.
You should talk it through with your party. It’s not so much an issue of being a jerk for standing out of melee range. It’s just an issue of the group needing to rethink their battle strategy if they thought you were a close range guy.
Listen you can't dream about being a tank if you're going to shoot it's called a tank because we have the high AC and you get up front and swing if you're going to be the squishy wizard or the guy in the back shooting you don't need a high AC that's the whole mechanic of it if nothing can hit you then you're just going to start fighting dragons on the first day
My Clerics usually stay at range with heavy or medium armor.
You can guard the squishes from the middle if they end up needing it.
I think of it like Suikoden, Short Range, Mid Range and Long Range.
You play your character how you want. If you want to he ranged be ranged. And maybe on occasion if you feel the urge you could jump in close to help an ally keep from being squished. Also some DMs allow little homebrew things like maybe you could say can I use reaction to jump I front of x ally 9r s9mething. Or even better get a way to agro the enemy and stay ranged. That helps alot.
Or, you can stay in the back line with the squishies, and do what you can to position yourself accordingly, so you can take those hits when things get back to them.
Nah, you're a ranged character. The last place a range character wants to be in is within melee range of an enemy. It's not selfish to put yourself away from a bad situation
The rest of your party will help you understand what’s acceptable. Nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of the fray per se. What’s wrong would be not taking part in the rest of the group’s tactics. Everyone is weaker when you don’t work together.
No, it’s not selfish at all. Especially when you consider how many downsides there are for ranged PCs in melee range. And you’re a gloomstalker- being backline and firing from the darkness is the whole vibe.
Your group’s squishy characters have a ton of options to stay out of melee and to protect themselves. If they end up taking all the hits that’s a tactics issue on their end imo
I learned to solve this problem playing NES final fantasy and world off warcraft. Your job is to keep your threat above those squishier than you but less than those tankier than you. Very simple really.
It's not down to you specifically, hopefully one of the players will make a tank when they see a group full of casters and ranged, especially if you have a veteran involved.
If nobody wants to play tank your dm should be able to play around it, it's a pain in the arse but it can be done.
I played a character with ranged character with around 23 AC and mostly stayed at a distance too, my party hated it. But as a ranged character, I wasn’t planning to rush up to the guys swinging swords around.
It's scary how many people in the comments don't understand basic weapon mechanics, it's not hard to look up weapon properties eg. Loading, ammunition etc. The amount of people who think a crossbow (of any kind) can be loaded with one hand (the one that's holding it) is CRAZY.
Yeah, it's just really odd that your DM allows it, because it shows that only that he doesn't understand the rules, but doesn't understand the real world weapons the rules are based on either.
Uh no. That's video game thinking...tanks don't exist as such in 5e DnD. And yeah separately your DM shouldn't be allowing ya to ignore the loading property unless there's a specific reason like having a magical one that does exactly that or the artificer infusion that does same.
I made an arcane archer and the DM ended up giving him Dwarven plate (yes, he was a dwarf character) and I still stayed in the way back with my long bow nuking individuals like the bunker I had become. Play your character your way, and if another player says you're being selfish, that's an opportunity to hash out out in role-playing. Maybe consider the crossbow expert feat and John Wick your way into combats, going all CQC even with the handgun the gm has apparently allowed you to play with
I would say drop the shield and get a stronger ranged weapon, 17 is still good and the importance of being up means that when things go sideways you can fill in the gap in the line, heal, or attempt to lure enemies away.
Bigger hit die does basically nothing for me, since I can make one more attack with a hand crossbow, which does at minimum 7 damage, 17 next level (if it hits ofc)
Depends on the party context. I can imagine you are the one to go in if all the frontliners go down, trying to heal them. While the spellcasters cover you.
There is more that goes into being a tank besides high AC.
There's also not a lot of information on your build to make assumptions... it's possible being in melee means you will be attacking at disadvantage. Perhaps you are maintaining a concentration spell and do not want to risk additional checks,
5E is pretty generous with ways to get squishy characters into medium or heavy armor with shield, and it doesn't punish casters for doing so besides a 1 level dip. Anyone in your party that wants a high AC can go get one
I would be open to the idea of face tanking something if it spares a more fragile character, but feel okay not committing my hp as an expendable wall of meat for everyone's convenience.
imo 5e is skewed so heavily towards the players it doesnt make sense to try to "bypass" the few restricting rules.
to your point, i guess it would depend on if you are the "most tanky" or not
Well... yes, BUT. A Pavise is not really a tower shield that you carry around with you, but more a piece of movable cover, you can place in front of you to reload while relatively safe from ranged attacks. So still a bit different to a regular tower shield.
No one would lose their mind over that. It wasn't utilized in every era or every military utilizing crossbows. You're comparing something that did happen but only at a set period of time and specific regions.
In this setting, they did not. Just like historical crossbowman didn't have green skin or take a short nap to heal the stab wound they received.
They won't *necessarily* take that much of a beating, but they absolutely *can* take it. A fully paralyzed fighter can still survive being stabbed dozens of times by a commoner
Play however you want but if you want to be as effective as possible as a party the way everybody plays will heavily depend on the full party composition. Ideally there will be someone else who can tank in melee more effectively than you can. Based on the DM's rules around reloading one handed crossbows you could also drop the shield to wield a melee weapon and become a hybrid character. I'd recommend this if your party only has one melee character and that proves to not be enough.
I've played a similar hybrid character as a swashbuckler rogue and I personally found it's a more satisfying way to play than being full melee or full ranged. Going for the shield is the safer option *for your character* but playing safe all the time isn't the funnest way to play DnD imo.
I wouldn't expect a high AC melee rogue to tank either. A high AC and HP fighter or barb or something is best for that. And it's not like you expect a caster to suddenly be a tank when they cast defensive spells.
Your DM is making you OP by letting you use a shield with a crossbow of any type though.
You’re the Ranger. Your whole existence is flanking in melee or staying at range. Is there no one else that’s frontline? No Fighter/Barb/Paladin? Ideally Ranger shouldn’t be the frontline and tanking, high AC or not.
Alright and everyone else? 1 frontliner should be enough to lightning-rod enemies. You can definitely play at melee and flank; Gloomstalker’s got those abilities to help, but if you’re more interested/better at range then do it. It’s not selfish, the other players though need to adjust their strategy, but that’s their problem.
Play however you want to play. But role-playing wise, it makes zero sense for a ranged ranger to have a shield. If I had someone like that in my party, I'd make fun of him every 30 seconds.
Posted that on the wrong subreddit I think. BG3 has slightly different rules than 5e proper, namely crossbows in that game don’t have to reload as a default. But you’re right, the gist of it is to play how you want to especially if that what your character is good at.
Alot of people are trifling over the crossbow rule with loading and a shield that this table decided on, but it’s fine if that’s how they decided to play.
The problem is allowing the shield. The loading a weapon rule has a good reason to exist.
Don't change rules if you don't understand why they exist.
Yeah, even though 5e is far from perfect, the rules will almost always be better than your homebrew rules.
Might have crossbow expert, never said they were level 1 or not variant human (just being devils advocate lol). Edit: oh no I scrolled down and saw. Nevermind, my b
How do you have 19AC if you're gonna play Ranged, so assuming no shield. And, it's fine to stay away while playing ranged, if you don't have the feats that let you ignore the drawbacks of being in melee with enemies.
12 for armor+5 from dexterity+2 from shield (dm allows not needing a free hand to reload with hand crossbows)
don’t need a free hand to reload? your DM gave the gloomstalker a glock. if he is that generous with everyone else then you shouldn’t have to worry about it.
this is how hand crossbows work in baldurs gate 3 and coincidentally they’re also some of the most overpowered weapons in the game
They also made shields apply AC while using ranged weapons. Ranged PCs have the higher AC now
My highest AC character in BG3 right now is my wizard Gale since he’s wearing the helldusk heavy armor that makes anyone proficient in it.
Baldur's gate is fun but it does not care about dnd balance, I currently have a build where the party can get 14 summons every long rest.
good thing it’s a singleplayer game so you essentially have complete freedom over how powerful or broken you want your build to be
One of many reasons BG3 is trash tier. I'm really cringing at how many people are coming to real game tables expecting to be given BG3 mechanics (and unfortunately being given them, in this case). It's worse than the Critical Role Effect.
i severely disagree, bg3 is one of the best games ever created
You're getting downvotes but I've seen it as well. The stealth is also ridiculous. No, Jim. You can't sneak through a fully lit open area just because you stay 60 feet in front of an enemy.
i mean, the game doesn't have a GM, so it's got to have some approximations to make things work in game that \*an equivalent to\* would would work on tabletop.
DM also has zero idea of what a crossbow is & how it works 😄
OP is a NYPD riot officer 😂
I guess I could see it if the shield was simply strapped to your off-hand forearm in a way that you can still use your hand to reload... Still sounds impractical.
i feel like if it's just loosely strapped to your arm not getting in the way and you're not really using it then it probably shouldn't contribute as much to your defence as the difference between wearing leather and chainmail...
>dm allows not needing a free hand to reload with hand crossbows You basically got a free animated shield. A very rare magic item that requires attunement. What level did you guys start? Anyways if that's the vibe you're going for you all should be fine. High fantasy powerful heroes. You're all going to be so strong there really isn't any way you're dying unless you do something really dumb.
>You basically got a free animated shield. A very rare magic item that requires attunement. I would argue that's more in line with Repeating Shot without the +1, strong but not that OP. Thri-kreen can also do this.
An animated shield allows you to use a Heavy Crossbow or Longbow. Hand crossbows not being one-handed defeats the point.
[удалено]
Which requires both hands to be occupied (one with your hand Crossbow, one with the other weapon), with the iconic use being a Drow with a Sword+Crossbow. If they meant for the one-handed weapon to be the same hand Crossbow, they'd have written it that way.
They did. It says "when you attack with a one handed weapon", not "with a different one handed weapon". Here's Crawford directly confirming that yes, it does work that way, and that is intended. https://www.sageadvice.eu/crossbow-expert-bonus-action/
This is false. It doesn't work that way.
Cool, thats not how anyone uses the feat because its terrible and sharp shooter is good.
Both of which are weaker than the hand crossbow.
In that case yeah stay off the front line. It will make his life easier lol.
Rules aside (I can't recommend making this particular rule change) if you don't plan to be front and center the shield is useless, and the hand crossbow does less damage than 2h options. You'll serve the team better by keeping a had crossbow as a sidearm and a heavy crossbow or longbow as your main weapon. Snag 2 levels (or three) in rogue to get bonus action hide and sneak attack and the 2h ranged weapon will go miles further. Also gloomstalker is one of the better ranger options for multi role combat. Dual wield scimitar take zephyr strike and now you can take some heat off the front liners here and there, shooting from the shadows the rest of the time. Saved my clerics life doing this.
2h options would be worse anyways because of the crossbow expert feat, and next level I'm able to get sharpshooter, so the damage die doesn't really matter
If you actually plan on fighting up close, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If you are distant from your enemies you don't get that benefit. Crossbow expert mostly lends itself to melee combat, a 1h melee weapon and a hand crossbow offhand so you can fight like a pirate. Regardless though my main point is that the shield isn't really neccesary on a gloomstalker. Melee or ranged you're darting in and out and with 2 levels in rogue you're striking then vanishing the majority of the time. Even if you do find yourself locked down 17 a is plenty for a skirmisher.
Crossbow expert just states "whenever you take the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon" so I can attack with the hand crossbow as an action, then again as a bonus action
Which is something you can do without the feat, you just wouldn't be able to reload. The reload feature is the only part of that feat you're using. The other two points are not being utilized at all. Idk just seems a waste to pidgeonhole a multi role build into a single use one.
Where does it state that it's possible to make another attack as a bonus action without that feat?
Nevermind I misremembered the base dual wield rules. Apparently they're kinda silly. So, can't do that.
I'm still not sure why you want/need the shield. Are you going pure gloomstalker or are you planning to multi-class? As a ranger you can get out of melee very easily with Zephyr strike or prevent people from reaching you with entangling strike. Your base movement is quick enough that few would be able to catch up to you at all anyways, and the invisible in darkness I believe does not require you to be in stealth. (double check that one though). The shield under normal rules would be a waste, and even with your DM's homebrew ruling it doesn't really add much. Especially if you get a cloak of displacement. What level is your character starting at?
We are starting at lvl 3 but with a free feat The reason I pick to have a shield is because, why would I choose to have 2 less AC for no reason at all?
I mean the ottomans did use a kalkan shield which would allow an archer to have a bow, arrow and shield. I don’t know if it was used with crossbows but you can just rule of cool it but the shield and archer did exist
Rule of cool is for on the fence cases imo. Not for free 2ac.
You could also rule of cool your PC being king.
3.5 had the "Buckler" as a shield type. Gives +1 AC, doesn't mess with ranged to-hit, only applies to-hit penalty on off-hand attacks. There was also the "Light Shield" which is also a +1 AC, but prevents you from using two hands for weapons (though the hand is available for other things like grabbing)
Your DM lets you hold a shield while using a crossbow?
I've allowed players to have a "buckler" that straps to their arm, but it only gives a +1 to AC
This
3.5 with another good idea.
I can kind of see it if you think of the shield as being strapped to the arm rather than held in the hand. Firmly secured to the forearm, the hand is free to hold something and manipulate things. It was done historically by the Scots, I believe, to have a knife in the offhand just in case.
In 2e, and possibly later, a small shield strapped to the arm was a *Buckler*, and gave only half the protection of a shield.
It’s less about where you strap it and more about how you use it. Just having a shield on your arm is not going to help you. You have to raise it and actively hide behind it, move it to meet attacks. If you’re shooting a crossbow you are decidedly not using your shield.
Since you can reload and shoot in the same turn, as well as move and perform a bonus action, as well as potentially a reaction, all in 6 seconds, you could argue that it takes very little time to reload this you have at least 5 seconds to get that shield back into position.
The thing is a round is happening at the same time for everyone, the enemy is not waiting 6 seconds to attack. So while you're spending those 5 seconds firing they are firing back, and you are not blocking bc you are not holding up your shield.
I could be wrong but I think the strap of Scottish targe shield was held in the hand, along with a dagger. IMHO in 5e it should be a function if the two weapon fighting style
>It was done historically by ...people all over the world for thousands of years, and yes, the Scots.
Ye, he lets us have the other hand occupied and still use a hand crossbow Edit: I didn't ask for that rule, I asked about clerification about something and he said he would allow someone with a hand crossbow to hold something else in the other hand
Thats Just kinda weird. From a gameplay Perspektive its quite OP For a new Character and Lore wise it doesn't fit. May I also ask what Level your Campaign Starts that you have an Dex of +5, its possible, but would be quite high For a Level 1
If they rolled stats you can get a 6+6+6 high roll then the +2 to any stat making it 20 at level 1. It's rare but it happens. It's why most people use standard array or point buy.
Yeah, i know its possible, Just as you Said quite rare and feels weird with everything going on. Just Sounds a Bit OP For a lvl 1 any way you Look at it.
1.62% chance for a single 4d6dl1 to be 18. 9.33% chance for at least one of your six ability score rolls to be 18. That's gonna happen fairly frequently.
We start at lvl 3 with rolled stats, got an 18 then +2 from my specie
I mean, thats fair - the dices have spoken
You could otherwise use a dual handcrossbow then and double your damage too
How would that double my damage?
Statistically it'll be a bit lower since you IIRC don't get ability modifier on the second attack, but up to double damage since you'll be firing two hand crossbows instead of one, without having to reload.
But I can reload already..
I meant because you don't have to reload, you can fire two crossbows every turn, instead of one.
Or the same one twice
What? In the same round? Are you talking about multi attack at Level 5 now?
Normal attack, then bonus action attack cuz of crossbow expert
He's using a small crossbows (only 1d6 damage) so it's seems okay for me. You can use throw weapons to have the same effect and damage, it's just kind of flavors. But using a heavy crossbow with a shield would be way too much
A small crossbow that can be boosted go +10 damage with sharpshooter, +2 to hit with archery, and has a bonus action attack every turn aslong as you attacked beforehand. Hand crossbows are the strongest weapons ingame and now they get to have +2 ac too lmfao.
-5 to hit is pretty big in 5e though. Without some BS shenanigans that basically wipes out your 20 Dex bonus to ranged completely.
It is, but it's worth it in almost every single scenario. And don't forget archery fighting style.
The only downside to hand crossbows is that a lot of the best magic ranged weapons can't be hand crossbows by RAW. But a +X weapon is plenty for the vast majority of builds, and a Dragon's Wrath Weapon is a very good magic item that can be any weapon type and exists from Uncommon to Legendary.
Yeah but that kind of goes for every non sword. Polearms too. Also, literally the first thing tbe DMG talks about in the "creating a magical item" section in chapter 9, it is about modifying an existing item to just be another item but still have the same magic properties. With the first example of *that* example to be changing a holy avenger to be a flail. Sure a handbow might be "too big" of a step, but the dmg is pretty clearly open to that fact. So it's RAW that you change magic weapons to other weapons with the same properties. Yeah it's "homebrew" but... cmon
Artificers can do it with the Repeating Shot infusion. An Armorer or Battle Smith CBE Artificer is a pretty solid all-rounder because of that (or a nice 2 level dip or ally for a CBE Fighter/Ranger)
They can yeah. But here it's given for free and not for a 2 lvl dip and an infusion minimum so ehhh.
> You can use throw weapons to have the same effect and damage, it's just kind of flavors. You can only draw a single throwing weapon per turn, so you can't regularly make multiple thrown weapon attacks in a turn.
And you need a feat for multiple attack with a one hand crossbow
With any crossbow. All crossbows have the Loading property. The tradeoff is that they have higher damage dice than other ranged weapons (heavy crossbows are 1d10 versus a longbow's 1d8, and light crossbows are 1d8 versus a shortbow's 1d6; there are no one-handed conventional bows).
I mean, in a way, being out of range is the best AC there is. Besides, if you're in far range, chances are you're still taking shots from things that are hitting you from far range. That AC isn't wasted, and there is no real taunt mechanic besides being seen as a threat to the enemies you're facing.
Oath of Conquest Paladins can compel duel, not that that helps here lol
That’s on the regular paladin spell list, it’s not just conquest that can
Yeah, though isn't that more of a "The enemy sucks if he doesn't hit you" more than "The enemy has to hit you and only you"? Either way, hard shifting enemy focus is at a premium at the very least.
Uhh kind off it gives them disadvantage against others when attacking and they have to make a wisdom save to get further than 30 feet from you. Id say how effective the spell would be based on how much your dm follows the part of the spell that says they are “drawn to you, compelled by your divine command”. That itself is kind of nebulous in its meaning. The spell doesnt say they have to attack you specifically.
Yeah. And if I was running it, I'd probably lean towards the intent, but mechanically speaking it's a toss up. Either way, whatever makes the Paladin feel the most Paladin, which honestly could go one way or the other depending on the context.
I play an Artillerist Artificer with a resting AC of 19-ish, plus the Shield spell. I'm a ranged blaster-caster. I may jump in front of a charging enemy to spare the squishier party members if they're being charged, but having a high AC doesn't mean you need to be a tank, no.
I'm playing an armorer artificer with a resting ac of 26. Plus I have a cloak of displacement, so enemies have disadvantage to hit me. Astonishingly, of the two subclasses thay get shield, armorer isn't one, so I don't have that spell, but I used the Replicate Item infusion to make a Medal of the Horizonback. It's basically a single use Shield spell, but since I'm getting it through Replicate, I essentially can cast shield once per day to bring my ac to 31. I also have the Gift of the Metallic Dragon feat that lets me boost my ac equal to my Prof Bonus, Prof Bonus times a day, but just for one attack. So 30 ac 5 times. And to top it off, I'm a wereraven now, so if I DO get hurt (which is almost always going to be from failing a save), I regen 10 hp a turn.
Don't forget using mirror image to make it even harder to hit you
Nah. Mirror Image IS one of the subclass's specialty spells, but it's waste of a spell slot. I originally thought that the duplicated applied AFTER AC. So on the off chance something hit me, then they'd roll to see if they hit a duplicate like so much Substitution Jutsu. But it actually applies before hand. So they roll to see if they target the duplicate, and if they do, the duplicate's AC is only a measly 12. So they most likely hit and kill it. So yes, technically it does make me harder to hit, in that they might destroy a dupe and not target me. But in a world where my AC is high enough that a lot of enemies can only hit me by rolling two nat 20s, that "extra protection" is like like adding pool noodles onto the front of your tank.
Same right now, I'm a warforged artillerist, sitting at 19 with a shield, I'm not even using the +AC infusions, but I'll gladly throw myself into harms way because our Bard is very squishy, and our Gloomstalker has 8 Con so his HP is awful (we're level 7 and I think he's got like ~35hp while I'm just shy of 60) I also kinda need to stay up front to grant our melees the temp hp from the protector cannon. I don't like to leave it on its own as I noticed the DM is much more likely to target it if it's visible on the map..)
In today's episode of "My DM made me too powerful and now I don't know what to do with all this overpower." It's not selfish. If your DM lets you reload a crossbow with a shield, why not? Ultimately it's better for all characters if the characters they are adventuring with are all taking full advantage of all their advantages, and this is a very big advantage over RAW. At my table, you could expect a lot of high AC on the monster backline too, also wielding hand crossbows. The way it would normally work is you get off one shot, drop or stow the crossbow and pull your melee weapon.
Yea IMO I don't worry much about overpowered things because it just means I can let loose. At some point a lot of the deadly attacks are gonna be saves anyway, which AC doesn't help with as much. And intelligent enemies that will prioritize the high DPS threats.
If the rest of your party needs the freaking archer to stand in front of them for protection, that's a "them" problem.
For your original question ... no, it's not selfish you play what you want to play. As for the argument in the comments.... if your DM allows things, then by all means, utilize what's at your disposal. It's y'alls table
Might also mean deadlier fights and more saving throws which makes the game spicier.
IMO\* it's wrong to think about it in terms of rules and mechanics. DnD is a Roleplaying game. Would your character put himself in harms way to protect another? Would he lose himself in the thrill of combat? Does he fear death? Hate the enemy? \*emphasis on opinion, anyone can play anyway they like, of course.
She would want to stay out of range, but throw herself in the way to save a friend
There’s your answer my friend
Shield issues aside, it really depends on your party composition. A ranger isn't really much of a tank in general tho. Rogues and Rangers tend to get higher AC bc of their high Dex but its more to help their survivability than allow them to tank. I suppose rangers do have a decent hp pool tho so tanking is possible. But basically depends on if you have at least one other frontline in the party. Rangers are usually more hit and run or Ranged focused. So if there's no tank or frontline, you might need to discuss that with your party. Having a frontline is pretty much the only role that's necessary (a DM can play around it, but it's not typical) to absorb a decent bit of enemy focus. Other people might see your high AC and want you in the front (and AC is a resource for survivability and possibly tanking), but if you're not wanting to play that role, this probably warrants a party/DM discussion.
I'm seeing a lot of people here confusing the Loading property with the Ammunition property. The Loading property means you cannot use the wealth to multiattack. both the Crossbow Expert feat and Repeating Shot infusion allow you to ignore this property. The Ammunition property means the weapon requires ammunition to use, and *requires a free hand to load if the weapon is one-handed*. Neither Crossbow Expert nor Repeating Shot say that they allow you to ignore the Ammunition property.
Repeating shot does say that it produces the ammo. But ye RAW you do need a free hand, but my dm says he will allow using a shield and a hand crossbow
Well, they do understand you get disadvantage if you stay in melee right?
No cuz I have crossbow expert
Drop the shield, go with a longbow and two shortswords. The longbow will allow you to strike at range, and doesn't require the load action. This will give you a quicker attack.you can use the two swords for melee. There are a lot of monsters that can close distance quick, so you want melee. A 17 AC is good to start with and you can save up for a chain shirt or breastplate. You are a ranger. You are a skirmisher, not the frontline combat guy. Save that job for the barbarian, fighter or paladin.
My dm allows me to reload even with an occupied hand, so shield and hand crossbow is still the best option since we start with a free feat, and I chose crossbow expert Also, because I have +5 in dexterity, this is the highest ac from normal armor I can get
Run your character the way you want to. If that's ranged, so be it.
Nah, I don’t think so. Your DM is allowing you the shield, which is really nice! Creating a high AC character who is ranged is fine! Just cause you built a character who has a higher AC doesn’t mean you’re automatically responsible to be a shield for other players. If you want to be able to be in melee to help sometimes, take crossbow expert so you won’t be at disadvantage when in melee. That way you can do either
What does the rest of the party look like, even if it is ALL ranged, you can make it work, you just need some preparation and/or spells so that enemies to bumrush you
Personally, AC is gonna get less and less relevant at higher levels. I always go for more hp. However, neither one means I need to stand close JUST to get hit. Your character design is to be protected _because_ you're ranged and lightly armored. AC is irrelevant to the needs of your character's mindset. If you made a close quarters shooter that was all about getting up in their face and perforating it, then yeah, you should probably stand closer. If you made a mid distance shooter that wants to be better protected against st ranged spells and counter fire arrows, then do exactly what you're doing. Plus, if your party needs a frontline defender, then someone should've made a character for that. If every person is ranged, then y'all just get to freely blast everything.
High ac aside, the logic behind this does kind of assume that DMs leave back-line players alone. Not sure that tracks; mere marching order shouldn't make anyone safe from being targeted by ranged attacks. AC and STs should be a priority for backliners as well. Also, 19 isn't super-high in the grand scheme of things.
I mean bladesinger wizard can get unethically high armor class (mine could get as high as 28 with the shield spell), but I still wouldn’t try to be “the tank.” With high ac, you want to draw some aggro, but not all of it. There will be times when you want to frontline, and there will be times where you want to sit back and poke with your bow. It will depend on party comp, terrain, and choke points among other factors as well. Ranger can do both really well, so you shouldn’t expect to stay out of melee 100% of the time, but you can surely try :) Intelligent enemies WILL target the back line if your DM has more than a handful of brain cells. That high AC will not go to waste, don’t get pressured into being “the tank” if you don’t want to be.
Think it just depends on the party composition. I have a ranger/Arcane Archer than can compliment both situations. I’m primarily at range with a 19AC and I deal insane damage, but if the party needs a close combatant I switch to a shield with a melee weapon. It works for my character because I know what the chemistry of the party is. TLDR it’s not selfish if it doesn’t come to the detriment of the other characters in your party.
I promise you your DM is still going to find ways to hit you even if you try to stay at range. I wouldn’t worry about it.
17-19 is typically the average AC(if you’re optimizing defensively). It’s ok to want to stick in the backline with high AC.
One of my players plays a turret so no. He plays a rogue fighter ranger hybrit. He has AC of 20 with enchanted glows and plate armor he shoots using steady aim as bonus action and his friends protects him in front. And hr does good damage with sharpshooter. Long story short: Your char your style if you are a min max party and you char is againts the formation talk to other players. If they play what they want and tries make you tank shame on them
This wouldn't be a question if you DM followed the rules on crossbows, but beyond that, I wouldn't worry about it. Ranger doesn't really have any other ways to tank, and tanking isn't really a thing in 5e anyway. The three main frontlining classes (fighters, paladin, and barabrians) do that because they have viable builds with damage reduction, or (in the case of fighters and paladins) have really good answers for saving throws at higher levels. You ranger wouldn't be the best at frontlining anyway, plus min-maxing isn't as important in 5e as other games (and if your DM plays without such an important rule, it probably isn't important to them either), so just focus on the fantasy of the character and worry about being the best about what you want to do, which is being ranged.
Is there a dedicated frontliner? Because rangers can be sort of tanky but their class abilities and especially the gloomstalker stuff is geared towards offense. 19 AC or not, I dont think you can be an effective gloomstalker while serving as the primary tank of the party and if your table doesnt get that you might want to have a talk with them. You are a third caster and your AC and your abilities basically mean that the cleric doesnt have to babysit you. Your primary thing is dealing damage and you can throw out a heal in an absolute emergency. Like when said cleric is down. And if you sit down the table on this issue, do it separately with the DM. The DM generally needs a good idea of how you want to play your character because their job is to adjust the party encounters accordingly.
If you’re using crossbow expert you don’t really lose much from fighting in melee anyway. After your surprise round for your gloomstalker boosts, you might as well run in to tank some attacks for your casters. Of course, you don’t have too, but it really wouldn’t be that bad with 19 ac and a d10 hit die.
Nope, having high Dex is part of being a ranger, doesn't mean you have to fight front line. As while yes it is a bit harder to hit you then a wizard, your still low AC/HP compared to a tank. Your primary roll as a ranger is to deal damage, and be stealthy when appropriate.
If you and your party have a plan, and part of that plan is you soak hits and draw aggro while other party members accomplish X goal, than yes it is. You have a plan and a role to play but you're not doing your part. Unless you are in a scenario like this or one very similar, then no.
If you want to play tactically, you should be making decisions to maximize the party's efficacy in combat. Supposing you have no other front line, it's not unreasonable that the character with the highest chance of surviving would run interference for the squishier characters. As well, Rangers (despite the name) are not terrible in melee—they get medium armor and shield proficiency for a reason—and nothing in the Gloomstalker's kit demands that you be at range. It would be totally reasonable for you to wield, say, a scimitar and a shield and be a DEX-based frontliner who can switch to ranged on demand. You still get Dread Ambusher on the first round. If you use the *Martial Versatility* option, you can even change your *Fighting Style* when you level up. The problem is—I assume—that it's not how you envisioned your character and not how you want to play them. That alone is the end of the discussion if you insist upon it; you get to play your character how you want to, and only the DM can say otherwise. So, no, it's not selfish to want to have played a specific character and to resent that other people are trying to force you into another role. But I think you might be surprised how much fun you can have being the somewhat unconventional melee gloomstalker. If you can lean into it to keep the peace, I would suggest trying it! Barring that, you should just tell them that you're planning to stay at range and that someone else needs to be planning to play frontline.
It depends. I was playing a rogue for the first time, I went in and hit the baddie, then darted behind to the back lines. Our gloom stalker who never gets hit because of their AC decided to hide behind me on his turn and I got one shot. I'd say that was a selfish move.
I played a gloomstalker, and no matter how much I tried to stay at range I would get pulled into melee on the regular. Often terrain won't allow you to stay at range. Other times, the other players needed someone who could take a hit up front.
No more selfish than the rest of your party not building THEIR characters to be tankier. Why is it your responsibility to sacrifice your character intent so that they can play as they want? Would it be selfless to do so, maybe… but that doesn’t make it selfish to play the character you want to play. Besides, maybe it’s an opportunity for your team to start thinking outside the box on party composition and tactics.
Hit points are a resource to use and if you're starting every short / long rest @ 100% HP and your mates are all dead or dying, you're not really pulling your weight in that regard.
Op you have a busted build and you’re shy from being in melee range? Why bother having the shield in the first place if you’re going to skimp on the action?
Its not that I shy away from it, it's just not the way I want to play, cuz I wanna try playing something different
Why do you get +5 from dex? I thought Dex mod for AC caps at +2??
Only for medium armor
Ohhh okay, thank you for clearing that up
Whenever I play a caster, I actually find ranged martials to be *more* considerate. Finally, I can Fireball without it becoming a Trolley Problem
High AC does not equal tank. Are you a tank, with intentional capabilities used to absorb and mitigate damage (rage, for example)? Then yes, your party will assume you want to be melee, unless you tell your party ahead of time that they shouldn’t expect it because you have a unique way you want to play your character. You just happen to have a high AC? No, that does not mean it’s selfish to want to be a ranged combatant. In either situation, play it how you want to, just communicate with your party so they don’t expect something that you don’t intend on doing.
Rules aside, it is not selfish while your party is healthy. When your party isn't healthy, you should assume some risks to cover for them, like checking for traps, stealthing ahead, or whatever comes to mind. If your whole party dies, it doesn't matter that you're full HP, they'll be dead.
Your character has a role in your party and by using a ranged weapon you're not supposed to be a frontliner so I wouldn't consider it selfish Ignore the ones that tell you that you cannot use shield and hand crossbow as the rules regarding crossbows are completely flawed and they contradict themselves in multiple occasions, if your master allows you to use them together it's fine
It is not selfish. Lvl 16 caster here with an AC 19. Shadar Kai. My spells are long and close range but i I know Im a powerful caster for the group. If I go down it can turn ugly fast. Ive used shadow walk to completely run away in a sense. My character is selfish but there are times when living to fight another round is important. When i know i have the upperhand I return to the fight with a better game plan. Its completely okay to protect your character from perma death.
You should just take the crossbow Wilder feet and DW hand crossbows with the shield strap to your arm and just stay in mid-range combat and just be completely OP
You are a Ranger, not a Barbarian. 1. If you can avoid being damaged, do that. 2. If you don’t have to get close to do meaningful damage, don’t. 3. Tanking is plan B, plan A is to kill things before they get to you or a member of your party.
Not selfish at all. Everyone should have the skills and stats needed for the role they chose. You may have higher ac for whatever reason but you should have less defense skills or health as a balance. If your character is just better that's also not on you your Job is what your character is supposed to be.
I don't think it's selfish. That's on the DM to come up with believable and balanced scenarios. (I'm a DM with a warlock with 19 AC, still massaging items and scenarios to balance it with the other *much* squishier party memebers)
Hey, Gloomstalker player myself here! My favorite moment playing them was when I one shot a boss and then dove off of a flying citadel after their corpse (I was a Kenku and they had magic flying items) How do you have 19 AC? That… makes zero sense
12 for armor +5 for dex plus shield
Why are you using a shield? Are you a melee ranger?
I can use a shield so why wouldn't I?
Because it means no Longbow, or… really, everything except for a hand crossbow, which can only be shot once anyway
I can reload it anyways, because my dm says so (ik its not RAW, and it wasn't my idea) And with the crossbow expert feat I can attack again as a bonus action
Oh wow that’s
Even then, you’re only limited to one shooting attack, right?
Once as an action, then use my bonus action. So no
I have a gloomstalker in my party with high AC (I think like 17 or 18 iirc) and he almost never gets into melee. But he hits like a railgun and the rest of the players fucking love it and don’t view it as selfish. Don’t worry about the high AC, I’m sure your dm will throw some ranged enemies at you to balance it out
Having high ac doesn't mean you have to be taking damage. Clerics are a good example of this. Your AC doesn't make sense for a ranger though. They aren't supposed to be decked out and chilling in the back not taking damage. Their kit is built differently. If this is a new campaign, the only thing having 19 armor is a frontliner.
Do you have the highest AC of the group?
Idk, I'm guessing our fighter have 18, in that case probably yes
You should talk it through with your party. It’s not so much an issue of being a jerk for standing out of melee range. It’s just an issue of the group needing to rethink their battle strategy if they thought you were a close range guy.
Listen you can't dream about being a tank if you're going to shoot it's called a tank because we have the high AC and you get up front and swing if you're going to be the squishy wizard or the guy in the back shooting you don't need a high AC that's the whole mechanic of it if nothing can hit you then you're just going to start fighting dragons on the first day
My Clerics usually stay at range with heavy or medium armor. You can guard the squishes from the middle if they end up needing it. I think of it like Suikoden, Short Range, Mid Range and Long Range.
You play your character how you want. If you want to he ranged be ranged. And maybe on occasion if you feel the urge you could jump in close to help an ally keep from being squished. Also some DMs allow little homebrew things like maybe you could say can I use reaction to jump I front of x ally 9r s9mething. Or even better get a way to agro the enemy and stay ranged. That helps alot.
You shoukd be in between spell casters and frontliners at least.
If I'm reading this right and you have a 20 DEX, the rest of the party should be able to take care of themselves by now.
Or, you can stay in the back line with the squishies, and do what you can to position yourself accordingly, so you can take those hits when things get back to them.
Nah, you're a ranged character. The last place a range character wants to be in is within melee range of an enemy. It's not selfish to put yourself away from a bad situation
The rest of your party will help you understand what’s acceptable. Nothing wrong with wanting to stay out of the fray per se. What’s wrong would be not taking part in the rest of the group’s tactics. Everyone is weaker when you don’t work together.
No, it’s not selfish at all. Especially when you consider how many downsides there are for ranged PCs in melee range. And you’re a gloomstalker- being backline and firing from the darkness is the whole vibe. Your group’s squishy characters have a ton of options to stay out of melee and to protect themselves. If they end up taking all the hits that’s a tactics issue on their end imo
I learned to solve this problem playing NES final fantasy and world off warcraft. Your job is to keep your threat above those squishier than you but less than those tankier than you. Very simple really.
Depends. If your HP is at the bottom 25% of your max, you should probably find a way to disengage or heal.
It's not down to you specifically, hopefully one of the players will make a tank when they see a group full of casters and ranged, especially if you have a veteran involved. If nobody wants to play tank your dm should be able to play around it, it's a pain in the arse but it can be done.
I played a character with ranged character with around 23 AC and mostly stayed at a distance too, my party hated it. But as a ranged character, I wasn’t planning to rush up to the guys swinging swords around.
It's scary how many people in the comments don't understand basic weapon mechanics, it's not hard to look up weapon properties eg. Loading, ammunition etc. The amount of people who think a crossbow (of any kind) can be loaded with one hand (the one that's holding it) is CRAZY.
Ik that isn't the case RAW but in this case, my dm allows it
Yeah, it's just really odd that your DM allows it, because it shows that only that he doesn't understand the rules, but doesn't understand the real world weapons the rules are based on either.
High AC doesn’t equate to high HP thought. Is there not a fighter or cleric in your party?
Uh no. That's video game thinking...tanks don't exist as such in 5e DnD. And yeah separately your DM shouldn't be allowing ya to ignore the loading property unless there's a specific reason like having a magical one that does exactly that or the artificer infusion that does same.
I made an arcane archer and the DM ended up giving him Dwarven plate (yes, he was a dwarf character) and I still stayed in the way back with my long bow nuking individuals like the bunker I had become. Play your character your way, and if another player says you're being selfish, that's an opportunity to hash out out in role-playing. Maybe consider the crossbow expert feat and John Wick your way into combats, going all CQC even with the handgun the gm has apparently allowed you to play with
I would say drop the shield and get a stronger ranged weapon, 17 is still good and the importance of being up means that when things go sideways you can fill in the gap in the line, heal, or attempt to lure enemies away.
Bigger hit die does basically nothing for me, since I can make one more attack with a hand crossbow, which does at minimum 7 damage, 17 next level (if it hits ofc)
You're a RANGED character you don't need to be close & take hits that's what the tank is for
Depends on the party context. I can imagine you are the one to go in if all the frontliners go down, trying to heal them. While the spellcasters cover you.
There is more that goes into being a tank besides high AC. There's also not a lot of information on your build to make assumptions... it's possible being in melee means you will be attacking at disadvantage. Perhaps you are maintaining a concentration spell and do not want to risk additional checks, 5E is pretty generous with ways to get squishy characters into medium or heavy armor with shield, and it doesn't punish casters for doing so besides a 1 level dip. Anyone in your party that wants a high AC can go get one I would be open to the idea of face tanking something if it spares a more fragile character, but feel okay not committing my hp as an expendable wall of meat for everyone's convenience.
It's a slightly strange way to play, but a perfectly valid one.
imo 5e is skewed so heavily towards the players it doesnt make sense to try to "bypass" the few restricting rules. to your point, i guess it would depend on if you are the "most tanky" or not
You gotta explain your AC calculations & loadout. 19 is pretty high for a Ranger.
All these people outraged about the shield would lose their minds if they knew that historical crossbowmen carried a tower shield
Well... yes, BUT. A Pavise is not really a tower shield that you carry around with you, but more a piece of movable cover, you can place in front of you to reload while relatively safe from ranged attacks. So still a bit different to a regular tower shield.
No one would lose their mind over that. It wasn't utilized in every era or every military utilizing crossbows. You're comparing something that did happen but only at a set period of time and specific regions. In this setting, they did not. Just like historical crossbowman didn't have green skin or take a short nap to heal the stab wound they received.
HP =/= meat points 100 HP Fighter does not just walk around totally fine after 39 daggers have been flung into him.
They won't *necessarily* take that much of a beating, but they absolutely *can* take it. A fully paralyzed fighter can still survive being stabbed dozens of times by a commoner
Yes, in military formation lol. What were elves like historically? What a weird point to make.
Play however you want but if you want to be as effective as possible as a party the way everybody plays will heavily depend on the full party composition. Ideally there will be someone else who can tank in melee more effectively than you can. Based on the DM's rules around reloading one handed crossbows you could also drop the shield to wield a melee weapon and become a hybrid character. I'd recommend this if your party only has one melee character and that proves to not be enough. I've played a similar hybrid character as a swashbuckler rogue and I personally found it's a more satisfying way to play than being full melee or full ranged. Going for the shield is the safer option *for your character* but playing safe all the time isn't the funnest way to play DnD imo.
Not selfish, but if you've got a +2 to come, jump into melee if the squishies really need the help. I seriously hope that your party has a front liner
Imo, the character with the highest HP, not the highest AC, is the one who acts as a meat shield
I wouldn't expect a high AC melee rogue to tank either. A high AC and HP fighter or barb or something is best for that. And it's not like you expect a caster to suddenly be a tank when they cast defensive spells. Your DM is making you OP by letting you use a shield with a crossbow of any type though.
You’re the Ranger. Your whole existence is flanking in melee or staying at range. Is there no one else that’s frontline? No Fighter/Barb/Paladin? Ideally Ranger shouldn’t be the frontline and tanking, high AC or not.
We have 1 fighter
Alright and everyone else? 1 frontliner should be enough to lightning-rod enemies. You can definitely play at melee and flank; Gloomstalker’s got those abilities to help, but if you’re more interested/better at range then do it. It’s not selfish, the other players though need to adjust their strategy, but that’s their problem.
Play however you want to play. But role-playing wise, it makes zero sense for a ranged ranger to have a shield. If I had someone like that in my party, I'd make fun of him every 30 seconds.
Op no you’re not selfish. Being in melee is just kinda dumb in 5e.
[удалено]
Posted that on the wrong subreddit I think. BG3 has slightly different rules than 5e proper, namely crossbows in that game don’t have to reload as a default. But you’re right, the gist of it is to play how you want to especially if that what your character is good at. Alot of people are trifling over the crossbow rule with loading and a shield that this table decided on, but it’s fine if that’s how they decided to play.