D&D 5E 5e should develop more Defender role mechanics

[Voadam]

4e was pretty great with its class role mechanics and developing ways to do them differently. A sword mage felt different as a defender than a fighter or a paladin. Even the teleport and threaten versus magical shield swordmage options made for different mechanical feels that were both effective and decent options.

5e was a step back in this regard and I would enjoy being able to play a tanky swordmage again in 5e who protects by teleporting and slashing, or have a fighter more mechanically based on protecting those around him and controlling the battlefield through threatening attacks of opportunity.

Lots of options mechanically, feats, subclasses, and full classes come to mind immediately as options.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I agree that there should be a better way for defenders to do their job. Something like the fighter's mark could definitely work in the context of 5E.

I don't agree with having multiple different game mechanics to choose between. It would be redundant, and it would shift the focus even further toward character creation rather than actually playing the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree that there should be a better way for defenders to do their job. Something like the fighter's mark could definitely work in the context of 5E.

I don't agree with having multiple different game mechanics to choose between. It would be redundant, and it would shift the focus even further toward character creation rather than actually playing the game.

The idea of a singular “defender” mechanic is perhaps the most gamist, immersion breaking, idea for increasing the capacity to “tank” that I can think of.

An option each for several classes makes sense. A Paladin and fighter and Swordmage and Barbarian all having to have the same mechanic just because they subclass concept has tank in it, doesn’t make sense.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The idea of a singular “defender” mechanic is perhaps the most gamist, immersion breaking, idea for increasing the capacity to “tank” that I can think of.

As it stands, there is no mechanic that enforces the defender mechanic. The truth about how the laws of the game world operates, is that there's nothing stopping one combatant from running around an opponent to get at someone behind them.

Adding one law to the nature of the game world, representing how a skilled combatant can prevent an enemy from moving past them, is less invasive than adding several laws for how different skilled combatants can each accomplish such a thing in different ways; in the same way that having one source of magic within a game world is less fantastic than having several sources of magic within that setting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As it stands, there is no mechanic that enforces the defender mechanic. The truth about how the laws of the game world operates, is that there's nothing stopping one combatant from running around an opponent to get at someone behind them.

Adding one law to the nature of the game world, representing how a skilled combatant can prevent an enemy from moving past them, is less invasive than adding several laws for how different skilled combatants can each accomplish such a thing in different ways; in the same way that having one source of magic within a game world is less fantastic than having several sources of magic within that setting.

No, none of that is true. Even the defender mechanic part isn’t actually true, there just aren’t any satisfying or especially effective such mechanics.

And there is nothing invasive, much less more evasive, about having a Paladin use divine magic to create a magical 10 ft aura that enhances their defending capabilities by slowing enemies and imposing radiant damage to creatures who make attacks against anyone other than the Paladin, while a fighter uses the Mark effect in the DMG with a significant boost, and can stop enemy movement within 5ft once per turn without using any action while using a shield, or something.

There is no need for a general mechanic that effectively allows tanking, and indeed no room for one. The game isn’t built that way. A given subclass, feat, or fighting style, largely stands on its own. Feats and fighting styles alone aren’t going to be large enough to fully get there, so some degree of specialized subclass is going to be required, and is more natural to how 5e is built.

 

[Voadam]

Fighter's mark for everyone as a new general combat action option is not something I had considered, but is certainly a possibility. That would certainly not increase any focus on character creation compared to tactical decisions at the table but could be a change in tone to a lot more fights.

I am fine with mechanical differentiation between character options through feats, subclasses and classes and specific defender role mechanics.

A general one mechanic only would not address the desired feel of a 4e sword mage compared to a current fighter. Magical ranged rune shielding and teleporting threat strikes have a different feel than a fighter's mark.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fighter's mark for everyone as a new general combat action option is not something I had considered, but is certainly a possibility. That would certainly not increase any focus on character creation compared to tactical decisions at the table but could be a change in tone to a lot more fights.

I am fine with mechanical differentiation between character options through feats, subclasses and classes and specific defender role mechanics.

A general one mechanic only would not address the desired feel of a 4e sword mage compared to a current fighter. Magical ranged rune shielding and teleporting threat strikes have a different feel than a fighter's mark.

The Mark in the DMG is already a general mechanic available to anyone, but it's not...great.

A new option for that would help. As for a fighter, I'd look to something like the Crown paladin's group challenge CD option on a proficiency bonus per short rest basis.

As well, a new special action option where you spend your action to take up a Guardian Stance, allowing you to take as many reactions as you have attacks with the attack action before the start of your next turn.

 

[Strider1973]

The Cavalier in the Xanathar's Guide to Everything has some interesting options to play the Tank/Defender Role, though I've never seen them played at the table. Has anyone played a Cavalier character? How did those mechanics work during gameplay at the table?

 

[D1Tremere]

Just my opinion but I feel like all the Defender tools are already there. You can use Protection to defend someone, reach weapons to extend your area, and action surge to control the area. Anything more begins to take away from the idea of thinking tactically and playing a defender in my opinion. For example: In WoW you have threat. Tanks have an increased threat generation mechanic and everyone can use various methods to keep track of and control threat, thus ensuring that tanks usually keep the boss/mobs on them. This works in an MMO, but a tabletop RPG is different because you can actually role play and think outside the box.
A defender in D&D can control the battlefield by selecting their terrain/fighting ground tactically. Use choke points and coordination to keep the enemies off of the wizards/squishy etc. Divide the enemies, and isolate their strengths/weaknesses by coordinating with the rogue/ranger etc.

 

[Lycurgon]

There are already a number of different defender options available already. The protection and Interception fighting styles; the Sentinel feat; the Cavalier's Unwavering Mark; the Ancestral Guardian's Ancestral Protectors and higher level powers; the Battle Smith's Steel Defender's reaction; the Armourer's Thunder Gauntlets; the Psi Warrior's Protective Shield; and the Rune Knight's Runic Shield all have elements of Defender mechanics.
All in different ways. So there is definitely room for having differing mechanics doing similar things in the game.

Personally I don't want Defender mechanics getting much more powerful than what an Ancestral Guardian can do. If a character became too much better at defending then I think it would make that/those build(s) too good to not have in a party and it would throw off the balance of the game too much too.

I do agree that a teleporting Swordmage would be great. My preferred character type is a Gish frontliner/defender and so far nothing in 5e has got anything quite right for my preferences without multiclassing several things together. My most desired addition to 5e is a Swordmage with the right mix of Martial and Magic.