[5e] Offensive and defensive stances

[CubicsRube]

Next in my series of rambling tinkering thoughts on 5e (because apparently I like to keep my mind engaged this way), I was thinking about a simple change to add more choice in combat.

Simple, but I suspect with long reaching knock-on effects.

The idea is thus: Characters may determine if they are in a reckless, cautious, or neutral stance at the start of their turn if they are making a melee attack. If they are using ranged or casting a spell, they are assumed to be in neutral stance.

If aggressive, they have advantage to attack rolls, but enemies have advantage to attack them for the rest of the round.
If cautious, they have disadvantage to attack rolls, but enemies have disadvantage to attack them for the rest of the round.
Neutral is the same as vanilla 5e. No advantahe or disadvantage.

Intention: To enable more player choice. Players might go reckless if they're having a hard time hitting something and they're willing to take the risk. On the other hand if they are struggling to survive they may wish to be cautious to try and bide some time.

Issue 1: the aggressive stance gives everyone the barbarians reckless attack feature. Something else would need to be given to boost this feature for the barbarian. Perhaps extra damage. What would you suggest?

Issue 2: the monks patient defense is diminished somewhat by the cautious stance. Perhaps they could get some ability to absorb damage such as the deflect missiles ability. Not sure about this one yet. What would you suggest?

Issue 3: this gives everyone the ability to dodge yet still attack. I'm fine with this actually as i feel that dodge is underutilised in my experience.

What other issues would this change cause that I'm missing? It definitely changes the dynamics of the fight and I'd love to try it out with a group to see how it plays.

 

[John Out West]

Thats very interesting, because i made an extremely similar ruleset, (Even using the words Aggressive and Cautious Stances) however mine was with the intention of making a social combat.
In mine, people in aggressive stances could not move away from their enemies, while people in Cautious Stances could not move towards threats. (If either they did, they would lose the stance for this combat, as no one would believe they are actually aggressive/cautious) People in Aggressive stances could taunt, they could threaten someone to put them into a Cautious Stance, or compel someone to leave or surrender, or bait someone into becoming aggressive. A cautious stance could Fake Surrender, or Shame two foes into fighting you 1v1 instead of 2v1. My system was balanced, but based on a different system than 5e so I don't think I could translate it well.

Obviously, i like the idea of adding these kinds of stances in, and it would mean Monks, Barbarians, etc, would get different abilities or upgraded abilities. It would definitely change the fight and make them more dynamic. I think barbarians would have Improved Reckless Stance, allowing them to get advantage without the Disadvantage, and the same goes for Monks. (or No ki cost)

I don't like that its tied to your attack. I don't like that you cant be cautious and cast spells. I think you're on the right track and you should put some more time into developing this.

 

[Darth Solo]

D&D was designed by nerds like Gygax with little or no knowledge of how combat really works. They did not know an attack can, first, be based on how the attacker will counter. D&D, at its root , is a terrible game through the lens of simulated combat. GURPS and HERO do this far better.

The cool aspect was how Gygax & others listened to gamers to improve the system. They had rules but, the rules could be modified for your group.

 

[77IM]

I like the idea of an offensive stance, for when you want to speed the battle up. One way to differentiate it from the barbarian's Reckless Attack is to make it a damage modifier instead of advantage/disadvantage: you deal double damage with melee attacks, but you suffer double damage from all sources until the start of your next turn. This lets it stack with the barbarian's Reckless Attack but at a pretty severe cost. It also prevents abuse by rogues; if you do the advantage/advantage thing, then a rogue can stab a guy with advantage and get sneak attack damage, then use Cunning Action to run away and potentially get out of reach.

Defensive stance sounds like it would just slow things down. Attacks with disadvantage are more likely to miss, have zero effect, and become a waste of everyone's time. So I kind of like the idea that Dodge is the defensive stance: if you are just trying to tank or "buy time," you can Dodge, but you give up your attack (but you can still make Opportunity Attacks, which is nice).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I do a similar thing in my WIP TTRPG.

I have Aggressive, Defensive, Readied, and characters can choose not to take up a stance.

I’d consider leveraging Initiative as a cost/reward element to such a system. In my game it’s simply that aggressives go first, Readys next, and Defensives last. Initiative is a d10 roll, and you choose a Stance when it is rolled, and can change stance as a Quick Action (you get 2 per round of those) on your turn. Anyone not in a stance rolls last, and simply slots into the order based on their roll. Ie, if 3 characters are aggressive, their rolls determine who goes first, 2nd, 3rd, among them. If a Defensive rolls a 10, they still don’t go before aggressives and readies that rolled lower.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Probably it is better to have +2/-4 attack and defense for offensive and defensove stances respectively.
I took inspiration from 3rd edition. First it does not mingle with advantage disadvantage which might not be that easy to get (rogue etc)
It is also important that it is asymetrical so that the default is normal stance and the one who choses to deviate usually does it because they see an advantage in it.
If you want to use GWM +2 is such a big thing that -2 to defense would be way to low.
On the other hand, while fighting defensively when you already have a big AC +2 is a big thing. -4 to defense seems appropriate.

And if both use the opposite stance then both are fighting as normal against each other.

 

[CubicsRube]

Thats very interesting, because i made an extremely similar ruleset, (Even using the words Aggressive and Cautious Stances) however mine was with the intention of making a social combat.

A good coincidence! These days I'm mostly looking at slight but impactful changes to 5e. I'm not sure if illget a group buy in to try this out but its interesting to think about

 

[CubicsRube]

I like the idea of an offensive stance, for when you want to speed the battle up. One way to differentiate it from the barbarian's Reckless Attack is to make it a damage modifier instead of advantage/disadvantage: you deal double damage with melee attacks, but you suffer double damage from all sources until the start of your next turn. This lets it stack with the barbarian's Reckless Attack but at a pretty severe cost. It also prevents abuse by rogues; if you do the advantage/advantage thing, then a rogue can stab a guy with advantage and get sneak attack damage, then use Cunning Action to run away and potentially get out of reach.

Defensive stance sounds like it would just slow things down. Attacks with disadvantage are more likely to miss, have zero effect, and become a waste of everyone's time. So I kind of like the idea that Dodge is the defensive stance: if you are just trying to tank or "buy time," you can Dodge, but you give up your attack (but you can still make Opportunity Attacks, which is nice).

Yeah, one posibility is just making dodge more prominent as the cautious stance. I find many people i k ow very rarely use it as the idea of giving up an attack seems to be too much sacrifice.

 

[CubicsRube]

I do a similar thing in my WIP TTRPG.

I have Aggressive, Defensive, Readied, and characters can choose not to take up a stance.

I’d consider leveraging Initiative as a cost/reward element to such a system. In my game it’s simply that aggressives go first, Readys next, and Defensives last. Initiative is a d10 roll, and you choose a Stance when it is rolled, and can change stance as a Quick Action (you get 2 per round of those) on your turn. Anyone not in a stance rolls last, and simply slots into the order based on their roll. Ie, if 3 characters are aggressive, their rolls determine who goes first, 2nd, 3rd, among them. If a Defensive rolls a 10, they still don’t go before aggressives and readies that rolled lower.

Wow, your post made me think of something I hadn't even considered.

In shadow of the demon lord they have two phases based on fast (move or action) and slow (move and action).

As you said the same idea could be leveraged with this, so those on offense go first, but are vulnerable to counter attack, whereas those who go last shore up their defenses but they have to weather attacks first.

It's very interesting. I'll have to think about it!

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

D&D was designed by nerds like Gygax with little or no knowledge of how combat really works. They did not know an attack can, first, be based on how the attacker will counter. D&D, at its root , is a terrible game through the lens of simulated combat. GURPS and HERO do this far better.

The cool aspect was how Gygax & others listened to gamers to improve the system. They had rules but, the rules could be modified for your group.

That's because D&D has never been a combat simulator. The combat mechanics descended from wargames where individual combat was largely abstract, the specific decisions on how to defend being left to the character rather than the player.

Since then D&D has changed to let the players have more decisions in combat, but it's always been about making a more interesting game, not about making a better "simulation".