D&D (2024) Help with a Defense weapon mastery property

[rules.mechanic]

I'm looking at using the new Weapon Mastery Properties to introduce an active Defense variant (refreshing the current option I've been using in the 5e version of the Tome of Variance - the A5E version is good as it is).


Both variants here use contested attack rolls. This gives a defense that scales with combat skill, while the link to weapon mastery and number of attacks scales with martial training. It also means defense is independent of AC, but without additional rolls and without making either redundant (except at extremes of AC/defense, which fits, thematically). For the maths, it helps to consider that the defense roll makes a difference if you roll over your own AC, while the potential attack can be impaired if the opponent rolls over their own AC. On average, at common values, the defensive impact is a little less than a shield. Thematically, the maths seems to fit well with who is best using defense and gives some tactical decisions against certain opponents or when at higher/lower HP.

v1 is the simplest, trading the next turn's attacks for use as contested attack rolls. No additional rolls from current gameplay (just their timing). Use of attacks does mean your attacks come earlier in the round and that you're likely to have a very good round (block an attack while succeeding on your own) or a very bad one (take a hit and lose your own attack).

v2 decouples the defense rolls, while still allowing one to be converted to an attack (at the cost of a reaction).

Very interested to hear what people think.

 

[mellored]

Why not just a reaction?

 

[rules.mechanic]

Why not just a reaction?

Thanks, I had a version that did just use a reaction to attempt the contested roll but I'd like it to make use of Extra Attack to allow for scaling and to tie more strongly to martials. Maybe I'm over-complicating...

 

[mellored]

Fighters are the only ones that get more than 2 attacks.

 

[rules.mechanic]

That's right. Do you mean it's simpler to tie to having the Extra Attack feature than to number of attacks? Could be

 

[mellored]

That's right. Do you mean it's simpler to tie to having the Extra Attack feature than to number of attacks? Could be

IMO.
Parry: you gain +1 AC

Done.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

If you are using an attack early, it means you are attacking them. Nowhere does it say your attack isn't to harm them. So it looks like the Defense mastery just lets you attack early as a riposte? That doesn't feel like a "Defense" ability.

Trying to read it in another way requires inferring because information is missing.

"Contested attack roll" is not a rule that is fleshed out in the PH. It needs rules defining the mechanic.

But overall, it's too clunky and unclear for me.

 

[rules.mechanic]

If you are using an attack early, it means you are attacking them. Nowhere does it say your attack isn't to harm them. So it looks like the Defense mastery just lets you attack early as a riposte? That doesn't feel like a "Defense" ability.

Trying to read it in another way requires inferring because information is missing.

"Contested attack roll" is not a rule that is fleshed out in the PH. It needs rules defining the mechanic.

But overall, it's too clunky and unclear for me.

Fair, I found it hard to word clearly. v2 spells it out a bit more, but needs to contend with not necessarily being an attack. v2 looks like the one for me to work from

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Yeah, potential balance questions aside I don't feel like the idea of "I attack them back" feels very defensive in nature. If anything I feel like doing something like making a opposed roll to try to prevent them from succeeding is sufficient enough. Especially because the intended point of masteries is they apply to each attack without spending resources. I'd suggest an alternative of something like "Your hit reduces the enemy's next attack by -2" but I worry this would be dangerously close to the Sap mastery as is.

Of note though for balancing considerations if you're wanting to keep it as an opposed attack roll: monsters at higher levels will be using very high attack bonuses to hit, far outpacing any player character outside of those with a few absurd magic item combinations (i.e. a + 3 weapon and belt of giant strength). Higher level dnd is less about if a player gets hit and more about how many hits can a player take before dying and I worry this might make this mastery weaker as one levels up.

 

[rules.mechanic]

Yeah, potential balance questions aside I don't feel like the idea of "I attack them back" feels very defensive in nature. If anything I feel like doing something like making a opposed roll to try to prevent them from succeeding is sufficient enough. Especially because the intended point of masteries is they apply to each attack without spending resources. I'd suggest an alternative of something like "Your hit reduces the enemy's next attack by -2" but I worry this would be dangerously close to the Sap mastery as is.

Of note though for balancing considerations if you're wanting to keep it as an opposed attack roll: monsters at higher levels will be using very high attack bonuses to hit, far outpacing any player character outside of those with a few absurd magic item combinations (i.e. a + 3 weapon and belt of giant strength). Higher level dnd is less about if a player gets hit and more about how many hits can a player take before dying and I worry this might make this mastery weaker as one levels up.

True, and especially for the BBEG at higher levels. And while maybe that fits thematically with not expecting to parry a monstrous claw, it would be good to keep the mastery relevant. I'll have a think