Unearthed Arcana Light, Dark, Underdark - November's Unearthed Arcana

Interesting stuff.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm still pretty OK with Tunnel Fighter, but to me the weird corner case isn't with Sentinel, it's with Polearm Master. TF+PM means if a single foe tries to get past you, you get up to three attacks: free OA for entering reach, TF reaction for moving more than 5 feet within reach, and another free OA for leaving reach. That's... a lot, potentially even at level 1 with variant human.

I guess that PM was designed assuming that an OA always costs a reaction, and that each creature has max 1 reaction. So you get the OA either when the target enters your reach or leaves your reach, not twice.

Maybe we need a rule saying that you can only do one OA per target each turn. But now it's too late to add a general rule like that, it would have to be included in the final version of TF so I wouldn't be really general, and it would make TF even more complex.

Also, I don't think the "extra attack" is needed at all, it would be better to remove it from TF. It's already good enough by granting "free" OA that don't use your reaction.

the problem is, if we are reading this correctly, Tunnel Fighter sets up a precedent for multiple reactions per turn...breaking the RAW/RAI and opening the door for absurdity.

In general I wouldn't mind for a specific feature to "break the RAW", that happens all the time because it is pretty much what special abilities do! They trump the general with the specific.

In this case, I understand your concern, and it is not a small issue. There are many things in the game designed under the assumption of max 1 reaction per turn, so a special feature that breaks the limit affects all those previously design things. Are the designers really going to check the TF against all those things in core?

Something similar already happened in core with the Fighter's Action Surge, which removes the limit of max 1 action per turn (without restrictions on what action!). The designers have said they were very aware of the most dramatic consequences, such as doubling all attacks (per Extra Attacks) or allowing to cast two spells in the same round (Eldritch Knight, multiclass Fighter/Wizard etc.). But the reason why it's not a problem is that Action Surge is 1/day or later 2/day!

Everyone discusses Polearm feat and Tunnel Fighting style OP. The thing is I can't picture how Polearm feat would be usable. Style used for fighting in "narrow" passageway. That would negate use of Polearm

The name is mostly for flavor. I am sure the RAI is to give a Fighter the capability of defending another character (or location), whether the area around is narrow or not.

"As a bonus action, you can enter a defensive stance that lasts until the start of your next turn. While in your defensive stance, you can make opportunity attacks without using your reaction, and you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against a creature that moves more than 5 feet while within your reach."

a) we assume we have used our main action to attack/etc(Main action burned)
b) we used our bonus action to assume the stance ( bonus action burned)
c) we can make opportunity attacks without using a reaction (free action? notice the plural...more than one)
d) we can make an attack using our reaction (reaction burned, but what did we do in our main action since we assumed the defensive stance as a bonus action...did we not attack?)

this feature is rife with holes, I personally agree that it should be used when feats are not an option, as well as the Main action must not be used to attack...but there is still the issue with open canon for multiple opportunity attacks...

The more I think about it, the more I think TF is really a huge can of worms... It's way too complex already, and it needs more complexity just to patch the possible loopholes.

If they can't simplify it, I'd better be a feat rather than a Fighting Style benefit.

If they can't make sure it interacts well with all stuff in core, I say scrap it for good!

Still, the idea has merits. Certainly with the core rules, it's very hard to truly defend a position (or your party's Fighter), because two enemies are enough to bypass the defender -> the first enemy soaks up the OA, the second can walk past the defender with impunity.

So I'd like to find a way to give some Fighters (or whoever) the possibility of being a good 'blocker' that can handle multiple enemies attacking. Maybe one alternative would be to replace OAs with something else, how about forcing the target to stop moving?

Lastly, it breaks the conventional RAW, because opportunity attacks occur during an opponents turn, I.e., as a Reaction, this is the framework for my question. And disecting the feature as I did in the previous post quoted, we see that the feature assigns not only your Reaction, but Bonus action as well...and seeing as it is an AoO, we must assume it happens during the opponents turn, therefore, it cannot be a main action. What action then are we assigning to this (possibly infinite) attack?

Honestly I didn't get this last point... I don't see the reason why we have to to assign an action type to everything.

 

[Radaceus]

Lastly, it breaks the conventional RAW, because opportunity attacks occur during an opponents turn, I.e., as a Reaction, this is the framework for my question. And disecting the feature as I did in the previous post quoted, we see that the feature assigns not only your Reaction, but Bonus action as well...and seeing as it is an AoO, we must assume it happens during the opponents turn, therefore, it cannot be a main action. What action then are we assigning to this (possibly infinite) attack?

Honestly I didn't get this last point... I don't see the reason why we have to to assign an action type to everything.

I guess i was just trying to smash the point home, to be brutally honest. But as a DM of 5e for over a year now, i have some real veteran 1E/2E players, and we've hammered out quite a bit of the vernacular in the rules. The gaping hole in the TF feature is the lack of a descriptor, it infers that your AoO's are free actions? which incidentally, is also limited to one per turn/action. I agree we do not need to assign action types to everything, as mentioned in the 'other activity on your turn', one can add flavor or flourishes to their movement and actions. But the fact that the Feat is calling it's function an Attack of Opportunity, and then defining that function as not a reaction, is troublesome. Anyhow, a direct answer your statement would be: It is an attack, it is labelled, so it must fall within the mechanics of the rules to some extent

It was suggested earlier in the thread to limit the Tunnel Fighters AoO's to a stat modifier, I'd suggest even maybe using Proficiency Bonus, but it still has an issue in that it allows more than one 'reaction' per turn. A point which you brought up, action surge allowing the fighter to break the one action per turn limit, this would set a precedent for breaking the one reaction per turn limit ( or the 'only one Free action' if we want to be pedantic about it's labeling, seeing as it refers to itself as not being a reaction, but it has to be some sort of action that happens on the opponents turn...)

 

[JohnLynch]

I guess that PM was designed assuming that an OA always costs a reaction, and that each creature has max 1 reaction. So you get the OA either when the target enters your reach or leaves your reach, not twice.

And this is a good reason not to allow multiple OAs in a way that is so open ended as the tunnel fighting style. I'd rather have the DMG's Mark mechanic be available as a fighting style before I allow Tunnel Fighter. Not a fan. It also has scaling (more attacks = more AoOs) which AoOs are inherently missing.

 

[MYV]

from the DMG pg 271

"MARK
This option makes it easier for melee combatants to
harry each other with opportunity attacks.
When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also
mark its target. Until the end of the attacker's next turn,
any opportunity attack it makes against the marked
target has advantage. The opportunity attack doesn't
expend the attacker's reaction, but the attacker can't
make the attack if anything, such as the incapacitated
condition or the shocking grasp spell, is preventing it
from taking reactions. The attacker is limited to one
opportunity attack per turn."

I don't see an issue with tunnel fighter as it should work in the same way this option in the DMG work anyway. (ofc it applies in different cases)
Tunnel fighter is not broken in any way, it only lets someone who BUILDS for it, pull a powerful blocking combo, but it working depends on the DM and in no way he can abuse it by doing more dmg to monsters that just want to fight with him.
It encourages teamwork in the party, defines more the roles and its not about stacking bonuses.

The close ranged combat style, on the other hand, as I already said, worries me a lot; as it is stackable with other styles to great synergy and its not like the ranged "warriors" are lacking in this edition... ranged fighting types already out DPR anybody as it is in this edition, they definitely don't need more straight up power in more straight up bonuses.

 

[Minigiant]

Now that I've slept on it.

Don't see the fighting styles as a problem.

CQ Shooter: Well, rangers and paladins are very spell reliant. So delaying it for a level of fighter can be harsh. And forget about multi-classing before level 5. As for the champion, well the champion needs a boost at level 10 and beyond.

Tunnel Fighter: It lets you hit movers. It might be a bit clunky though and needs to be cleaned up a teeny bit.

 

[JohnLynch]

When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also
mark its target. Until the end of the attacker's next turn,
any opportunity attack it makes against the marked
target has advantage. The opportunity attack doesn't
expend the attacker's reaction

My reading of this, given the context it's in, it only allows free AoOs against marked creatures. This is more restrictive than the tunnel fighter, which (IMO) shows something is terribly wrong with the tunnel fighter.

 

[Weathercock]

Tunnel Fighter: It lets you hit movers. It might be a bit clunky though and needs to be cleaned up a teeny bit.

A bit more than that. Thanks to the Polearm Godmode feat, even enemies that approach you are open game for opportunity attacks. Alone, that allows you to put out some incredible damage against moderate to large quantities of enemies, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Combined with the Sentinal feat, a polearm user can keep entire armies of melee inclined foes locked down and trivialized, unable to advance close enough to hit the polearm user as he wears them all down with limitless attacks.
It's essentially a constant, unlimited 25*25 foot aoe zone of lockdown that only requires a bonus action to activate. Kind of like the ability to cast a wider range, generally more reliable Evard's Black Tentacles at will.

 

[MYV]

A bit more than that. Thanks to the Polearm Godmode feat, even enemies that approach you are open game for opportunity attacks. Alone, that allows you to put out some incredible damage against moderate to large quantities of enemies, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Combined with the Sentinal feat, a polearm user can keep entire armies of melee inclined foes locked down and trivialized, unable to advance close enough to hit the polearm user as he wears them all down with limitless attacks.
It's essentially a constant, unlimited 25*25 foot aoe zone of lockdown that only requires a bonus action to activate. Kind of like the ability to cast a wider range, generally more reliable Evard's Black Tentacles at will.

I don't think it would work like that...
while the OA's happens before the triggering action, and OA for entering reach as for polearm master has to happen once the enemy is already inside your reach, otherwise you can't hit him. so you really only get 1 free attack, then they are inside your reach even if you stop them.
and tbh you can do this even without the style... the style only makes it apply to more creatures

 

[Dausuul]

Great stuff here!

I don't quite cotton to the concept of the Undying Light warlock (or the name, since we already have a different Undying patron in the SCAG); the warlock is about making a pact with a powerful entity, and I don't see how you can make a pact with the Positive Energy Plane. However, the mechanics are solid. I like having a non-blade warlock option that doesn't handcuff you to eldritch blast.

Shadow sorcerer is awesome. (I love that it gives you a zombie's ability to go "SCREW YOU I WON'T DIE." Though I don't know that we need to give casters even more incentive to take Resilient [Constitution].) The hound of ill omen seems a bit rough around the edges, but nothing that can't be fixed with some polishing and streamlining.

Tunnel Fighter is perfect for fighters who want to replicate the super-stickiness of fighters in 4E. Though it is kind of weird that it works best with a two-handed weapon. (You have to sacrifice access to your weapon fighting style to get Tunnel Fighter, and Great Weapon Fighting is by far the least painful to sacrifice.) I feel like Tunnel Fighter should come with a half-powered form of Duelist, the same way Close Quarters Shooter gets half-powered Archery.

Edited: Jaapleton pointed out that sorcerers get proficiency in Con saves anyway, so Resilient is redundant.

 

[Jaappleton]

Well, in regards to Casters taking Resilient (Constitution), don't forget that Sorcerers are already proficient in Constitution saving throws.