D&D 5E Defensive Duelist fix?

[doctorbadwolf]

It's all good.

For the limitation, yes, I know the Tabaxi does that, but that is also because there is no action economy cost associated with it. It isn't just when your Dash or anything else. So, the limit is added so you can't do it each round for free.

In Defensive Duelist, the cost is your reaction, which is why I would simply remove it myself. shrug

That's fair.

 

[Todd Roybark]

This gives me an idea. I don’t want to make the reaction be the same as deflect Missiles, but...maybe am opposed attack roll. If you hit, their attack misses. If you beat them by...5 or more, you hit them? Idk, I think there is something there.

I like that the Defensive Duelist feat can simulate a main gauche, and does not require a high Dex score to be useful.

Your proposed version of the feat, doc, is going to favor characters that specialize in melee attacks. It also will synergize nicely with the Shadowblade spell. Might as well change the Feat name to Arcane Trickster's Defensive Duelist Feat.

This is not to say, I don't like your proposed changes as a design space.

Granted, it is free (no spell slots, etc.) but is only against a single attack. If it fails to help, the reaction is lost.

dnd4v, I think we differ in weighing the value of an at will Reaction via the Defensive Duelist feat versus the use of a spell slot and Reaction through the Shield spell.

A Shield spell that fails to foil a hit, costs a 1st level spell slot, and expenditure of one's Reaction.

The Defensive Duelist feat just costs you the Reaction. Opponents not triggering Opportunity Attacks is not uncommon, in my experience. When a 4th level character will be brought to 0 HP by 4 successful attacks from a giant spider, negating any hit is more impactful then an Opportunity Attack with a dagger for 1d4 + 4 damage.

I guess that is the reason this feat isn't popular for rogues, who already have something they can do with their reaction under the same circumstance,

The difference is between the likelihood of the AC bonus from DD negating the hit or not.
Having the option to either use Defensive Duelist or Uncanny Dodge is not a bad place to be in. Uncanny Dodge is more generally applicable, but the DD feat, especially in conjunction with spells like Blur, Mirror Image, or Greater Invisibility is no slouch.

+6 to AC while the opponent has Disadvantage on a melee attack roll, is very effective on a high level Arcane Trickster.

 

[DND_Reborn]

dnd4v, I think we differ in weighing the value of an at will Reaction via the Defensive Duelist feat versus the use of a spell slot and Reaction through the Shield spell.

A Shield spell that fails to foil a hit, costs a 1st level spell slot, and expenditure of one's Reaction.

The Defensive Duelist feat just costs you the Reaction. Opponents not triggering Opportunity Attacks is not uncommon, in my experience. When a 4th level character will be brought to 0 HP by 4 successful attacks from a giant spider, negating any hit is more impactful then an Opportunity Attack with a dagger for 1d4 + 4 damage.

I certainly agree we do, which is perfectly fine of course.

Yet Shield boosts your AC until the start of your next turn, which can be extremely useful. Shield is also good against ranged attacks. It also begins at +5, compared to only +2, and you won't reach +5 with Defensive Duelist until 13th level, and you won't pass it until 17th. Most games IME don't make it to 13th, let alone 17th.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, it depends entirely on the PC and what sort of combat you see.

Either way, you agreed making it a half-feat would be better. I am sure there are a lot of feats that you don't think need to also be made half-feats to rise above the "subpar" level? I think it has its niche uses as is, but not enough for anyone I've played with to bother with it yet... Even a +2 DEX is better, giving you all sorts of benefits beyond AC +1, including attack/damage with finesse weapons, saves, Initiative, and skills.

 

[Todd Roybark]

The Shield spell is great, of course. That greatness is balanced by most casters being able to use it up to 4 times a day. An Abjurer Wizard with a Staff of Defense, might push that number up to 11 times per adventuring day, presuming the player is not casting the spell by expending spell slots higher then level 1 in casting the Shield spell.

11 rounds of Shield is roughly 3 to 4 encounters. So even the most robust user/abuser of the Shield spell is going to cover about half of the Adventuring Day.

If Defensive Duelist was a half feat, with a +1 to any ability, my Dragonmark of Shadow, elf cleric of Trickery, might have selected Defensive Duelist as my 4th level feat, instead of Elven Accuracy.

My opinion is that all Feats, should give a +1 increase to an ability score.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The Shield spell is great, of course. That greatness is balanced by most casters being able to use it up to 4 times a day. An Abjurer Wizard with a Staff of Defense, might push that number up to 11 times per adventuring day, presuming the player is not casting the spell by expending spell slots higher then level 1 in casting the Shield spell.

11 rounds of Shield is roughly 3 to 4 encounters. So even the most robust user/abuser of the Shield spell is going to cover about half of the Adventuring Day.

If Defensive Duelist was a half feat, with a +1 to any ability, my Dragonmark of Shadow, elf cleric of Trickery, might have selected Defensive Duelist as my 4th level feat, instead of Elven Accuracy.

My opinion is that all Feats, should give a +1 increase to an ability score.

Well, we agree at least that if DD was a half-feat it would be better and might get more use in general.

In absence of the +1 ASI, I think @doctorbadwolf 's ideas would also improve it.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Ultimately you wind up with something like this:
DEFENSIVE DUELIST
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
• Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing the attack to miss you. If the triggering attack still hits you, as part of this same Reaction, you may take a single Melee Weapon attack, with a finesse weapon you are wielding.

This is a Parry or Riposte feat, that is going to have all Rogue's slavering with anticipation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is a Parry or Riposte feat, that is going to have all Rogue's slavering with anticipation.

LOL yeah, I've been saying that since my first post:

I could see just about every rogue taking your version. "What? He missed me? Cool! Sneak Attack time b'atch!"

Especially now that you're also adding the DEX +1 benefit??? What rogue would not take this feat. Way too OP. No thank you. It should be either add the DEX +1 OR the Riposte--not both.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

LOL yeah, I've been saying that since my first post:



Especially now that you're also adding the DEX +1 benefit??? What rogue would not take this feat. Way too OP. No thank you. It should be either add the DEX +1 OR the Riposte--not both.

Agreed. I’m all for the riposte, though only on a miss not “if they still hit you” and I get the value of +1, but both is just way too much. Feat and a half territory.