D&D 5E Defensive Duelist fix?

[DND_Reborn]

Defensive duelist only works for a single attack where shield applies to all attacks until the start of the next turn. Not really the same thing.

And that would also be a simple fix for me, make the bonus to AC last until the end of the current turn. At least that way you can get it for any follow-up attacks?

 

[Stoutstien]

And that would also be a simple fix for me, make the bonus to AC last until the end of the current turn. At least that way you can get it for any follow-up attacks?

Not a bad idea. It would function like a pseudo multiattack defense.

 

[Olrox17]

Make it a half feat?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Infinite use Shield aint weak.

If the feat provided that, you’d have a great point.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If the feat provided that, you’d have a great point.

If it provided exactly that, it would be a permanent +5 to AC and the monsters might as well pack up their weapons and go home.

It's quite strong enough as it is.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's quite strong enough as it is.

For myself anyway, I have never seen a player take this feat for their characters--or frankly even talked about considering it.

Compare it to Arcane Deflection. Although it only adds a +2 static bonus to AC, it also can add instead a +4 bonus to a saving throw! That is pretty huge IMO.

Now, I think Defensive Duelist as a concept has total merit! I also think if the buff to AC was equal to your attack bonus with the weapon you are parrying with, instead of just your proficiency bonus, it would be better. I mean, it is a feat after all. They don't have to be OP of course, but for most of the levels of play a +2 to maybe +4 bonus against one attack, at the cost of your reaction, just isn't really that great as I see it.

Since you think it is good enough as it is, great! But apparently a there are players such as the OP and myself, who don't. I like the idea of adding something more to it, or buffing what it already does, or make it a half feat and give it a +1 DEX bump. Then I would probably see it taken a time or two, if for nothing else than the DEX bump.

 

[Seramus]

If the attack misses, deal damage to the attacker equal to your proficiency bonus.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If it provided exactly that, it would be a permanent +5 to AC and the monsters might as well pack up their weapons and go home.

It's quite strong enough as it is.

I'm glad you like it. Why waste time in a thread where other people are discussing how to fix it for their group, who obviously disagree with you? That's rhetorical. There is no good reason. Please stop.

If the attack misses, deal damage to the attacker equal to your proficiency bonus.

I'd rather the damage have a chance to miss, and involve rolling for damage.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm glad you like it. Why waste time in a thread where other people are discussing how to fix it for their group, who obviously disagree with you? That's rhetorical. There is no good reason. Please stop.

I'd rather the damage have a chance to miss, and involve rolling for damage.

Sometimes it's worth the effort to try to convince people that their assumptions are off - in this case, making a case that the feat being buffed doesn't need it because it's sufficiently powerful as-is. Now, that does involve 'making a case' (as opposed to just saying "you're wrong.") but that would be a valid contribution to the conversation.

For example: At high levels, Defensive Duelist is very good - a +4 AC only once per turn is still fantastic even against multiple opponents, since it's going to change the result of 1/4 attacks outside of extreme cases. If you've already maxed out dex on your Errol Flynn-based fencer character, it's likely to be the best option (especially if your dm requires you to make all of your attacks before shield bashing). Any change made to the feat needs to account for this or you'll have something that's overpowered (as in, outshines non-rapier builds) at high levels even if it's still a meh choice at lower levels.

Or just remove the scaling and make it +5 (or whatever) regardless of level.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sometimes it's worth the effort to try to convince people that their assumptions are off - in this case, making a case that the feat being buffed doesn't need it because it's sufficiently powerful as-is. Now, that does involve 'making a case' (as opposed to just saying "you're wrong.") but that would be a valid contribution to the conversation.

For example: At high levels, Defensive Duelist is very good - a +4 AC only once per turn is still fantastic even against multiple opponents, since it's going to change the result of 1/4 attacks outside of extreme cases. If you've already maxed out dex on your Errol Flynn-based fencer character, it's likely to be the best option (especially if your dm requires you to make all of your attacks before shield bashing). Any change made to the feat needs to account for this or you'll have something that's overpowered (as in, outshines non-rapier builds) at high levels even if it's still a meh choice at lower levels.

Or just remove the scaling and make it +5 (or whatever) regardless of level.

The most powerful serious proposal thus far still doesn't make the rapier build with optimized feats more powerful than a greatsword build with optimized feats, even at high level. (where -5 to attack means less than it did at low level, so both become more powerful as you level)

It's more powerful than low powered feats, which is fine. I'm never gonna build things to be intentionally at the lowest end of power present in the rule books. Giving a rapier rogue build a reliable reaction attack is already part of Sentinel, and depending on game style Mage Slayer, and the reaction attack here relies on an attack missing and not having had to use your reaction yet to use Uncanny Dodge.

Every other class that could take this feat doesn't have Sneak Attack, and doesn't get nearly as much out of a single extra attack, but will still want to give this feat some consideration. That's good.

As for the first paragraph, I simply disagree. It's threadcrapping, especially in the form I responded to before.