Are there any traps this edition?

[Rfkannen]

You know what I mean, are there any options this edition that are just completly useless or bad ideas. I havent seen any but almost every edition has one. Every editon has it's dodge. So yeah, what traps have you seen this edition?

[TheOOB]

Some of the feats are not great for all characters. Multiclassing if you don't know what you're doing often results in a weaker character than staying solo class.

So far most of the options feel valid.

[Beleriphon]

You know what I mean, are there any options this edition that are just completly useless or bad ideas. I havent seen any but almost every edition has one. Every editon has it's dodge. So yeah, what traps have you seen this edition?

There's honestly not any that are outright bad choices. There are some that are less useful to some characters than others, but over all there are no Dodges or Toughnesses so to speak.

[Chambers]

I think the Path of the Berserker is a trap. Frenzy imposes a level of Exhaustion which are pretty hard to get rid of (a long rest only eliminates 1 level of Exhaustion).

[JRutterbush]

I think the Path of the Berserker is a trap. Frenzy imposes a level of Exhaustion which are pretty hard to get rid of (a long rest only eliminates 1 level of Exhaustion).It's not a trap, you just have to know when to use it. An extra attack each round with a massive two-handed weapon is nothing to sneeze at... starting at 3rd level, you're outright doubling your damage output in a rage right there. Even Great Weapon Master requires you to score a critical hit or reduce an enemy to 0 HP before you can make the bonus attack (though it's still worth taking for when you're not frenzying, and for the -5 attack/+10 damage bonus, which is great when you have Reckless Attack available).

[Eslin]

It's not a trap, you just have to know when to use it. An extra attack each round with a massive two-handed weapon is nothing to sneeze at... starting at 3rd level, you're outright doubling your damage output in a rage right there. Even Great Weapon Master requires you to score a critical hit or reduce an enemy to 0 HP before you can make the bonus attack (though it's still worth taking for when you're not frenzying, and for the -5 attack/+10 damage bonus, which is great when you have Reckless Attack available).

Except polearm master is nearly as good (3-4 damage less but also improves your AoOs), requires a feat instead of your main class feature and doesn't exhaust you.

[Lokiare]

Playing a non-caster is a trap. No seriously if the exhaustion thing is a trap then so is playing a non-caster.

Well except the Rogue, that thing can do just about anything that has to do with skills and succeed 99% of the time. If skills were at all important I'd almost call it broken.

[hymer]

Except polearm master is nearly as good (3-4 damage less but also improves your AoOs), requires a feat instead of your main class feature and doesn't exhaust you.

You have a definite point, but there are a few counterpoints.
One level of exhaustion isn't exactly a big deal for someone who mainly hits people over the head. So you can frenzy at least once, and possibly twice in a dungeon. Or treat it as a panic button.
Polearms with the feat do 1d10/1d4, where a frenzied berserker does 2d6/2d6 or 1d12/1d12. It also means that the berserker is a feat ahead of the guy with Polearm Master, probably having Great Weapon Master.
And finally, feats are optional.

I'd say frenzy needs to be used judiciously, and personally I'd prefer totems. But I wouldn't call Path of the Berserker a trap. Mindless Rage and Retaliation are pretty good.

[Baveboi]

Playing a non-caster is a trap. No seriously if the exhaustion thing is a trap then so is playing a non-caster.

Well except the Rogue, that thing can do just about anything that has to do with skills and succeed 99% of the time. If skills were at all important I'd almost call it broken.

If you think about it, only 4 classes of the game's 12 classes are non-casters and out of those there are three archetypes that give you some sort of casting capabilities. The ONLY class that isn't and can't be a caster is the Barbarian. I just thought I would leave this here.

Now, why would a big and though barbarian be afraid of a mere lowly level of exhaustion? Plus, you can choose not to frenzy. When you rage you can CHOOSE TO GO INTO A FRENZY. You are not loosing anything by not going, just not gaining the extra attacks, and you can choose to frenzy at any time during a rage.

[hymer]

The ONLY class that isn't and can't be a caster is the Barbarian.

Even the barbarian can get a smidgen of spellcasting from their class. Totem barbs get a few spells castable s rituals at level 3 and another at 10.

[Chambers]

Playing a non-caster is a trap. No seriously if the exhaustion thing is a trap then so is playing a non-caster.

Nope. Having a class feature that exhausts you for using it is not the same thing as not being able to cast spells.

[Baveboi]

Even the barbarian can get a smidgen of spellcasting from their class. Totem barbs get a few spells castable s rituals at level 3 and another at 10.

But they have no slots or anything that could be interpreted thereof, and feats are optional, so speaking as Rule of Stone they are the only non-casters in the entire game. Of course, by the definition of casting they do end up casting rituals, but they aren't using any resource to do so, which differs them from the other 11 classes. Even 4elements Monks have to spend Ki to "cast an elemental discipline spell" and they can increase its level, much akin to spellcasting.

[randomodo]

I think the Path of the Berserker is a trap. Frenzy imposes a level of Exhaustion which are pretty hard to get rid of (a long rest only eliminates 1 level of Exhaustion).

The concept of exhaustion levels and how to get rid of them is in and of itself an example of inconsistent design. You can be half-melted by acid, reduced to zero hit points, then be back to full 100% HP at the end of a long rest. But if you're a berserker, who started the long rest at full HP but with two levels of exhaustion, you're still too tired to fight adequately the next day.

That's a bit silly.

[randomodo]

But to address the OP, I don't think there are any traps, though consensus seems to be that the beastmaster version of the ranger is pretty close to being one (in theorycraft).

Otherwise, everything is useful to one degree or another. Even the simple Champion isn't horribly weak, it's just that the bonuses are largely passive and don't require complex or creative play to use. (Too boring for my taste, but not a trap, I don't think).

[MadGrady]

Im of the opinion that there aren't really any traps in this edition due to the fact that it is much more concerned about character portrayal than actual mechanics. If you and your DM go into this with the intention of telling a fantastic story with a cast of whacky characters vs looking at this as a game to win, then I think each and every choice available is viable. Doesn't mean that sometimes suboptimal builds won't struggle at times, but therein lies a lot of potential fun as well.

I have almost an equal amount of fond memories of characters who succeeded at a task as I do of those who failed.

That being said, I do agree that completely healing after a long rest vs staying exhausted after a long rest makes NO sense

[Slipperychicken]

I still think the muggle-caster divide is kind of a trap. That is, muggles only having the ability to hit things and take damage (and falling asleep outside of combat), while casters do most everything else.


Im of the opinion that there aren't really any traps in this edition due to the fact that it is much more concerned about character portrayal than actual mechanics. If you and your DM go into this with the intention of telling a fantastic story with a cast of whacky characters vs looking at this as a game to win, then I think each and every choice available is viable. Doesn't mean that sometimes suboptimal builds won't struggle at times, but therein lies a lot of potential fun as well.


We already know that we can have fun despite bad mechanics and trap options. This thread is about whether or not those exist.

[edge2054]

I still think the muggle-caster divide is kind of a trap. That is, muggles only having the ability to hit things and take damage (and falling asleep outside of combat), while casters do most everything else.

Games I've played in so far have called for a lot of skill checks.

[Slipperychicken]

Games I've played in so far have called for a lot of skill checks.

It's important to consider which characters will make more skill checks outside combat, or which of those will have enough of a meaningful impact to make a player feel as if his character is making a difference.

I'm away from my books, but I'm pretty sure there are more mental skills than physical ones. Also, it does have a lot to do with playstyle, but the few sessions I've played of 5e seem to entail a lot more mental checks (knowledges and perception in particular) than physical ones outside combat.

[MadGrady]

The Barbarian's proficiency in Con saves has yet to have any real benefit in the games I've played. Most things they come across are STR or DEX based (they get STR saves, but no DEX).

[Baveboi]

I still think the muggle-caster divide is kind of a trap. That is, muggles only having the ability to hit things and take damage (and falling asleep outside of combat), while casters do most everything else.

You mean, 4 out of 12 classes? All of which who can take spells themselves through different means? It has since been my understanding that someone is a "muggle" in 5th by choice alone, and even then they can do some amazing stuff by themselves.

In this edition casters can't out-perform other characters in their respective roles unless they are tailored for that role. I already had a bard, a sorcerer, a fighter, a barbarian, a wizard and a warlock in my game (people kept dying and rerolling) and I can firmly ascertain that spellcasters can do a crap-ton of damage, but the "muggles" were just as capable when downing enemies, even more so in some cases.

I agree that in 3.5 casters ruled the day and night, but in 5th you are just as strong as a melee as you are as a caster while in combat. Nova sorcerers and blaster warlocks can deal a lot of damage, but will then run out of ammo, while stronger martial classes need only close the gap to bring the pain train. And the pain train has a LOT of gas and stops for no-one.

[edge2054]

It's important to consider which characters will make more skill checks outside combat, or which of those will have enough of a meaningful impact to make a player feel as if his character is making a difference.

I'm away from my books, but I'm pretty sure there are more mental skills than physical ones. Also, it does have a lot to do with playstyle, but the few sessions I've played of 5e seem to entail a lot more mental checks (knowledges and perception in particular) than physical ones outside combat.

I think some of it is going to depend on the player too. As an example I'm playing a wood elf rogue with the outlander background. So I have Perception, Survival, and Stealth.

Rather than saying, oh cool, maybe my DM will call for those skill checks at some point I chose to scout ahead of the party a bit. When we got to the point we saw an enemy camp in the distance, I snuck up, took a look, and reported back to the party. Not many skill checks were actually called for but having the confidence to be a proficient scout still allowed my character to contribute meaningfully to the fight, before it had even started.

We ended up ambushing the enemy, cutting off escape, and taking one hostage to interrogate for information.

Granted a higher level caster could do everything I did and possibly even do it better. But my rogue can do it all day everyday without worrying about what he's giving up and can do it much earlier in his adventuring career.

Fighters certainly don't have as much chance to shine in the skills department as Rogues and Barbarians but I don't think it's fair to say that the 'muggles' vs 'casters' divide is a trap.

[Baveboi]

The Barbarian's proficiency in Con saves has yet to have any real benefit in the games I've played. Most things they come across are STR or DEX based (they get STR saves, but no DEX).

It varies from game to game, but while there are more intellectual skills and more opportunity to use them there are also more challenging and/or deadly physical skill checks. The sorcerer drowned when he panicked and tried to dash across an underground river, tripping and falling under the rocks. The bard failed his str checks to free himself from a roper's grab and was devoured in the same turn. The barbarian was the only one to save against a strong poisonous fungus and managed to save the others and even collect some healing mushrooms that they used later on the game.

If your dm is pitting you against enemies and mental challenges you will have more opportunity to shine with those skills. If, like I do, you are pitted against the inclement weather or the deadly world that surrounds you having proficiency on Acrobatics and/or Athletics can be the difference between life and death.

[Shining Wrath]

It varies from game to game, but while there are more intellectual skills and more opportunity to use them there are also more challenging and/or deadly physical skill checks. The sorcerer drowned when he panicked and tried to dash across an underground river, tripping and falling under the rocks. The bard failed his str checks to free himself from a roper's grab and was devoured in the same turn. The barbarian was the only one to save against a strong poisonous fungus and managed to save the others and even collect some healing mushrooms that they used later on the game.

If your dm is pitting you against enemies and mental challenges you will have more opportunity to shine with those skills. If, like I do, you are pitted against the inclement weather or the deadly world that surrounds you having proficiency on Acrobatics and/or Athletics can be the difference between life and death.

The old Fort-Will-Reflex ranking comes to mind; it wasn't that there were so many Fort saves, it was just that missing them usually meant you were busy being dead for the rest of the encounter.

[huttj509]

Possible trap: If you intend to cast spells at all without a hand undeniably empty and free, check with your GM. Things like Paladin, possibly Cleric, Valor Bard, any other Bard (holding an instrument), Eldritch Knight. The wording can be ambiguous, and you don't wanna get in a pinch midcombat because you and your GM have different expectations of "reasonable."

[Sartharina]

I'm away from my books, but I'm pretty sure there are more mental skills than physical ones. Also, it does have a lot to do with playstyle, but the few sessions I've played of 5e seem to entail a lot more mental checks (knowledges and perception in particular) than physical ones outside combat.There may be more mental than physical skills, but the physical skills are called on a LOT more often than the mental ones. Also - knowledge and perception checks don't actually do anything to progress an adventure (Aside from Perception's ability to find traps).

Also - martial classes can do quite a bit. Rogues get bonus actions freely to do whatever they want. Once per long rest, a Fighter can take another action to do absolutely anything he feels like. Barbarians can do all sorts of stuff, up to and including flying around all over the place. Monks are battlefield control in a physical can, in addition to having almost unmatched local mobility (With Shadow Monks having hands-down the best mobility in the game thanks to their shadow-leaping ability)

[Phoenix_Kensai]

It's a bit narrow in scope, but I think people tend to undervalue the battle master's Know Your Enemy ability, too. In addition to the obvious application of figuring out how you measure up to a potential opponent, it's a good way to learn if someone is hiding something. If the kindly old woman you meet in the forest has more HP than your 7th level fighter, you'll want to think twice about following her home for tea.

[Slipperychicken]

It's a bit narrow in scope, but I think people tend to undervalue the battle master's Know Your Enemy ability, too. In addition to the obvious application of figuring out how you measure up to a potential opponent, it's a good way to learn if someone is hiding something. If the kindly old woman you meet in the forest has more HP than your 7th level fighter, you'll want to think twice about following her home for tea.

Exactly. With that ability, you follow her home for sparring matches and training. And also tea-breaks between lessons :smallbiggrin:

[Gnomes2169]

Exactly. With that ability, you follow her home for sparring matches and training. And also tea-breaks between lessons :smallbiggrin:

Er, yes. Sparring. That's definitely what we'll be training. *Cough, cough*

Though tea between the... Well we can call them lessons, is most delicious and refreshing, yes yes. :smallbiggrin:

But the subject of obviously-a-succubuss old ladies and training lessons aside, I don't think any class really falls under the "trap" category, and as far as I can tell, only Defensive Duelist and that memory feat are really traps among the feats (though morningstar, the great and powerful, is now a trap weapon. Sad gnomes. :smallsad:). Every class and subclass brings something to the table (with really only the beastmaster being the one that requires some work to get done right), and casters are not so ungodly powerful that they can do everything while martials just sit there, twiddling their thumbs for hours and hours of game time.

[Sir_Leorik]

I still think the muggle-caster divide is kind of a trap. That is, muggles only having the ability to hit things and take damage (and falling asleep outside of combat), while casters do most everything else..

Casters have limited resources with to do "most everything else". At low levels the casters may need to be carried by the non-casters. You're right that high level casters are more powerful than high level non-casters, but unless a caster survives to high level, they won't get to taste that power.

[Beleriphon]

Casters have limited resources with to do "most everything else". At low levels the casters may need to be carried by the non-casters. You're right that high level casters are more powerful than high level non-casters, but unless a caster survives to high level, they won't get to taste that power.

Even at high levels a character can prepare more spells than they have slots to cast so they are forced to choose between being powerful, or helping their buddies. The highest level spell slots are also super limited, we're talking one ninth level spell slot that could be use for any single spell in the repetoire.

[Slipperychicken]

Casters have limited resources with to do "most everything else". At low levels the casters may need to be carried by the non-casters. You're right that high level casters are more powerful than high level non-casters, but unless a caster survives to high level, they won't get to taste that power.

Remember that 3.5 also had limited spells per day, but there were ways to make it last longer. There are also at-will scaling cantrips and other powers this time around, including things like Minor Illusion.

I think that wizard-rituals may become the real game-changers in terms of spells per day, since they don't cost a spell-slot or even preparation. If the devs put out enough wizard-list (ritual) spells without costly material components, that could help bring about wizard-supremacy.

[Baveboi]

Remember that 3.5 also had limited spells per day, but there were ways to make it last longer. There are also at-will scaling cantrips and other powers this time around, including things like Minor Illusion.
It is nothing like it was in 3.5. Casters get very few slots (only one slot for 8th and 9th level, only 2 slots of 6th and 7th) and there are very few ways to get more slots. In 3.5 there were 4 or 5 slots of each level. It is a very long shot away from the rainbow powers wizards could summon up that time.


I think that wizard-rituals may become the real game-changers in terms of spells per day, since they don't cost a spell-slot or even preparation. If the devs put out enough wizard-list (ritual) spells without costly material components, that could help bring about wizard-supremacy.
I don't think the game is going off in this particular direction, to be honest. Plus, rituals take a crap-ton of a long time to cast, they are hardly a game-breaker if your game has anything similar to a decent pace...

[eastmabl]

I don't think the game is going off in this particular direction, to be honest. Plus, rituals take a crap-ton of a long time to cast, they are hardly a game-breaker if your game has anything similar to a decent pace...

While I agree that I don't think that the game will evolve into Ritual excess, it is still something that I am concerned about. Anything that makes the wizard stronger by eschewing spell slots is potentially game breaking.

Most of the ritual spells seem to be spells that no one in the party would mind the cater using - for example, please don't waste a spell on Identify. However, the more this is expanded, the more I grow concerned.

[Baveboi]

While I agree that I don't think that the game will evolve into Ritual excess, it is still something that I am concerned about. Anything that makes the wizard stronger by eschewing spell slots is potentially game breaking.

Most of the ritual spells seem to be spells that no one in the party would mind the cater using - for example, please don't waste a spell on Identify. However, the more this is expanded, the more I grow concerned.

But that's the thing, for the price of a mere feat (or a class feature, in some cases) anyone can take up rituals. It's not a wizard exclusive feature. If anything, more useful rituals will give the other classes more reasons to take the feat, which (again) I don't think is the general direction the game has taken.

Plus, ritual spells are a bit... so so. They lack salt and taste, most of the times, or are extremely specific in others. Some can be really useful if you spend a slot on them, others... not so much (like Identify). All in all, I don't think Wizard will benefit that much from more rituals, or at all really.
Now, if you could take rituals from ALL the classes... well, then you are set for LIFE.

[Lokiare]

You mean, 4 out of 12 classes? All of which who can take spells themselves through different means? It has since been my understanding that someone is a "muggle" in 5th by choice alone, and even then they can do some amazing stuff by themselves.

In this edition casters can't out-perform other characters in their respective roles unless they are tailored for that role. I already had a bard, a sorcerer, a fighter, a barbarian, a wizard and a warlock in my game (people kept dying and rerolling) and I can firmly ascertain that spellcasters can do a crap-ton of damage, but the "muggles" were just as capable when downing enemies, even more so in some cases.

I agree that in 3.5 casters ruled the day and night, but in 5th you are just as strong as a melee as you are as a caster while in combat. Nova sorcerers and blaster warlocks can deal a lot of damage, but will then run out of ammo, while stronger martial classes need only close the gap to bring the pain train. And the pain train has a LOT of gas and stops for no-one.

The thing that is being missed here is that the Wizard gets a ton of known spells as well as the ability to prepare a large amount of spells. On top of that they can pick and choose which spell to use in which slot when they go to cast the spell. This makes up quite a bit for not having as many spell slots.

For instance in 3E the caster had to have a spell slot for fireball, knock, and spider climb. Then they would use the spell that was needed when it came up. They would have used 3 spell slots.

In 5E the caster can prepare fireball, knock, and spider climb, but if two of those spells don't get used the caster has only used one spell slot.

Not to mention that by level 3 they have a daily spell slot for every expected encounter of the day. By level 7 or so they have 3 per encounter (using the six average encounters per day from the DM packet). Arcane Recovery makes this worse. If there is a spell at 1st or 2nd level that remains useful throughout the game you can use it every encounter and arcane recovery can give you back the slots in a single rest.

If you'll count the number of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots you'll probably find its more than 6 spell slots. Which means if they have an encounter trivializing spell of each of those they can trivialize every encounter even at high levels.

Yes, the caster/non-caster divide is alive and well. Choosing a non-caster is not as bad as it was in 3E, but its still bad enough to call it a trap.

Also an Eldritch Knight can cast spells therefore its a caster. Just because they tucked it under fighter doesn't change that. Same goes for any class that gets spells.

[JRutterbush]

...only Defensive Duelist and that memory feat are really traps among the feats.
I wouldn't call Defensive Duelist a trap: for someone who doesn't have a similar ability, adding your proficiency bonus to AC against one attack per round can be incredibly powerful. Especially since you can see if the attack hit or not before using it. With bounded accuracy, you'll be far less likely to be facing attacks that rolled 10+ over your AC like in some earlier editions. Even +2 is good, but the +6 it eventually gives is amazing.

And "that memory feat" is amazing for wizards. "Oh, thief stole my spellbook? It's okay, I've got it memorized." It's especially good for a conjurer wizard, since they can use their level two ability to conjure a copy of their spellbook, thus bypassing the "one month" limitation. It's also great for spies, or anybody who might need to deliver or recall information without being able to access that information directly: like scanning the enemy's battle plans, then being able to repeat them to your commander without letting the enemy know they've been compromised, for example. Remember, not everything in D&D is about dealing more damage and killing things faster, it's okay to have a non-combat feat or two.

[edge2054]

^^ That Keen Mind trick is great. That feat also grants +1 Int. So you could start with 17 Int and bump it up to 18. A Gnome Conjurer is sounding really fun right about now :)



But the subject of obviously-a-succubuss old ladies and training lessons aside, I don't think any class really falls under the "trap" category, and as far as I can tell, only Defensive Duelist and that memory feat are really traps among the feats (though morningstar, the great and powerful, is now a trap weapon. Sad gnomes. :smallsad:). Every class and subclass brings something to the table (with really only the beastmaster being the one that requires some work to get done right), and casters are not so ungodly powerful that they can do everything while martials just sit there, twiddling their thumbs for hours and hours of game time.

Defensive Duelist seems nice. How do you figure it's a trap?

[Whammydill]

I don't know that I could ever justify taking the Weapon Master feat. Four proficiencies for a feat is a bit expensive I think, especially if you aren't using variant human. I think you should be be able to select a weapon you already have proficiency in to gain a +1 to hit.

[Person_Man]

Poor design choices in 5E that I've seen that can lead to players selecting "trap" options:


Odd Ability Scores are basically worthless, and many Feats grant +1 to an Ability Score.
Randomly determined ability scores can create players with wildly different power levels in the same game.
Multiple Attribute Dependency (MAD), ie, being dependent on more then just your primary ability score and Constitution, still exists for many builds.
Many multi-class combinations are terrible.
Players who make decisions for roleplaying/simulationist reasons will often end up with a much worse results then players who don't. The weapons and armor charts are filled with inferior options, unarmed strike is terrible for anyone who isn't a Monk, attempting to play a MAD build with mediocre ability scores, some Skills are almost never used, etc.
The Ranger can be a less optimal then every other class at mid-high levels.
Some subclass options are just flat out worse then other subclass options.
At mid-high levels, classes gain resources at wildly different rates.
Classes regain much different levels of resources when they take a Short or Long Rest.
Some spells are duplicative of other better spells and/or are highly situational.
Adding an Ability Score Increase to an Ability Score you rarely use is a huge waste of an important resource. Similarly, about half the Feats are fluff/interesting and provide a +1 bonus to an Ability Score (which may be worthless, since odd Ability Scores are worthless), but are clearly worse then other Feats.
Some classes have dead-ish levels where they don't really gain anything, especially if you multi-class.


None of the above will matter if you have a moderate to high levels of rules mastery. And 5E is a lot easier to pick up and learn then every previous edition of the game, and a lot of the problems which have been around since early editions, such as MAD and dead levels, have been smoothed out. But yeah, there are still trap options.

[Gnomes2169]

I wouldn't call Defensive Duelist a trap: for someone who doesn't have a similar ability, adding your proficiency bonus to AC against one attack per round can be incredibly powerful. Especially since you can see if the attack hit or not before using it. With bounded accuracy, you'll be far less likely to be facing attacks that rolled 10+ over your AC like in some earlier editions. Even +2 is good, but the +6 it eventually gives is amazing.

While not necessarily a trap in and of itself, that AC boost is pretty decent, it's more of a trap when you compair it to the other fighting style feats, other feats that use your reaction, and even the Protection fighting style (which is dubiously useful itself, and can be used on other people!) The problem with it is that it uses your one reaction each round to give you a small numerical bonus, so that you can (probably) block a single attack roll that is directed at you (though, if it's a natural 20 you are SOL). And that's all it does. The other weapon style feats have 2-3 abilities of various degrees of effectiveness (but 100% useful and somewhat interesting), and even Shield Master (sword and board style, much like Defensive Duelist) gives you more abilities over-all.

But being on the low end of the fighting style feats isn't the worst thing ever (Especially since they are typically potent), the question is rather is it more potent than what a class can normally get (and thus worth the feat slot and the full +2 ability score increase that it costs)? Well, like I already mentioned, the one thing it does is basically the equivalent to the Protection fighting style, but with the distinct disadvantages of only being used against attacks directed at yourself, and being unable to negate critical hits. So it's, strictly speaking, less useful than a dubiously useful subset of one class feature (that a lot of classes can get). I'd say that Defensive Deulist would be a good class feature in its current incarnation, but to make it worthy of a feat slot, something like the following should be added:

"-If a reaction from you causes an enemy's melee attack against you to miss, you may immediately make an opportunity attack against the creature."

Or even:

"-If a reaction from you causes an enemy's melee attack against you to miss, both you and the enemy make an opposed athletics or acrobatics check (your choice). If you win, the enemy re-rolls the attack with an enemy adjacent to you as the target. If no other hostile creatures are adjacent to you, then the creature makes the attack roll against itself at disadvantage. If the creature is attacking with a manufactured weapon, it may spend its reaction to drop this weapon before it rolls for this attack."

Either would make the feat more potent from a crunch standpoint (basically it's an opportunity attack+ that only activates under certain circumstances, like Sentinel), and would be much more interesting in the "theater of the mind," the first ability basically being, "I am skilled enough to not only knock aside an opponent's weapon, I can also make an opportunity to punish them for it." The second one is, "Not only do I have the skill to deflect the dragon's bite, I can also, through my sheer skill and BADASS, **** slap it hard enough that it is forced it to attack one of its allies or itself." Personally, I like the second one more. :smallbiggrin:

On top of making the feat itself better, with how it is worded the addition would also increase the potency of so many other things. For instance, the Protection fighting style? Yeah, that's a reaction, so it procs this ability to give you the 100% best early game tanking style (you do not have to decide between defending someone or holding your reaction in case you can get an opportunity attack, after all). (Scrubbed) With sentinel it is slightly redundant, but it does let you block the attack going at your ally or yourself and then lets you attack the critter and stop it dead in its tracks. With the spell Shield (or some other reaction spell that might make an attack miss) and the War Caster feat, you can spell and then blast an enemy with a cantrip, etc, etc.

Over all, I think that it is a shame that they just left it as a "selfish protection style," they could have done so much more, and and I call it a trap because without the icing on the cake, a reaction to stop a single attack is sort of... Meh. As it stands, defensive duelist does not stand up to the potency of other feats, and that's why I call it a trap.


And "that memory feat" is amazing for wizards. "Oh, thief stole my spellbook? It's okay, I've got it memorized." It's especially good for a conjurer wizard, since they can use their level two ability to conjure a copy of their spellbook, thus bypassing the "one month" limitation. It's also great for spies, or anybody who might need to deliver or recall information without being able to access that information directly: like scanning the enemy's battle plans, then being able to repeat them to your commander without letting the enemy know they've been compromised, for example. Remember, not everything in D&D is about dealing more damage and killing things faster, it's okay to have a non-combat feat or two.

Yes, but as far as non-combat feats go, keen mind sucks. "You know which way is north," so you don't have to spend money on a compass when you are in the underdark to use your maps anymore? Situational, borderline usless (with the only exception being a "poor man's campaign" where you have no money and nowhere to spend it anyway... So, like, .01% of all games, ever?)

"You can remember things with perfect clarity for a month," or you could just write them down, your DM could not be a jerk and say that you remember enough for "perfect clarity" not to matter too much... And your DM could not be a **** to your party wizard and, you know, not steal the only reason you have class levels/ took the level of wizard you have in the first place. (Memory also will not be an issue in 99% of games, and if you are that concerned about it, you could work with your DM to make a custom background like an apprentice or a savant who has a better-than-one-month photographic memory. Backgrounds are nice for non-combat abilities like that.)

"+1 int or wis," or, basically, the Skilled/ Observant feat, both of which will increase one stat, and both of which offer far less circumstantial out of combat features. And hey, there are two of them. Odd how that works.

So over all, keen mind is the inferior, incredibly limited and circumstantial option among the non-combat feats, you can replicate the majority of its effects with little-to-no resource expendature on your part, and and it's actually rather boring and pointless in 99% of the games you will play. It's screaming trap rather loudly to me.


^^ That Keen Mind trick is great. That feat also grants +1 Int. So you could start with 17 Int and bump it up to 18. A Gnome Conjurer is sounding really fun right about now :)

OR! You could take the Skilled feat, get the exact same stat bump and get proficiency in 3 skills that you will use more often in 99% of the games you play (unless you purposefully choose three skills that you will never, ever use somehow). Which one is the clear winner here, do you think? :smalltongue:


Defensive Duelist seems nice. How do you figure it's a trap?

See above, the tldr version is; It's boring, it has limited application, it does not combo with anything else and it's basically a weaker Protection fighting style.


I don't know that I could ever justify taking the Weapon Master feat. Four proficiencies for a feat is a bit expensive I think, especially if you aren't using variant human. I think you should be be able to select a weapon you already have proficiency in to gain a +1 to hit.

... I can't believe I forgot about Weapon Master. I guess that's just a testament to how much of a non-option it is. Any class that would use it already has proficiency in the weapons it needs, and any class that would benefit from it doesn't use weapons (casters). It's worse than just bumping your dex and strength by 1-2 points. Clearly a trap, everyone?

[Sartharina]

-snip-What part of duelist do you not understand? If the guy's protecting his allies, he's not a duelist - he's a defender. A defensive duelist is someone who isolates and fights single-handedly against single opponents - which Defensive Duelist is excellent for. Also - +6 AC as a reaction against a confirmed hit is MUCH better than Disadvantage on a single strike (There is always at least a 50% chance it would have missed anyway). The feat is excellent for a duelist character - but if you're not a duelist, you don't want to take the feat.

Also, you can't use Protection if you're a Rogue, Bard, Warlock, or Ranger. And if you're a Fighter, you probably took the Duelist or Two Weapon Fighting combat style anyway.


And for the Keen Mind stuff - Or, you can choose not to be a **** of a player and insist that your character should remember everything 'close enough' over a month when you can't even remember who's turn it is to buy pizza between sessions (Hypothetical situation - not accusing you of anything). Also - because it's a feat, you can always choose to not take it if the campaign DOES choose to require such benefits.

[Rilak]

It is nothing like it was in 3.5. Casters get very few slots (only one slot for 8th and 9th level, only 2 slots of 6th and 7th) and there are very few ways to get more slots. In 3.5 there were 4 or 5 slots of each level. It is a very long shot away from the rainbow powers wizards could summon up that time.

With 36 INT (doable in 3.5), you get bonus spells:
4/3/3/3/3/2/2/2/2
5e at 20 you get:
4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1

So just the bonus spells/day are more in 3.5... On top of that, a specialist wizard gets 5 slots per level for a total of 7 9th level spell slots. 5e helps tune down Wizards more than a little bit :D

[Shining Wrath]

Here's the deal, for pretty much all values of "caster" and "non-caster":

One well optimized caster beats one optimized non-caster.
One well optimized caster loses to two optimized non-casters.

You can argue X > Y, but you'll have a hard time arguing X > 2Y.

[Demonic Spoon]

... I can't believe I forgot about Weapon Master. I guess that's just a testament to how much of a non-option it is. Any class that would use it already has proficiency in the weapons it needs, and any class that would benefit from it doesn't use weapons (casters). It's worse than just bumping your dex and strength by 1-2 points. Clearly a trap, everyone?


Not at all. There needs to be a mechanism to gain proficiency in things you don't normally get from your class, and for weapons that's this feat. Maybe you want a rogue that uses a longbow, or a wizard that wields a longsword.

Those are probably not optimized concepts, but there are certainly valid reasons to take the feat.

[Gnomes2169]

What part of duelist do you not understand? If the guy's protecting his allies, he's not a duelist - he's a defender. A defensive duelist is someone who isolates and fights single-handedly against single opponents - which Defensive Duelist is excellent for. Also - +6 AC as a reaction against a confirmed hit is MUCH better than Disadvantage on a single strike (There is always at least a 50% chance it would have missed anyway). The feat is excellent for a duelist character - but if you're not a duelist, you don't want to take the feat.

If you are locking down and dueling a single enemy, and they decide to go after someone right next to you, it is perfectly reasonable that a professional duelist would be able to punish them by knocking the attack aside and then stabbing the fool for looking away. I think it fits the, "No, you are fighting ME" aspect of duelist almost to a T. But I suppose that's your own interpretation of things...

As for a +6 bonus being better... Sure. At level 17+ (the end game) you can be better than disadvantage for a non-crit against yourself. At level 13-16 (+5), you are about equally effective if the attack had a 40-50% chance of hitting anyway (but still do nothing against crits or attacks against allies). Level 12 (+4) and lower, unless the enemy had a pretty insignificant chance of hitting anyway, disadvantage will either be equal or better, and vastly lowers the chances of recieving a critical hit. So unless you are starting at or assured to get to a very high late-game level, protection will be better in the vast majority of situations, will always be able to negate a crit and does not cost a precious feat slot. Do I rate it lower than the majority of other fighting styles? Yes. Do I rate it higher than the defensive dualist feat as it stands? Oh hells yes.


Also, you can't use Protection if you're a Rogue, Bard, Warlock, or Ranger. And if you're a Fighter, you probably took the Duelist or Two Weapon Fighting combat style anyway.

So you don't combine my version of it with protection unless you are a fighter/ paladin and want to go full beast mode tank (with Sentinel, Shield Master and Polearm Master as the other feats)...? It's like saying that a single-class barbarian can't cast mirror image, so it's not a build option for him... Not really that big of a deal?



Not at all. There needs to be a mechanism to gain proficiency in things you don't normally get from your class, and for weapons that's this feat. Maybe you want a rogue that uses a longbow, or a wizard that wields a longsword.

Those are probably not optimized concepts, but there are certainly valid reasons to take the feat.

Unfortunate examples, because the high elf race gets you both of these and is just an all-around great option for both classes. And a wizard in melee is a dead wizard, so another reason for it being non-viable right there. :smalltongue:

[Gnomes2169]

And for the Keen Mind stuff - Or, you can choose not to be a **** of a player and insist that your character should remember everything 'close enough' over a month when you can't even remember who's turn it is to buy pizza between sessions (Hypothetical situation - not accusing you of anything). Also - because it's a feat, you can always choose to not take it if the campaign DOES choose to require such benefits.

Just saw this edit... And I have to say "Come again?" I never said that players could not be annoying about what they claim they should remember, but resonable things are definitely in the realm of "remembering without having a photographic memory." For instance, you might not remember that there are "Exactly 47,986 hobgoblins, 632 bugbears, 2,568 skeletons and zombies, 89 mangonels, 42 balista, 18 trebuchets and 1 dragon" in the army, but you could remember, say "The dragon is leading an army if about 50,000 hobgoblins, 700 bugbears, 2500 undead and around 200 pieces of seige artillery." Maybe more generalized terms like "A whole hell of a lot of undead and seige equipment" would fit a general description better, but that would be something reasonable. Other reasonable things would include: The general direction the army is traveling, an estimate on how long it will take them to get to the next town, if they are burning or looting along the way, and what major highways they happen to be using. Keen mind would give you the finer details (the size of their scouting parties, how many they have, secondary roads they are moving along, the color of the leader's eyes/ if one of them is blind, etc, etc). Things that woukd be useful, but that are typically not needed in most situations. If you wanted to keep the exact details, you could also just write everything down. Which... I really don't think is unreasonable either. :smalltongue:

Where it would REALLY shine is if you were pulling a "Napoleon of Blackmail" and didn't want to leave a paper trail... But that is a corner case. Just like the DM stealing the wizard's spell book would be (which, incidentally, would be the **** move that I was refering to, as it is a mean spirited way to punish a player and typically causes more OOC drama than it is worth). It's the exception, not the rule, and does not make the feat less of a trap in the majority of situations.

Also, I'm not sure if you were being hostile and confrontational in your post, but it felt like it was a bit of an attack on what I posted... Not sure if I just read too much into it or read it with the wrong "tone" or something.

[Lokiare]

With 36 INT (doable in 3.5), you get bonus spells:
4/3/3/3/3/2/2/2/2
5e at 20 you get:
4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1

So just the bonus spells/day are more in 3.5... On top of that, a specialist wizard gets 5 slots per level for a total of 7 9th level spell slots. 5e helps tune down Wizards more than a little bit :D

You aren't getting the point. It only takes:

4/2

to dominate the game at 3rd level.

It only takes:
4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1

To dominate the game at 20th.

In fact you can leave off the 4's and 3's on that last one and just dominate with your 8 highest spell slots.

Which would you rather have 1 nuke hitting your house dead on while your in it or 10 nukes?

1 nuke is too many hitting your house while you are in it.

The casters are not 9000 any more they are still 8000 and plenty enough to wreck a game or trivialize other characters contributions to the point that some of those classes can be considered trap options.


Here's the deal, for pretty much all values of "caster" and "non-caster":

One well optimized caster beats one optimized non-caster.
One well optimized caster loses to two optimized non-casters.

You can argue X > Y, but you'll have a hard time arguing X > 2Y.

It doesn't matter about PvP.

If the caster does everything in the adventure that's important the other classes are trivialized. I mean it wouldn't matter if the game came right out and said "caster's and caddies", but it doesn't it says 'A game for 3-5 players and a DM'.

[Steel Mirror]

I haven't done all the theorycraft for it, but I think the School of Evocation subclass for the Wizard might be a minor trap, in that it doesn't make a very good blaster compared to other options that are out there. An unwary player could easily look at it and think, 'ooh, an evoker wizard creates powerful elemental effects, this must be the way to go to make my big boom character!" Cue disappointment and heartache if he is unlucky enough to be paired with a metamagic-tossing sorcerer, or a hexing/eldritch blasting warlock. Or gods forbid a multiclass of the two!

It's not a trap in the sense that the character will be unplayably bad, like some options have been in previous editions, but it is one of those choices that is presented as being a great path for certain character concepts, when the truth is that those concepts are pretty strictly better when pursued using other class combos.

[JRutterbush]

If the caster does everything in the adventure that's important the other classes are trivialized. I mean it wouldn't matter if the game came right out and said "caster's and caddies", but it doesn't it says 'A game for 3-5 players and a DM'.
You seem to be assuming that spells can still invalidate martial characters like in earlier editions. That's really not the case. Knock makes a loud knocking noise, meaning a rogue is still better for sneaking into locked places. Invisibility doesn't give you massive bonuses to hide, so the rogue is still the best target for the spell, not the wizard. And no pure mage can take over the main combat role anymore, since concentration prevents buff abuse... and even with the stronger buffs in the game, there's always the chance they'll fizzle on the first hit thanks to that Constitution saving throw, so the best targets for the buffs are the mage's allies, rather than the mage. Wizards are best at nuking large groups of lower level monsters, but you still want a fighter, barbarian or paladin to take out the big bad beast... especially now that the biggest baddest beasts can flat-out ignore several save-or-suck spells in a row. And even for non-legendary monsters, you can't just throw out a saving throw spell and leave it at that... many of them now allow extra saves to end the effect, and with no way to inflate save DC's, there's a very good chance your spell will simply fail to affect them in the first place.

I get the feeling that you're just seeing a return of semi-Vancian casting and assuming that it's bringing back all of the previous baggage with it, including spells that invalidate other characters. Would you care to show any actual examples of 5th edition spells that completely negate the usefulness of another character?

[Oscredwin]

People in other threads are talking about Heavy Armor Master (the 3/- DR feat) being a trap (eg very good at low levels and very bad at higher levels).

[JRutterbush]

People in other threads are talking about Heavy Armor Master (the 3/- DR feat) being a trap (eg very good at low levels and very bad at higher levels).
I wouldn't call it very bad at higher levels. It's not as powerful, sure... but keep in mind that while higher level attacks do increase in damage, a lot of the damage boost at higher levels is also from multiple attacks. So that DR 3 could turn into (effectively) DR 6 or 9 at higher levels.

And with that +1 Strength bonus, it's giving you more than just DR 3. It's especially good if you go with a 17 starting Strength (or if you go variant human with a 15 starting Strength) to fill in that odd number and give you a nice benefit.

[Steel Mirror]

I wouldn't call it very bad at higher levels. It's not as powerful, sure... but keep in mind that while higher level attacks do increase in damage, a lot of the damage boost at higher levels is also from multiple attacks. So that DR 3 could turn into (effectively) DR 6 or 9 at higher levels.Unless the bad guys have magical weapons, in which case it just plain doesn't apply at all. I have no idea how often high level baddies will have magical weapons (or weapons that count as magical thanks to spells or other effects), so I have no idea if that will actually be a factor in game, but it's something to think about.

[Gnomes2169]

Unless the bad guys have magical weapons, in which case it just plain doesn't apply at all. I have no idea how often high level baddies will have magical weapons (or weapons that count as magical thanks to spells or other effects), so I have no idea if that will actually be a factor in game, but it's something to think about.

Having the Monster Manuel, beyond very high level things with manufactured weapons (think death knights and vampire lords/ warriors here), there is a distinct lack of anything that deals magical weapon damage. So in the majority of situations, if the creature relies on weapons and physical attacks you will see it reduced by Heavy Armor Master.

[Lokiare]

You seem to be assuming that spells can still invalidate martial characters like in earlier editions. That's really not the case. Knock makes a loud knocking noise, meaning a rogue is still better for sneaking into locked places.

About the same kind of noise combat does, meaning the only time it will be bad to use is when the whole party has infiltrated a dungeon without getting into combat and are then stuck and needing a lock to be opened. A very situational downfall. That's like saying the casters are no good because they might encounter a golem.


Invisibility doesn't give you massive bonuses to hide, so the rogue is still the best target for the spell, not the wizard.

Actually Wizard's are likely to have a decent Dexterity modifier and with the right background can have a decent move silently. Even without moving silently invisibility solves quite a few obstacles that might come up such as walking past the guards in a busy city to get in to talk to someone. Avoiding attacks is also nice. You also missed the part where "for the purpose of hiding the creature is heavily obscured" and "you can't hide if you are seen... An invisible creature can always try to hide." and "if you come out of hiding and approach, a creature sees you." Basically it makes the ability to hide automatic where other characters have to have cover and concealment and distractions.


And no pure mage can take over the main combat role anymore, since concentration prevents buff abuse... and even with the stronger buffs in the game, there's always the chance they'll fizzle on the first hit thanks to that Constitution saving throw, so the best targets for the buffs are the mage's allies, rather than the mage.

Actually casters are 2 feats away from having about a 97.75% chance of making their concentration checks. If you don't use feats they can instead put those points on Constitution increasing their chance to concentrate by 10% or more. Then there are spells like Mirror Image that don't require concentration and shield that are reactions that raise the casters AC to insane levels. Then there's the movement rules that allow casters to move out of cover cast a spell and move back into cover without any risk to themselves.


Wizards are best at nuking large groups of lower level monsters, but you still want a fighter, barbarian or paladin to take out the big bad beast... especially now that the biggest baddest beasts can flat-out ignore several save-or-suck spells in a row. And even for non-legendary monsters, you can't just throw out a saving throw spell and leave it at that... many of them now allow extra saves to end the effect, and with no way to inflate save DC's, there's a very good chance your spell will simply fail to affect them in the first place.

Actually, the caster's save DC is still pretty high and with monster stats not scaling with level all the caster has to do is target a weak save of which most monsters will have at least 3. At that point the chance for the monster to make the save is pretty low. Taking a powerful creature out of the fight for 2-4 rounds is enough to trivialize the encounter. So casters still pull ahead in the single target game. Simply because they prevent so much damage and can still cause quite a bit of damage with cantrips.


I get the feeling that you're just seeing a return of semi-Vancian casting and assuming that it's bringing back all of the previous baggage with it, including spells that invalidate other characters. Would you care to show any actual examples of 5th edition spells that completely negate the usefulness of another character?

I get the feeling you haven't closely examined 5E and are just hoping that it isn't as bad as 3E.

I made a list of spells in another post somewhere. It includes things like knock, and spider climb and other spells that invalidate features of other classes. In 5E the wizard is not as powerful as the wizard in 3E, but still plenty powerful to invalidate the contributions of other classes.

[archaeo]

I think it's worth distinguishing between "universal traps," or those features that will be useless at every table, and "situational traps," which will be useful for some campaigns, but useless in many others (or vice versa). I would say that the system has a few of the latter and practically none of the former, though I suspect some would disagree. Some of the things that have been discussed as trap options here, like Keen Mind, will be extremely useful in some campaigns, like Gnomes' "Napoleon of Blackmail" reference.

[Baveboi]

huge wall of text

You sound like you have a lot to prove and very few proofs for it.

In the last 3 games I ran for 3 casters and 2 melees. The fighter and the barbarian contributed more to the combat than anyone else. The wizard was useful, but got ganged up very fast. The sorcerer panicked and failed ONE dexterity check and drowned. The bard used all his spells and then proceeded to be devoured by a roper.

No, casters can't protect themselves like they did, they can't kill or invalidate others to the same extreme and they can't stand toe-to-toe with other more specialized classes. I have the deep impression you haven't played 5th yet and is under the impression that casters will rule the day because "Oh my god spellz", but in truth spells will do you little good if they aren't tailored to a certain situation and most of the really useful ones are concentration, which might not be piss poor easy to break, but it isn't a bulwark of fortitude either.

Plus, you can only have so many spells active at any time, so you are either: invisible, hold person someone, flying or concentrating on a phantasmal killer. No matter how hard you try, a caster can't multitask as well as it did in editions past. So you can either invalidate the rogue, or the fighter, or the tank, or the healer, but not all of them at the same time, but get this: they can invalidate you too. What you are pointing out is not a fault in the default design of the game, it is a fault in someone's playstyle that they feel the need (or even the urge) to try and cover all the bases possible, which is nigh impossible this edition.

[JRutterbush]

About the same kind of noise combat does, meaning the only time it will be bad to use is when the whole party has infiltrated a dungeon without getting into combat and are then stuck and needing a lock to be opened. A very situational downfall.It's still better to let the Rogue pick the lock... to avoid attracting wandering monsters, or alerting any enemies in the room that this specific room is about to get attacked. Also to avoid using a spell slot that's better used on other things anyway.



That's like saying the casters are no good because they might encounter a golem.Nobody's saying that casters are no good... only that they're not automatic replacements for every other class anymore.



Actually Wizard's are likely to have a decent Dexterity modifier and with the right background can have a decent move silently.So, basically your answer is "If the player specifically designs their character to be good at stealth, a mage can be good at stealth." If your mage is taking high Dexterity and proficiency in stealth, then it's not the spell that is removing the need for a sneaky character... it's the fact that you already have a sneaky character.



Even without moving silently invisibility solves quite a few obstacles that might come up such as walking past the guards in a busy city to get in to talk to someone.No, you'd still need to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check: invisibility doesn't make you automatically hidden, it just allows you to try to hide.



voiding attacks is also nice.Blur is better for defense, since it allows you to cast spells and attack without ending the spell.



You also missed the part where "for the purpose of hiding the creature is heavily obscured" and "you can't hide if you are seen... An invisible creature can always try to hide." and "if you come out of hiding and approach, a creature sees you." Basically it makes the ability to hide automatic where other characters have to have cover and concealment and distractions.No, I didn't. You still need a good Dexterity and training in stealth to properly take advantage of this, which is why the spell alone does not remove the need for having a sneaky character in the group.



Actually casters are 2 feats away from having about a 97.75% chance of making their concentration checks. If you don't use feats they can instead put those points on Constitution increasing their chance to concentrate by 10% or more. Then there are spells like Mirror Image that don't require concentration and shield that are reactions that raise the casters AC to insane levels.Spending two feats is putting a lot of resources into your buffs, and one of those feats is specifically designed for gish builds. Again, this is not a case of a spell doing the work, but of a character that is deliberately built to fit the concept. Mirror image is nice, but it won't win the fight for you. Shield is nice for negating one round's worth of attacks... which is followed by more attacks next round.



Then there's the movement rules that allow casters to move out of cover cast a spell and move back into cover without any risk to themselves.There's also the Ready rule that allows anybody else to attack the mage the second they move out of cover.



Actually, the caster's save DC is still pretty high and with monster stats not scaling with level all the caster has to do is target a weak save of which most monsters will have at least 3.First, they're not still "pretty high". The highest DC you can get is 19 at level 17. And you have to know what saves to target, and know that they monster doesn't have proficiency in that save. A large number of monsters also have magic resistance, for advantage on their saves.



At that point the chance for the monster to make the save is pretty low. Taking a powerful creature out of the fight for 2-4 rounds is enough to trivialize the encounter. So casters still pull ahead in the single target game. Simply because they prevent so much damage and can still cause quite a bit of damage with cantrips.The only time the entire party should be up against only one monster is a legendary creature, which has an ability to literally just say no to any saving throw effect three times. The more powerful the creature, the less likely their spell will work.



I get the feeling you haven't closely examined 5E and are just hoping that it isn't as bad as 3E.I've been playing since the first playtest, and have been running and playing games twice a week since the book came out, and three times a week for the last month.



I made a list of spells in another post somewhere.If you're going to use that as an argument, at least link to the relevant post. I'm not going to trawl through your posting history for tidbits when you're the one making the claim that needs backing.



It includes things like knock, and spider climb and other spells that invalidate features of other classes.Already talked about knock... there are plenty of situations where making a loud noise in the middle of a dungeon is a bad idea. Including (but not limited to) the fact that there are often long stretches of hallway or tunnel between encounters, so the sounds of battle might not even reach that far.

And what class does spider climb invalidate, exactly? Which class feature is rendered useless by the fact that the wizard can climb better?

[edge2054]

OR! You could take the Skilled feat, get the exact same stat bump and get proficiency in 3 skills that you will use more often in 99% of the games you play (unless you purposefully choose three skills that you will never, ever use somehow). Which one is the clear winner here, do you think? :smalltongue:

The cool one that lets me pull my spellbook literally out of thin air, of course.



See above, the tldr version is; It's boring, it has limited application, it does not combo with anything else and it's basically a weaker Protection fighting style.

+2 - + 6 AC when I most need it still seems nice to me.

[Sartharina]

If you are locking down and dueling a single enemy, and they decide to go after someone right next to you, it is perfectly reasonable that a professional duelist would be able to punish them by knocking the attack aside and then stabbing the fool for looking away. I think it fits the, "No, you are fighting ME" aspect of duelist almost to a T. But I suppose that's your own interpretation of things...If you're a duelist, you shouldn't have anyone 'right next to you'. They'd have to disengage to move to attack a party member.


As for a +6 bonus being better... Sure. At level 17+ (the end game) you can be better than disadvantage for a non-crit against yourself. At level 13-16 (+5), you are about equally effective if the attack had a 40-50% chance of hitting anyway (but still do nothing against crits or attacks against allies). Level 12 (+4) and lower, unless the enemy had a pretty insignificant chance of hitting anyway, disadvantage will either be equal or better, and vastly lowers the chances of recieving a critical hit. So unless you are starting at or assured to get to a very high late-game level, protection will be better in the vast majority of situations, will always be able to negate a crit and does not cost a precious feat slot. Do I rate it lower than the majority of other fighting styles? Yes. Do I rate it higher than the defensive dualist feat as it stands? Oh hells yes. I've found in practice that Protection has a good chance of being absolutely worthless - it's completely wasted on attacks that miss anyway, and if you're facing multiple potential attacks, you pretty much have to either blow Protection on the first attack that comes your way (And have a chance of them rolling high twice and hitting anyway, or rolling low twice and missing anyway - both wasting it), or holding off to try to block an attack that might or might not come later in the round. With DD, you can guarantee one blocked attack.

[Gnomes2169]

If you're a duelist, you shouldn't have anyone 'right next to you'. They'd have to disengage to move to attack a party member.

Unless you are in tight quarters. Or chasing after someone that ran away from you already (that you missed with your opportunity attack, so the very likely having of Sentinel doesn't proc...), or 5' squares are actually much larger/ wider than most humans/elves/dwarves/other various humanoids, and from experience, I can tell you that 9' of distance (nothing tells you where you have to stand in a 5' square, so a duelist will probably choose the farthest edge, and coordinate with their allies to make sure they are given enough room to do their thing) is more than enough room to do everything you need to, while still being close enough to your allies to the whole "Stab a person that looks away" thing.

However, I am willing to admit that the protection fighting style doesn't exactly fit the duelist archetype. And you win an Internet cookie... You've convinced me to make it only "if a reaction causes an enemy's attack to miss you," which it will be edited to in the original post. Stabbing someone that looks away is covered by sentinel, after all, and we don't want to be too redundant here...


I've found in practice that Protection has a good chance of being absolutely worthless - it's completely wasted on attacks that miss anyway, and if you're facing multiple potential attacks, you pretty much have to either blow Protection on the first attack that comes your way (And have a chance of them rolling high twice and hitting anyway, or rolling low twice and missing anyway - both wasting it), or holding off to try to block an attack that might or might not come later in the round. With DD, you can guarantee one blocked attack.

Protection does not specify that you need to use it before you know the results, just that you force disadvantage on a roll. I'll admit that it's ambiguous, and that it's likely not RAI, since DD goes out of its way to specify that you can use it after you know the results, but the ability to basically negate an already confirmed crit, or to negate an opportunity attack, directed at your ally is pretty much the only useful thing the protection style can give you... So I could see a DM allowing it.