[5e] Offensive and defensive stances

[5ekyu]

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.

My thoughts...

First while the idea seems something worthwhile, I do not like that it's so narrow as to only be affecting attacks and so powerful it stomps over other actions and class features. So it would not get in my game eith this manifestation.

Second, i do not like the certainty, the easy math, trade-off. I give this I get that makes it too predictable.

Third, dodge is already powerful. Your best way to encourage its use is to use it and let them see it in play against them, not changing it to something else.


So, if I were going to do this, I would leverage it with the DMG option for success at cost (S@C). (Assumes you are not already using that optional feature.)
_____
Let's call it - Going All Out
At the start of your turn you may go all out, throwing everything into your effort. If your attack roll fails by 1 or 2, it succeeds anyway. But at that point, once the success occurs, the GM can and will impose some cost, setback or misfortune that also happens. (See Success at cost and Ability Checks "some progress with setback" as just a few examples. This could be applied to an enemy's save vs your spell, turning a narrow success to resist your spell into a failure, but again at a cost to you.
_____
So, this basically brings S@C inyo the game as a choice one can invoke before taking an action, wagering a slight gain in odds of success with a cost.

It's essentially S@C but declared in advance, "pre-clared"?

The key to this working will be the variety and scope of the impactful drawbacks that hit the character when the 1-2 under occurs. (Note, you could make a small tweak, to flavor, and frame it as lemons to lemonade - if you say "on a roll of 1 or 2" instead of 1 or 2 under. Makes it more of an immediate recognize thing.)

But the key remains the uncertainty - the GM has a wide array of options, not a set trade-off you calculate in advance.

So, this is the route I would go, leveraging an optional rule, bringing it more as a choice or gamble into the fray.

 

[Blue]

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.

It's better then Aggressive Stance since it works with non-STR attacks, which can allow things like Sneak Attack and such. And it works with Elven Accuracy. Plus all the crit-seeking is doubled.

A fighter(champion) would be critting 19% of the time at 3rd level. Make it a half orc with a battle axe and close to 1/5 of all attacks are doing 3d12+STR. Take GWM at 4th and you're also getting bonus action attack, plus really enabling the -5/+10 damage. It's just abusable. Another abuse is DEX or CHR based melee attacked with Elven Accuracy for effectively 3d20 for every attack.

I would not suggest that Reckless = More Precise. I'd suggest making it -2 to hit and AC for +4 to damage for melee attacks. You are Reckless - just swinging all out without precision nor care to defense.

Dodge and Defensive Stance both grant disadvantage to attack, but one requires your whole action and the other you can still attack. That's not balanced at all. If you want to still grant attacks then it needs to be less than the Dodge action. Just reducing hit (or even hit and damage) is always better because dodge always gives 0 damage.

Maybe
Defensive action: trigger when making a melee attack on your turn. You have -4 on all attack rolls until the start of your next turn. You gain +1 AC and DEX saves unless you have a shield, fighting style or feat that adds to your AC (or max dex in armor) in which case it's +2.

Went with penalty to attacks instead of disadvantage since otherwise you'd always do it if you already had disadvantage for a free bonus. Could be reworded to only work if you didn't already have disadvantage from any other source and then grant disadvantage.

I think both are too much to fit in with existing options and need to be adjusted down.

BTW, I would be sure to word them so you can't take one melee attack and then get the benefit with ranged attacks, or make thrown attacks (which are melee weapon attacks).

 

[the Jester]

Your defensive stance allows creatures to completely nerf rogues in combat. No more sneak attacks.

 

[CubicsRube]

Your defensive stance allows creatures to completely nerf rogues in combat. No more sneak attacks.

Not at all. Rogues still get sneak attack if the enemy is within 5 feet of an ally.

But it does bring up a good point regarding the interactions with sneak attack that I'd have to think about.

Shadow of the demon lord simply allows one sneak attack per round regardless and i dont mind that really. The 5e rogue is built on the assumption of getting sneak attack each round, so it's largely a formality for the rogue to get it in any case.

 

[Mistwell]

Disadvantage on all attacks is too much. It eliminates dodge as a choice, it messes with any ability which triggers on advantage, it has weird interactions with some attacks which don't require an attack roll (like spells and grapple and shove), it just doesn't work in practice I suspect as well as it's deceptive "elegance" might imply.

I'd go with -2 to melee attacks against you in exchange for you having -4 on attack rolls.

 

[5ekyu]

Not at all. Rogues still get sneak attack if the enemy is within 5 feet of an ally.

But it does bring up a good point regarding the interactions with sneak attack that I'd have to think about.

Shadow of the demon lord simply allows one sneak attack per round regardless and i dont mind that really. The 5e rogue is built on the assumption of getting sneak attack each round, so it's largely a formality for the rogue to get it in any case.

"Not at all. Rogues still get sneak attack if the enemy is within 5 feet of an ally."

Not if they have disadvantage.

 

[Mistwell]

"Not at all. Rogues still get sneak attack if the enemy is within 5 feet of an ally."

Not if they have disadvantage.

Good point. "You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

So it negates sneak attack.

 

[Laurefindel]

I like the simplicity and symmetry behind this houserule. It's direct and to the point, easy to remember and to implement, and doesn't mess with attack modifiers or AC.

I am wondering about its implications and ramifications however. I fear it would make your heavy hitters even better at dealing damage, and defense-based characters even more invulnerable.

It does also raise questions about some spells and abilities designed to be offensive/defensive. Would the blur spell, for example, grant net advantage on attack rolls (recipient in aggressive stance, advantage to be hit by others cancelled by blur spell)? Would faerie fire similarly give a free "dodge" to those fighting cautiously?

The barbarian would be cheated of one of its best abilities. Would there be a replacement, or an improved version of this already powerful class feature? Advantage on attack rolls is relatively easy to acquire, leading to many situations granting a net disadvantage for enemy attacks while canceling its own disadvantage with advantage.

Obviously, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and smart opponents could use that too. I can see this bringing an interesting tactical element to the game, or perhaps just a big bother for nothing when everyone is trying to cancel each other's advantage out. Personally, I'm not sure if I would appreciate that rule as it would make me overthink everything. As a DM, it would require me to track who's got advantage/disadvantage against who depending on stance, spells, help actions, lighting conditions, and other various sources of advantage/disadvantage, and I'm not sure I'd be ready for that.

So I'm not sure I'd be the right target audience for this, but I encourage you to give this houserule a try. I'd be curious to learn how it turned out, how it made the game better, or why it was dropped in the end.

'findel

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Good point. "You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

So it negates sneak attack.

The game features, in a couple places, feature which describe Advantage without actually being it. No reason the same couldn’t be done here.

Simpler, though, might be to give a bonus to initiative and to attack on your first attack in a round. Aggro combatants might have an additional bonus against each other.

Defensive gives the same penalty to init, and get a special defensive perk. Bonus to AC, reaction based defense move, and whatever.

 

[Ancalagon]

It's too much, messes with other classes, and can be exploited. The design is simple and elegant, but you have to find a milder way to do it.

And yes, D&D is *not* a good combat simulator. A sword fight is a "fight for the center" - you want to be in a position where you have outmaneuvered your opponent (both with blade position and footwork) so that you might strike at them while leaving them with limited options for counter attacks or evasion. This moment where you "have" the center can be fleeting, so you have to be quick to recognize it and exploit it. (I speak from some experience).

This is not at all the D&D experience.

I have no idea how this would work in sword vs non swords in battle... and it would be a nightmare to simulate. So while D&D is not a good sword fighting simulator, it *is* a good game. So what is the priority?