D&D 5E Improving the Fighter's Stickiness

[KarinsDad]

Thank you for offering your opinion (twice, now), but at this point, given that the thread is about improving stickiness of the fighter, you're just threadcrapping.

Move this into the houserules forum where it should have been in the first place (reread the thread title and the first post) and I won't comment. People respond to me, I respond back. It's called a conversation. If you do not like my comments, you do not need to respond to them. Good for the goose.

Dude.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

To be fair, if KarinsDad is right (and I don't totally disagree with him), bringing the 5e fighter to 4e defender levels of stickiness could be a problem for the game as a whole, just like doubling the rogue's damage to make him feel like more of a striker could be bad. Basically, 5e monsters don't have any of the counter-defender abilities that lots of 4e monsters did, so a 4e-style defender might trivialize standard 5e encounters.

 

[Rune]

Not quite 100% accurate. In 1E, PCs could only react to foes in front of them. So, no dex bonuses against foes behind them, a shield bonus against 3 foes max, and no attacking a foe from behind him from running away.

And I agree, nothing stopped PCs from just moving past the front ranks if they were not engaged in melee.


So yes, every PC was this sticky in earlier editions. Now, none of them are quite that sticky. Claiming that fighters should be and other PCs should not does not match the 1E or 2E rules either. The combat rules applied to everyone (which is why I argue for less specialized rules like this house rule and more generic everyone can use them rules). Virtually none of 5E matches 1E or 2E rules completely anyway. So, a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

So yes, an engaged foe was often a bit stickier in 1E/2E, but in some circumstances, he could be less sticky. An unengaged foe, not so much. And this was a trait for all PCs, not just for fighters.

Yes, the role transcended class. In practice, though, the defender-types were stickier by virtue of taking on that role due to superior AC and hit points.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that the concept of a sticky fighter comes straight out of WoW.

While a defender-role character is evocative of MMORPGs, it's something folks have been doing or trying to do in D&D since the days of "protect the mage" and marching order. Certainly a playstyle that deserves support.

If you disagree, there's plenty of other threads.

Move this into the houserules forum where it should have been in the first place (reread the thread title and the first post) and I won't comment.

This is a conversation about a general element of 5e (fighter stickiness) rather than a specific creation that looking to be critiqued, so general discussion is a pretty OK home for it. A D&D fan is looking for advice and guidance.

Your advice seems to be "fighters don't need to be sticky!" which is fine, but only distantly relevant to the thread topic of "what can I do to help my fighters be stickier?"

I wonder how changing the disengage action so that you can only retreat backwards would affect the way things play.

Yeah, could it really be so simple? I mean, in gridless combat, the idea of precisely how far you need to move to do a thing is often pretty fungible, but the basic rule-of-thumb of "after you disengage, you need at least two move actions to get to someone on the other side of the fighter" eats up actions pretty fiercely.

Basically, 5e monsters don't have any of the counter-defender abilities that lots of 4e monsters did, so a 4e-style defender might trivialize standard 5e encounters.

This would relate back to what I said about making those abilities "native" to 5e. There's ways to improve a character's ability to dictate targeting to the monster without necessarily going the "make a bunch of OA's" route.

 

[Rune]

Yeah, could it really be so simple? I mean, in gridless combat, the idea of precisely how far you need to move to do a thing is often pretty fungible, but the basic rule-of-thumb of "after you disengage, you need at least two move actions to get to someone on the other side of the fighter" eats up actions pretty fiercely.

Not to mention that a defender in a choke point (such as standing in the middle of a doorway) would pretty much have it locked down (just like in the good ol' days). Something small might be able to dash past (depending on the size of the doorway), but most things simply couldn't do it without taking the defender down first.

That does mean halflings (and other small critters) would be less effective as defenders in such situations (based on being able to be knocked down), but I think I'm okay with that.

Edit--Upon reflection, you would either need to make OAs scarier, or make it impossible to exit melee without using the disengage action (thus limiting OAs to when foes dash past) to make it work.

 

[CM]

Combat Reflexes
You are skilled at taking advantage of the openings of your enemies. You gain the following benefits.

• Once per round, you can make an opportunity attack without using your reaction.
• You gain advantage on opportunity attacks.

(haven't read the thread yet)

I don't have my PHB in front of me so some of the language may be wonky, but what about:

Melee Opportunist

• Each round you can make a number of extra opportunity attacks equal to the number of attacks you are allowed when you use your action to attack, but only once per triggering event. These opportunity attacks do not expend your reaction for the round. (This would give the fighter one free OA from 1st-4th, two free at 5th-10th, three free at 6th-11th, and four free at 20th.)
• You have advantage on opportunity attack rolls and physical contests against a creature that is marked by you.
• When you make an opportunity attack, you can instead choose to <list of other attack-type actions that I don't have handy at the moment, such as grab, shove, trip, disarm, etc.> the target as the opportunity attack.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Guardian Style (it's a combat style available to fighter's and paladins).

When you take the attack action on your turn, you can choose to forgo one of your attacks to activate a guardian aura until the end of your next turn. While the aura is active, all enemies within 5 feet of you have disadvantage on attacks they make against your allies. Additionally, the ground within your guardian aura counts as difficult terrain for your enemies.

This is my favorite so far. I could also see it as a feat. I'd probably word it like this:

Guardian Stance
When you take the attack action on your turn, you can choose to forgo one of your attacks to protect your nearby allies. Until the beginning of your next turn, all enemies adjacent to you have disadvantage on attacks they make that do not include you, and everything within 5 feet of you counts as difficult terrain for your enemies.

 

[ccooke]

I'd just go with this as a houserule:

When you ready an action to attack targets that provoke opportunity attacks, you may use the Extra Attack feature with your Reaction to gain multiple attacks against targets that trigger attacks of opportunity. You may use all the attacks against the first target or hold some of them back for subsequent ones, but you have spent your Reaction for this round as soon as you make your first attack.

This preserves the action economy nicely, works well with any class that has extra attacks without any effort... and works best with the Fighter. Only the fighter can wade into a tricky situation, make multiple attacks, then action surge to Ready "I'm going to slap anyone who tries to get past me".

 

[Rune]

I like it.

 

[ForumFerret]

Seems like just making a feat to allow for unlimited opportunity attacks is the cleanest solution.