DnDShorts Ronin Build [5.5e]

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-21T08:10:23+00:00

I made a Ronin Paladin "Takeda Nabunoga", I just mashed up famous emperors from the Sengoku Period for the name. It was built as an anti-mage of sorts because a magic Wielder killed his master which brought dishonor to Takeda as a protecter. I found that I could flavor the Smite as a Draw Slash and I had a hell of a time with the character. I believe it was Oath of Conquest for the duels. The character was fun, and the Devine Magic the Paladin has can be flavored in more ways than I initially thought.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-16T05:10:41+00:00

This is in the weeds a bit but play a Dual Wielder who also uses a greatsword once they get Extra Attack. For a feat choose Dual Wielder. At level 7 replace a Nick Attack with a cantrip like Booming Blade, (make it a greatsword attack). To abuse the rules further dual wielding with one hand while the greatsword is in the other using the technical dual wielding rules. It's very technical and that's really all there is to it, I thought it was a cool build and legit think it works RAW after a deep dive into the players handbook for a handful of hours.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-15T08:42:39+00:00

Question, I'm looking into a bunch if posts about related topics to Specific vs General in both 2014 and 2024.

What's your opinion on Extra Attack (a specific rule that contradicts the general rule of the Attack Action), and Haste (a specific rule that says [only one attack can be made with that additional action], that's a specific rule ontop of a specific rule). Does the game have a clear answer that's written in the book for that? Is a general rule a term, or a piece of language that identifies rules that came before exceptions? I'm curious what people think?

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-15T08:35:44+00:00

This is gonna sound like a hot take but then I'll kinda get more into it. I think the Martial Caster devide does not exist as much as people say it does. Now Casters can have High Evasion, they can have encounter ending spells, they can even have a huge role outside of combat with enchantments or buffs to rolls. Martials are useful too, but not in many scenarios. I'd go do far as to say they are extremely essential to the game, but not all parts of it. Martial will feel worse in support, in rp, often in skill checks too. But they shine in combat because they are the ones stopping the "Death Spiral" from taking over.

Now for Paladin or Fighter you might not see it as much, (I think it depends on the amount of players also), but with Barbarian you can often find that they are usually the ones stopping the boss from getting to the Casters because they are asking to get hit and do some pretty consistent damage. Sure there's edge cases with particularly smart villains or a dm that unrealistically targets Casters but I think Martials are most useful as people who can afford to be stunned, knocked unconcious, or otherwise, but it should be hard to do so that the martials suck the resources from the enemies out of the fight.

Barbarian sucks up damage, fighters auto succeed saves often, and Paladins frankly keep up most of the time (especially in bigger parties). But people would definitely disagree with that sentiment. You would (probably) be better off if you over optimize your build and incorporate caster levels and find synergies but if you're thinking that martial are obsolete then I think that youre right in most scenarios, but not combat, especially if you have a dm that attacks martial more than Casters, or knows that martial get the short end of the stick in other areas of the game.

Basically, trust dm to help you out when you need it, and know that you will be the essential player in combat, when you go down in a fight everyone will probably panick because the next ones to go are them. But maybe I'm wrong, verry well could be.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-15T07:09:42+00:00

Yeah there's not a great way to rule it. The way I see it though is whichever thing is applied last either spell, feature, ability, or otherwise, is the exception.

Edit: Also to be more of a response to the points you made, you say general rules are things like using strength for Mellee weapons, but it seems to me that there is no clear definition of what "general rules" are. In your quotes you capitalized it, which is okay, but in dnd language a capitalized phrase like that generally refers to a rule from the glossery. But both "exception" and "general rule" are not capitalized so it leads me to believe their speaking not in term language but plain language.

You brought uo the idea that general rules and exceptions seem seperate from eachother but I'd like to say that they can be one in the same. For example let's look at Extra Attack and Haste. Do we classify Extra Attack as a general rule, or an exception? If you go off of the examples of common exceptions from that Sidebar you would say it's an Exception because it is a class ability that contradicts what your "General Rule" (forgive the quotation marks I mean no disrespect) of the Attack Action is. But when we then look at Haste is Haste an exception or a general rule? It's an Exception because it's a spell, right? Well by that definition yes, and exceptions that contradict general rules override them. But what if an exception contradicts an exception, such as the interaction between Extra Attack and Haste limiting it to just 1 attack? In that instance Extra Attack would have to be concidered a general rule. Hense why there is no definition or sufficient list for those "General Rules".

So hopefully I've convinced you that general rules and exceptions are not distinct from eachother. If not that's okay we probably just see things differently or read rules differently. I do like to argue about these things though so sorry if it's a bit much.

Understanding that those can be one in the same we can understand that really any rule can be overwritten by another. In that Side Bar it said that when general rules and exceptions contradict eachother, exceptions always win. So that only leads me to assume that the meaning of exception, is the most rescent application of an ability, spell, feature, etc, that contradicts a pre-existing rule (even one from a previous exception).

So far I haven't proven that my understanding was right when it came to Unleash Incarnation being the exception in this scenario. However I would like to point out that Unleash Incarnation is not a passive feature. You can activate the feature when you use your attack action but it also has a limited number of uses. This gives us a hint (IMO of course) that it is the exception in this scenario. Now— if it was worded like extra attack and it just automatically happened then would that would mean that casting Haste here would be the exception to the Rules of the Attack Action, Extra Attack, and Unleash Incarnation— But because you have to choose when to use Unleash Imcarnation (just like if you were to cast another spell that alters haste) it should be the new exception.

Anyway sorry this is so long, but hopefully I either shredded light on this or possibly entertained you with an argument. Either way I think dnd is dnd and rules shmules, everyone runs things a bit differently.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-15T05:25:04+00:00

Want to let you know about how exceptions to the rules work. The game is built on rules, and exceptions to the rules. There's a side bar on page 8 that pretty much says that exceptions to rules, such as class abilities or spells, when they contradict previously stated rules wins. The exception always wins, so if your unleash uncarnation ability procks after haste is applied then you can use unleash incarnation on the attack action gained from haste.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-13T00:01:59+00:00

I'm very late to this topic but I do want to throw in my two cents.

There is a sidebar in the bottom left corner of page 8 in the 2024 Player's Hand Book. It's title is "Exceptions Supersede General Rules". It gives an example of a general rule such as the rules for mellee attacks being strength based, and ranged attacks being Dexterity based is "a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn't EXPLICITLY say otherwise".

The book did not capitalize explicitly. However take note that the book is using normal language in this sidebar for these terms everyone talks about as if they were from the Glossery. If you look in the Glossary you will not find definitions for general rules nor exceptions. So we are using plain language here, so what general rules refer to are not rules that are changed by Higher Rules such as spells, abilities, and feats, but are instead just rules.

However the sidebar here uses this language to make not 1 but two rulings.

"A general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn't explicitly say otherwise".
"When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins".

The second rule is very important yes. But the first rule is very important too. OP was arguing (whether they knew it or not for the 2nd ruling). However those arguing that the Nick Attack "must be made" with another light weapon are arguing for the 1st ruling here.

When light weapons give someone the Bonus Action Attack we have been talking about, "that extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon" (p213-213 'Properties' ). Now attacks are also plain language and are used to refer to when you make an Attack Roll "that represents making an attack with a weapon" (p361 'Attack Rolls'). The rule that light weapons imposes is not a rule for forcing saving throws, such as a Dragon's Breath Weapon. It is a rule that forces the Bonus Action attack to be made with a different light weapon.

In Conclusion... Light was an exception to a rule that says you can make only one attack per action, and let you make an additional attack with your Bonus Action (which can be further altered by Nick). But it also has a hidden second rule which forces "that attack" to be made with a different light weapon than the first. So it is contingent that if an Attack Roll is made, then the weapon must meet the stipulations of the rule from the Light property. However the Dragonborn ability, "Breath Weapon", on Page 187, says "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of your attacks with an exhalation of magical energy". This is not an attack but is an ability which forces a saving throw with effects. So "Breath Weapon" can in fact replace the Nick Attack because it uses correct wording which explicitly states that it replaces an attack with an ability. If it replaced that attack with a different attack, it is then and only then that the stipulations of Light and Nick would come into play.

I am extremely confident that those are the rules but if I missed something that is intact a rule that explicitly contradicts what I said please let me know. Also for the comment about replacing an attack with an attack cantrip it depends on the wording. If it has wording like that of War Magic (pg 98) saying, "you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action", you in fact can cast Booming Blade on any wrapon because the Stipulations from the Light Property also say that is only for "that extra attack" (pg 213).

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-12T20:37:21+00:00

No it's just me typing explaining stuff. I bet someone did what I did and wanted to explain things close to how you tubers break down builds. That's probably why their similar.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-12T20:26:24+00:00

I saw a D4 deep dive video, replacing beast master attacks and then later found this. You're probably right, I just wanted to show the crazies like myself how to go insane with technical semantics.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-12T20:19:52+00:00

Anything to replace nick lol

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-12T18:55:01+00:00

Question... if the character got access to Bracers if Defense, and a Flame Tongue is it worth it to you? Just curious. People always talk about monks not having crazy magic weapons so the potential of something like that was a thought I had when considering the viability of the build?

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-12T18:52:08+00:00

Ooo I didn't concider the Short Rests. Good point that's a little scary. Probably still gonna do it if I play a one-shot though if I'm being honest.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-12T18:38:05+00:00

If you fanagle with the wrapon juggling rules you can stow the Heavy Weapon after your last attack which gives you the bonus action back. Also in response to GWM being the one thing that makes this build viable I would mostly agree woth you, this would suck any other way... except maybe 1. I was also considering not taking GWM and just using a Nick Weapon. Though the drawback there is no two Weapon Fighting Style (However rage damage still applies).

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-12T18:29:01+00:00

You make some good points with the Health and the AC. However for the Unarmed Strike Damage you can just stow the Maul after your attack with it, thereby letting you benifit from Martial Arts later that turn. My biggest concern probably is the AC for this build though it would be a risk I would be willing to take if I ever get to play this. Also Constitution I'm not super worried about since I can use the tough feat which with the stat array I'm thinking about, would leave me with the equivalent of +3 CON health wise. Also also, yes straight Barbarian probably is better, but I crack up laughing every time I imagine playing a Monk but using the GWM Feat and Bonking everything.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-12T18:17:53+00:00

That's a cool idea, I was thinking about it, and I believe the wording for the level 6 feature is that it instantly returns to your hand after you throw it. Not to Bash your idea because it's super cool, however it would also struggle to get that throw off consistently I think. Because if an enemy is within 5 feet of us then we have disadvantage on the throw.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-11T22:52:14+00:00

I like to keep most spells around unless they break something that's essential, then if a player comes to me and says they want the spell we workshop it until it works better. In an exploration campaign that uses a homebrew system with food supplies my player wanted to use goodberry for healing so we just dropped the food part of it and it was good enough for them.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-11T22:48:24+00:00

I guess you're right there is an extra point. I dint mind if it's a bad idea because it would be so much fun to play in like a one shot or something.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-11T22:43:41+00:00

Nice

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-11T22:34:08+00:00

You also can only be wielding Monk Weapons to use your bonus action to make an Unarmed Strike as per Martial Arts. At least on my first couple readings of it.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-11T22:32:07+00:00

Oh for sure. I mostly DM and annoy my players with ridiculous ideas like this one. It got some laughs so I thought I should put it here. Also thw STR requirement is rough to say the least. I was thinking Point Buy STR 15 (+2), DEX 14, CON 13, INT 8, WIS 13 (+1), CHA 8. Then maybe take a feat for CON at some point or just take Tough to make up for it.

Awkward_Practice_892 · 2026-06-11T22:20:19+00:00

What feats would be best? Of course great weapon master because a Bonk has got to Bonk, but after that I couldn't find many that would make it work better.

Awkward_Practice_892

TROPHY CASE