• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Show me how to build a defender....

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There is a Fighting Style for that - Protection.
It uses your one and only reaction... no opportunity attacks no Sentinel feat benefits and you are protecting against an attack that may have been something which already failed. It seems like you are trading out offense not defense.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There is nothing wrong with MMOs using Taunt. It is a perfecly resonable solution to practical limitations of the game engine.
Taunting / Intimidating and so on was a very common technique IRL. People/creatures are not dead wood.

NOTE the very very limited but still available stopping up a doorway just quit being the only way which it was previously. When it's all you got it gets glorified.

The problem comes when you import it back into PnP, and hence simplify the far more sophisticated tactics the medium allows.
"sophisticated" -stop up a doorway is sophisticated? It was a desperate only way for decades LOL

The Cavalier cannot interfere with an adjacent a wizard casting all hail wizard superiority we could do so in an absolute way in 1e but the specialist defender Cavalier cannot in 5e because>>>?????? .

You have some of the same mechanisms or similar in 5e and may be some hard to find distributed around 5e made it less tied to a class. (yes I like that)

4e defenders also didnt do it ALL the same way the fighters defending had much different methods way more punishment than the Aegis swordmage for instance.

Even within the same class it was not the same way some didnt have the risky opening themselves up trick... some didnt have the rake by a bunch of enemies and draw all their attentions trick (different method of applying the condition)

The Aegis swordmages shielding which was different than the Berserkers Later they introduced an aura mechanic which was different than straight up marking but also limited. It was nice for being a better door stopper by the way.

While it was closer tied to specialists in 4e other characters like a Warlord could up their armor class and toughness and definitely do defender As pointed out reducing your defenses via maneuvers and choices was also an element on the table in 4e. Warlords doing that trick actually did more than make themselves tempting they opening up the retaliation for their allies to do.

Having tricks to swap places with allies to defend them and take the hit was a Paladin thing (not sure if others had something like it).

There are tricks for lending ones shield in 4e too they are sometimes from feats sometimes powers (you may not have them) -

And so on and so forth...

You are taking ONE part of the picture and ignoring the rest. Your analysis is flawed and narrow. (mine of 5e has some of that going on but its getting better). The idea there is/was "one way" to defend is just off base (even if specialists had a common element)

Marking is more subtle in 4e because advantage/disadvantage was; It very much needed the supplemental effects and those created many distinctions. Many of which really didnt work against ranged adversaries. (Fighters could mark an enemy a long ways away but it is minor distraction where as a wordmages it was fairly near, however swordmages could maintain the mark and run/maybe teleport no matter how far away and still get nice triggered effects).
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There is no need for a tank in D&D in a sense that opponents are forced to attack.
To be clear ... does not exist in 4e either that is more 4e is an MMO speak congratulations join the dog pile of ignorance.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The Cavalier cannot interfere with an adjacent a wizard casting all hail wizard superiority we could do so in an absolute way in 1e but the specialist defender Cavalier cannot in 5e because>>>?????? .
Fireballs must be really easy to cast... (this is actually a reference to an old issue of D&D spells always working but being described as really hard and meticulous = but a stray cat could mess up the casters day - ok that is later in the story)
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
A shield wall of 10 spear+shield guys with that Fighting style, in 2 ranks of 5 x 5, imposing disadvantage on all incoming attacks against each other.
This reminds me of the assertion that 1e had people playing with extra rows of polearm users in the groups

There is a feat where ALL adjacent allies get +1 AC bonus due to your shield work.

Phalanx Warrior

It is subtle. But that is not a FEAT bonus so if a bunch of you had it. The entire group could be compounding with adjacent allies - each member of the phalanx created shield wall would get 3 to 5 bonuses to armor classes.

You could surround the nobleman and give him +8 ;)
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Explorer
This reminds me of the assertion that 1e had people playing with extra rows of polearm users in the groups

There is a feat where ALL adjacent allies get +1 AC bonus due to your shield work.

Phalanx Warrior

It is subtle. But that is not a FEAT bonus so if a bunch of you had it. The entire group could be compounding with adjacent allies.
That was me and yes we used AD&D pokearms in formation more than once. Henchmen.
 

Zardnaar

Explorer
Didn't happen often I think it was using Combat and Tactics and some optional rules.

Also happened in B/X there was artwork in the RC with polearms being used.

I think the idea for a 6 person party was 2 fighters, two clerics, thief mage and a lot of adventures were for 6 to 8. Once I think we had a Paladin with 6 or 7 henchmen although they normally only traveled with 1 or 2.

You could also stick the clerics in front with polearms behind them.

Can't remember if there were rules for phalanxs I think the fighters handbook or combat and tactics had it.

Hobgoblins would be more likely to do things like that or polearms + missile troops set up behind a pit trap.
Throw in weapon speeds, flanking etc and yeah we're were doing that in the late 90s.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad day
There's a simple homebrew idea we employ for 5E - 'Take the Attack'.

Take the Attack (Reaction) : When an ally adjacent to you would be attacked by an enemy, you can move in the way of the blow, and the attack roll targets you instead.

We make this simple option so literally anyone, from any class, can have heroic 'save the squishy' moments. Stick the ability on a Full-Plate and Shield-wearing defender, and it is a significant boon, especially after magic items are taken into account.
This seems to step all over the Protection fighting style. Now anyone can do something, without the opportunity cost of taking that fighting style over another. Protection fighting style can be a bit better and a bit worse (less chance anyone is hit, but it's still the original squishy low-AC target), but it's often considered one of the weaker fighting styles already. Now, where it's on-par or barely better than what everyone can naturally do I can't see any reason for people to take it.
 

Xaelvaen

Explorer
This seems to step all over the Protection fighting style. Now anyone can do something, without the opportunity cost of taking that fighting style over another. Protection fighting style can be a bit better and a bit worse (less chance anyone is hit, but it's still the original squishy low-AC target), but it's often considered one of the weaker fighting styles already. Now, where it's on-par or barely better than what everyone can naturally do I can't see any reason for people to take it.
Hilariously, we came up with this rule while discussing why no one ever took the fighting style. As I mentioned recently in another thread, when we use 5e at home, it is pretty much just a system backbone. We've tweaked so much, and this is one of the first things to go. Having to waste a reaction before even knowing whether or not the monster would hit just wasn't worth it in anyone's mind, not even our hardcore "I'm always a Defender who saves others" guy. Doesn't remotely compare to just getting the +2 damage from duelist style. Obviously, this is just our home games, I rarely take any homebrew rules to the FLGS unless people specifically request them.

Instead, I worked the Shield style to work a bit like Monk's Deflect Arrows. As a reaction, the defender can reduce the damage coming at him, or an adjacent ally, by (Shield's Damage Die) + Strength Modifier. That works much better for our group's character build economy.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Hilariously, we came up with this rule while discussing why no one ever took the fighting style. As I mentioned recently in another thread, when we use 5e at home, it is pretty much just a system backbone. We've tweaked so much, and this is one of the first things to go. Having to waste a reaction before even knowing whether or not the monster would hit just wasn't worth it in anyone's mind, even our hardcore "I'm always a Defender who saves others" guy. Doesn't even remotely compare to just getting the +2 damage from duelist style. Obviously, this is just our home games, I rarely take any homebrew rules to the FLGS unless people specifically request them.

Instead, I worked the Shield style to work a bit like Monk's Deflect Arrows. As a reaction, the defender can reduce the damage coming at him, or an adjacent ally, by (Shield's Damage Die) + Strength Modifier. That works much better for our group's character build economy.
Yeh the wasted reaction is one of the reasons why I didnt like protection its competing against the sentinel feat and opportunity attacks too. (both seem to be a defender fighters meat)
 
Last edited:

BookBarbarian

Expert Long Rester
I skimmed the thread but I might have missed, has anyone mentioned the conquest paladin?

Its level 7 aura that freezes Frightened enemies in place, combined with various fear abilities/spells make for a character that can stop multiple foes in there tracks to protect allies and has the powerful paladin as the base class.

That being said I love the reckless attacking barbarian to incentive Monsters to attack me instead of my allies.
 

Zardnaar

Explorer
Combat and Tactics looks to have been extensive material.
Yeah it was the best of the players option books. Tested a few rules in it such as weapon abilities, fighter Grand Master rules, siege weapons, critical hit tables, new armor and weapons, fire arm rules.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Hilariously, we came up with this rule while discussing why no one ever took the fighting style. As I mentioned recently in another thread, when we use 5e at home, it is pretty much just a system backbone. We've tweaked so much, and this is one of the first things to go. Having to waste a reaction before even knowing whether or not the monster would hit just wasn't worth it in anyone's mind, not even our hardcore "I'm always a Defender who saves others" guy. Doesn't remotely compare to just getting the +2 damage from duelist style. Obviously, this is just our home games, I rarely take any homebrew rules to the FLGS unless people specifically request them.
A solution I seen still kept the reaction cost but allowed it to be done after the subject was hit... and forced a re-roll (it could combine with other sources of disadvantage) But the damage reduction idea how exactly did that work?
 

Advertisement

Top