• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E New Feat: Hold the Line

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
There have been some comparisons to recent editions that it is much harder to make a "sticky" tank. We've even seen this addressed piecemeal in some of the recent UA articles with subclasses such as Barbarian (Ancestral Guardian) and Fighter (Knight).

Hold the Line
When you use your reaction to make an opportunity attack you gain +2 to hit and damage.
Once per round when you have already spent your reaction and a foe triggers an opportunity attack, you make make the opportunity attack with disadvantage.
When you use the Protection Fighting Style and the target still takes damage, you may take half the damage (round down). All other conditions and other effects are still applied to the target.

Discussion:
Makes your normal reaction more punishing, so foes are less likely to want to pull away from you once they see it. Did not want to make it Advantage so that this doesn't make off-turn sneak attack too easy.

The middle part gives you a second opportunity attack, but you need to use up your reaction first so to keep it on point - you can't save your reaction for some other class ability or spell. Also note that this isn't using a reaction, so it doesn't get the bonus.

Finally an upgrade for the protection style if you have it. I consider this a worthwhile feat even without it, but if you already have a fighting style, ones like Dueling or Great Weapon Mastery would have more effect than Protection and that seems backward.

Thoughts? Abuses? How's the balance vs. other feats?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There have been some comparisons to recent editions that it is much harder to make a "sticky" tank. We've even seen this addressed piecemeal in some of the recent UA articles with subclasses such as Barbarian (Ancestral Guardian) and Fighter (Knight).

Hold the Line
When you use your reaction to make an opportunity attack you gain +2 to hit and damage.
Once per round when you have already spent your reaction and a foe triggers an opportunity attack, you make make the opportunity attack with disadvantage.
When you use the Protection Fighting Style and the target still takes damage, you may take half the damage (round down). All other conditions and other effects are still applied to the target.

Discussion:
Makes your normal reaction more punishing, so foes are less likely to want to pull away from you once they see it. Did not want to make it Advantage so that this doesn't make off-turn sneak attack too easy.

The middle part gives you a second opportunity attack, but you need to use up your reaction first so to keep it on point - you can't save your reaction for some other class ability or spell. Also note that this isn't using a reaction, so it doesn't get the bonus.

Finally an upgrade for the protection style if you have it. I consider this a worthwhile feat even without it, but if you already have a fighting style, ones like Dueling or Great Weapon Mastery would have more effect than Protection and that seems backward.

Thoughts? Abuses? How's the balance vs. other feats?

I'll think on it some more. I don't have any major objections for it being to strong at the moment.
 

So it gives :
* +2 to hit/dmg on AoO.
* a second Reaction dedicated to AoO but at disadvantage, helped by the +2 from the first feature.
* A conditional extension of Protection Fighting Style.

As Disadvantage is worth -3.33 I believe, the second AoO can be seen to be at -1.33 (because of the +2 from the first feature) to hit which isn't terrible.

With Dueling Fighting Style a level 1 character can possibly do:
+5 to hit, 1d8 + 5 damage
+7 to hit, 1d8 + 7 damage
+3.66 to hit, 1d8 + 7 damage
Average total: 32.5 if all attacks hit.

With Protection:

+5 to hit, 1d8 + 3 damage
+7 to hit, 1d8 + 5 damage
+ 3.66 to hit, 1d8 + 5 damage
Average total: 26.5 if all attacks hit.
If Protection Style feature used this round: 18 damage

With Great Weapon:

+5 to hit, (2d6 reroll 1/2) 8.32 + 3 damage
+7 to hit, (2d6 reroll 1/2) 8.32 + 5 damage
+ 3.66 to hit, (2d6 reroll 1/2) 8.32 + 5 damage

Average total: 24.96(25) + 13 = 38 if all attacks hit.

Of course, getting two Opportunity Attacks in a round without the Sentinel feat is unlikely as how many enemies will enter and leave your reach in a round.
So far it seems alright with me.
 


So it gives :
* +2 to hit/dmg on AoO.
* a second Reaction dedicated to AoO but at disadvantage, helped by the +2 from the first feature.
* A conditional extension of Protection Fighting Style.

Small correction: the second bullet point is incorrect. I had called this out in the discussion points. The second specifically is not a reaction, it doesn't benefit from the +2/+2 nor from other reaction based uses like Warcaster.

So it's actually weaker then you put forth.
 

I would be careful about allowing extra actions. Rogues or warcaster + command flee.

IMO:
Guardian: Prerequisite: multi-attack.
*When you make an opportunity attack, you can use multi-attack with all attacks going against the triggering creature.
*When a creature within 5' takes damage, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage by half, taking the same amount of damage that you reduce it by. If you have protection style, you can use it as part of the same reaction.
 


Guardian: Prerequisite: multi-attack.
*When you make an opportunity attack, you can use multi-attack with all attacks going against the triggering creature.
*When a creature within 5' takes damage, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage by half, taking the same amount of damage that you reduce it by. If you have protection style, you can use it as part of the same reaction.

It should be Extra Attack, as only monsters and wild-shaped druids have access to Multiattack.
That said, I like this version. Protects action economy and bounded accuracy but makes your OA nasty while giving a buff to Protection style.

My only gripe would be that it requires you to be 5th level at the least. I don't think removing the requisite would break anything.
 



Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top