PoeticDwarf
2015-07-22, 11:29 AM
I'm making a ranger (hilldwarf stats are 9, 20, 16, 10, 16, 10), I don't want it optimal but I found a way to make a ranger BM a very good choice.
He's a ranger 14 rogue 1, the rogue is just for expertise and does nothing for my build. I have a +1 heavy crossbow, crossbow expert, sharpshooter, archery style and a DEX of 20. So I have +13 to hit or with sharpshooter +8 to hit and 1d10+16 damage.
My animal is a flying snake, with my bonus action I can let him take the help action, so I have advantage, then with my attack action he makes two attacks and I make one attack. With +8 to hit (advantage) and +11 to hit this is average or even above average for this level. The damage for this is 6+6+3d4+3d4+1d10+16 is 48,5 damage average. Which is not bad, I know a fighter can do more instant damage, a monk, a barbarian and a paladin can come close or also do more. But this sounds for me the best not multiclassed ranger (you don't need the rogue level for the build).
Is there something wrong with this? My DM thinks this is legal.
He's a ranger 14 rogue 1, the rogue is just for expertise and does nothing for my build. I have a +1 heavy crossbow, crossbow expert, sharpshooter, archery style and a DEX of 20. So I have +13 to hit or with sharpshooter +8 to hit and 1d10+16 damage.
My animal is a flying snake, with my bonus action I can let him take the help action, so I have advantage, then with my attack action he makes two attacks and I make one attack. With +8 to hit (advantage) and +11 to hit this is average or even above average for this level. The damage for this is 6+6+3d4+3d4+1d10+16 is 48,5 damage average. Which is not bad, I know a fighter can do more instant damage, a monk, a barbarian and a paladin can come close or also do more. But this sounds for me the best not multiclassed ranger (you don't need the rogue level for the build).
Is there something wrong with this? My DM thinks this is legal.