D&D 5E Passive or Active Fighting Styles?

[DND_Reborn]

That sounds unreasonable to me.

Have low-complexity passive options that are on par in terms of power with high-complexity active options, or slightly weaker to take into account the fact that high-complexity options require skills to be used effectively.

There can also be options in the middle, with both a small passive bonus and a small active feature.

That is how 5e is designed, for fighting styles or feats or subclasses etc., in order to let players with different preferences play together the same game.

How is it unreasonable?

If you could, give an example of how a low-complexity passive system can be on par with a high-complexity active option. As I see it (any way), an active option system would involve a choice and likely and action expenditure, and should be worth more because of it. Otherwise, why would anyone take it/use it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Have low-complexity passive options that are on par in terms of power with high-complexity active options, or slightly weaker to take into account the fact that high-complexity options require skills to be used effectively. That is how 5e is designed

As I see it (any way), an active option system would involve a choice and likely and action expenditure, and should be worth more because of it. Otherwise, why would anyone take it/use it?

I don't think you're much in disagreement. It's just that D&D traditionally rewards the more active/complex options with greater versatility & peak power, rather than greater overall power on average. If your options (and I've not evaluated them) over-reward the active options such that a character using them could out-grind the passive character in some DPR calculation or the like, that'd be a red flag.

 

[Esker]

You know, it occurs to me that there's a whole design space here that we're overlooking.

Passive-Aggressive Style

When a creature makes an attack roll against you, you can expend your reaction to tell them that you think it's fine that they're fighting like that if that's what they think is best. When you do so, make a Charisma (Performance) check, contested by the creature's Wisdom (Insight) check. If you are successful, the target takes 1d4 psychic damage and may not use the same type of attack again while you can see it before the end of your next turn.

Defensive Style

Whenever you take psychic damage or suffer a critical hit, you can use your reaction to explain why it's really someone else's fault that this happened. You then gain temporary hitpoints equal to half the damage from the triggering source and if the source of the damage is a creature, they must immediately use their reaction to storm off, moving half their speed directly away from you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think you're much in disagreement. It's just that D&D traditionally rewards the more active/complex options with greater versatility & peak power, rather than greater overall power on average. If your options (and I've not evaluated them) over-reward the active options such that a character using them could out-grind the passive character in some DPR calculation or the like, that'd be a red flag.

Well, the passive character has the same options in what I am doing, and the right to use the active options if they want to use the necessary action economy to pay for it. If the passive character chooses not to use his active options and do something else with that action economy, that is their choice.

To my mind, if I understand @Li Shenron correctly, his comparison would be something like this:

Archery:
Passive: You get the +2 to ranged attacks.
Active: You get a +2 to ranged attacks, you can use your bonus action to aim (doubling your prof bonus), you can use your reaction to move away from a hostile creature.

Now, what passive is the same in power to this active? +2, +4, more??? What increased bonus are those two action features worth? And of course that means the passive characters could use his bonus action and reaction for other things, right? So, that should make them worth less than otherwise.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You know, it occurs to me that there's a whole design space here that we're overlooking.

LOL what brought this on? Just a humorous inclination or something else?

 

[Esker]

LOL what brought this on? Just a humorous inclination or something else?

Just the fact that the thread is called "passive or active" fighting styles, with many people are arguing that some fighting styles should be both at once. Seemed to me a passive-aggressive style would fit the bill.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now, what passive is the same in power to this active? +2, +4, more??? What increased bonus are those two action features worth? And of course that means the passive characters could use his bonus action and reaction for other things, right? So, that should make them worth less than otherwise.

I think maybe something like:

Archery:
Passive: You get the +2 to ranged attacks.
Active: You can use your bonus action to aim (gaining a +2 bonus to ranged attacks until the start of your next turn), if you do not use you bonus action to aim, you can, until the start of your next turn, use your reaction to move away from a hostile creature that ends it's move closer to you.

The Active version can do more than the passive, but can't out-DPR it even under 'ideal' (aiming every round) conditions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think maybe something like:

Archery:
Passive: You get the +2 to ranged attacks.
Active: You can use your bonus action to aim (gaining a +2 bonus to ranged attacks until the start of your next turn), if you do not use you bonus action to aim, you can, until the start of your next turn, use your reaction to move away from a hostile creature that ends it's move closer to you.

The Active version can do more than the passive, but can't out-DPR it even under 'ideal' (aiming every round) conditions.

I see where you are going with this, but to me it is really rewarding the passive style because there is no action cost. The passive character gets to use those action-types for other things and still gets the +2 attack bonus all the time. That outweighs the other options for the active character.

It closes the gap, so to say, and it many ways it is like the BM maneuvers. I don't like the hassle of tracking superiority dice and most of the maneuvers seem like they should be passive and/or at-will.

Maybe if the passive was only a +1 for attacks, instead of +2, then using your bonus action would give you the +2 if you needed it, and if not you have the benefit for moving away. I don't know, but it is some stuff to think about.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I see where you are going with this, but to me it is really rewarding the passive style because there is no action cost. The passive character gets to use those action-types for other things and still gets the +2 attack bonus all the time. That outweighs the other options for the active character.

Nod. I don't disagree. But the game doesn't seem to value that too highly.

It closes the gap, so to say, and it many ways it is like the BM maneuvers. I don't like the hassle of tracking superiority dice and most of the maneuvers seem like they should be passive and/or at-will.

But, without those dice, the maneuvers would have even less 'room' to do anything significant.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But, without those dice, the maneuvers would have even less 'room' to do anything significant.

I re-wrote them so they are more at-will and you don't need the dice to gain the benefits. Granted, although static and lower, you can use them every round and not have to worry about tracking them or running out.

But I don't want to get off-topic by saying more than that.