D&D 5E Improving the Fighter's Stickiness

[Daedrova]

I really like this, and I think I will be adding it to options available in my game, with some minor tweaks to address the other issues brought up in this thread (and elsewhere):

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

• You can make an opportunity attack without using your reaction a number of times per round equal to your Dexterity modifier (minimum 1).
• (Perhaps in addition to or instead of the above) You can forgo any number of attacks on your turn to increase the number of reactions you may take until your next turn by an equal number.
• Add your level to your weapon damage when hitting with an opportunity attack.
• You gain advantage on opportunity attacks.

Although... keeping advantage might be too much in conjunction with the damage bonus. This feat could be simplified while keeping the most important aspects: going back to just one extra AO and adding level to weapon damage.

Then again, Kamikaze Midget made some excellent points and his ideas for fixes reflect what I tried to do with the Battle (then Weapon) Master during the playtest: create stances and improved maneuvers.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

How about a feat that gives you something like the 4e knight aura: enemies adjacent to you have disadvantage when attacking anyone other than you. No action economy issues, stacks nicely with existing feats and fighter abilities.

 

[jadrax]

Because Rogues get to apply sneak attack to attacks made in other people's turns, such a feat would be a lot more useful for that class then fighter. Thus any solution that involves multiple OA probably is a bad idea.

 

[Ashkelon]

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 makes the fighter or paladin a little more sticky, but they have to give up an attack to gain its benefits. A fair trade all in all, but it lacks a punishment effect. Maybe have a feat as well:

Defender (prerequisite Guardian Fighting Style)
When you make an opportunity attack against an enemy within your guardian aura, it does not use your reaction. You can only make one opportunity attack per turn.

 

[Rune]

Because Rogues get to apply sneak attack to attacks made in other people's turns, such a feat would be a lot more useful for that class then fighter. Thus any solution that involves multiple OA probably is a bad idea.

As a feat, yeah. As a fighter feature, it could work.

Of course, there is one thing that would make turning a rogue into a defender problematic: staying power (or lack thereof).

 

[Rune]

It occurs to me that choosing to forgo attacks in order spend them on actions off-turn (as some of these suggestions would have) is essentially (and conceptually) an informal adoption of a stance, anyway.

To me, that's nifty.

 

[wedgeski]

Remember we're talking, right now, about gridless combat. I know the PHB still uses feet to measure distances but the assumption is that everything is taking place in the players' heads, at least until advanced combat arrives, and as [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] amply describes, more OA's simply aren't conducive to smooth-flowing combat without a battle-mat (or at all, in fact).

In any case, until I play a few games actually at the table, I feel I have to reserve judgement. That sort of thing is very difficult to get a handle on just from the page.

 

[Rune]

Remember we're talking, right now, about gridless combat. I know the PHB still uses feet to measure distances but the assumption is that everything is taking place in the players' heads, at least until advanced combat arrives, and as [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] amply describes, more OA's simply aren't conducive to smooth-flowing combat without a battle-mat (or at all, in fact).

I don't think I'd have a problem.

But then, I used to run 4e without a grid, which, I know, was atypical; at least this time, we have measurements in feet, instead of squares (really helps with theater of the mind).

 

[KarinsDad]

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

To me, that's not D&D. The fighter should be able to hold down a foe or two maybe, but the other PCs should be fair game some or even most of the time (i.e. whenever the DM decides that they are).


Creating mechanical ways to make a fighter stickier tends to take monster control out of the DM's hand and places it into the player's. I'm not a fan of that either. I like the DM to decide the targets of the NPCs, not the players or the rules.

The rampaging Bulette should care less about the fighter and just go attack whomever it wants to. It will likely be the fighter once the fighter steps up and does a ton of damage, but that should be a DM decision based on how the DM thinks that Bulette should react.

Not a supernatural power of a fighter (like stances and such) where he has 5 foes locked down (err, say what?). Fighters should have martial abilities, not supernatural ones.

5 kobolds surrounding the fighter are prevented from attacking anyone else. Huh? How does the fighter keep track of more than 1 or 2 of those guys?

This is a solution looking for a problem. Fighters not being sticky is not a problem. Players who are used to NPCs attacking the heavily armored PCs is the issue.

Edit: Side note on this. If fighters become more sticky, it can lead to less tactical play on the part of the other players. There is not as much need to cast wall spells, or move back into cover, or other things if the game system has a sticky fighter. There might be a greater need to cast heals spells on the fighter. I personally prefer that the players come up with good tactical solutions to combat issues instead of having a black hole of NPC movement in the middle of the battlefield. JMO.

 

[the Jester]

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

To me, that's not D&D.

That's fine. In that case, this may not be thread for you.

Not a supernatural power of a fighter (like stances and such) where he has 5 foes locked down (err, say what?). Fighters should have martial abilities, not supernatural ones.

Stances are entirely martial.

This is a solution looking for a problem. Fighters not being sticky is not a problem. Players who are used to NPCs attacking the heavily armored PCs is the issue.

Not for those who want sticky fighters. I get that isn't you, and that's fine, but it's certainly something that more than a few players are interested in. But anyway, if you have any constructive ideas, I would love to hear them.