Unorthodox Attack

[Capt Spanner]

A player having trouble hitting a creatures AC asked if he could try something like this. I winged it at the time, but here's a more formalised presentation so that this could be consistently applied:

Unorthodox Attack

Replace a melee attack with an unorthodox attack, or a combat "trick". This is an attack that would not typically be taught. It is intended to catch an opponent by surprise, since they are unlikely to have faced this type of attack before, or only rarely. For example: having started an attack to the left, the sword is swung to attack on the right instead.


Benefit: Get +2 on your attack roll. (Another possibility: get advantage on the attack roll; you do not get sneak attack damage - I'm not sure which would be better in the long run.)

Downside: Do not add you ability bonus to damage. (Watsonian explanation: if these combat tricks were as effective as regular attacks then they would become a part of standard training. Doylist explanation: balance - I don't want the players using unorthodox attacks more than orthodox attacks; that's the opposite of what "unorthodox" means. Additionally, this option becomes much less viable at high levels, where players rely on their ability bonuses more for damage. This is, I feel realistic, as more experienced fighters are less likely to resort to tricks.)

---

Comments, suggests, etc... welcome.

[Deleted]

A player having trouble hitting a creatures AC asked if he could try something like this. I winged it at the time, but here's a more formalised presentation so that this could be consistently applied:

Unorthodox Attack

Replace a melee attack with an unorthodox attack, or a combat "trick". This is an attack that would not typically be taught. It is intended to catch an opponent by surprise, since they are unlikely to have faced this type of attack before, or only rarely. For example: having started an attack to the left, the sword is swung to attack on the right instead.


Benefit: Get +2 on your attack roll. (Another possibility: get advantage on the attack roll; you do not get sneak attack damage - I'm not sure which would be better in the long run.)

Downside: Do not add you ability bonus to damage. (Watsonian explanation: if these combat tricks were as effective as regular attacks then they would become a part of standard training. Doylist explanation: balance - I don't want the players using unorthodox attacks more than orthodox attacks; that's the opposite of what "unorthodox" means. Additionally, this option becomes much less viable at high levels, where players rely on their ability bonuses more for damage. This is, I feel realistic, as more experienced fighters are less likely to resort to tricks.)

---

Comments, suggests, etc... welcome.

5e tries to stay away from the +/- game, though I admit, it does a bad job at it.

I would say that your attack is treated as a contest... Attack Roll versus Acrobatics Check or Dex Save

Defender Pass = No damage
Defender Fail = Half damage

There are already rules in the DMG (disarm) that have Attack Roll versus Contest, so you aren't adding anything new in that regard... You would be making this deal less damage, but the damage is calculated the same way (this way the player can just tell you the damage and you can half it).

[GalacticAxekick]

The whole point of saving throws is to make attacks ignore AC. A unconventional attack might provoke a Dex or Wis save to be dodged or recognized. There's no real need to give it a downside because it has one inherently: any target proficient in the save or with a high Dex/Wis will evade this more reliably than they evade attack rolls. Your unorthodox attack is only good against certain targets.

No need for special +/- math or contests.

[Deleted]

The whole point of saving throws is to make attacks ignore AC. A unconventional attack might provoke a Dex or Wis save to be dodged or recognized. There's no real need to give it a downside because it has one inherently: any target proficient in the save or with a high Dex/Wis will evade this more reliably than they evade attack rolls. Your unorthodox attack is only good against certain targets.

No need for special +/- math or contests.

Tell that to WotC... :p
Grapple: Athletics versus Acrobatics
Disarm: Attack roll versus Acrobatics
Many others...


But besides just working with the system in place, many people don't like the idea of not rolling an attack. That, if you aren't rolling the attack, then it doesn't "feel" right.

[GalacticAxekick]

Tell that to WotC... :p
Grapple: Athletics versus Acrobatics
Disarm: Attack roll versus Acrobatics
Many others... I'm aware, and I'm not against contexts in general. If you're comparing Athletics vs Athletics (as wrestling would), contests make perfect sense.

I'm saying contests are unnecessary if you're trying to deal direct damage, because we already have attacks and saves for that. AC represents ability to withstand a direct attack, and Dex saves represent ability to dodge.


But besides just working with the system in place, many people don't like the idea of not rolling an attack. That, if you aren't rolling the attack, then it doesn't "feel" right. I guess? But then, there's waves and waves of spellcaster players who don't seem to take issue.

[Deleted]

I'm aware, and I'm not against contexts in general. If you're comparing Athletics vs Athletics (as wrestling would), contests make perfect sense.

I'm saying contests are unnecessary if you're trying to deal direct damage, because we already have attacks and saves for that. AC represents ability to withstand a direct attack, and Dex saves represent ability to dodge.

I guess? But then, there's waves and waves of spellcaster players who don't seem to take issue.

Wrestling is combat. If it doesn't make sense in combat then it can't make sense in athletics (wrestling). There is no difference.

It isn't like weapon combat is someone standing there waiting to get hit so they can then attack back at their waiting opponent.

At least be consistent.

Many people see magic as different. I'm not saying I agree but people really get their panties in a twist about this sort of thing.

If you make all magic as attack rolls (4e somewhat did this) people get their panties in a twist too.

I wouldn't mind a contest only system or a save only system. I've played these styles before (2e, 3e, and 4e) via houserules and they can be a lot of fun.

So, the best way to do this is to make it a "Attack Roll v Acrobatics" to stay with what the system already uses and what people are used to.

At least for a general maneuver, if you make a class feature based around "dex save versus my weapon attacks" I don"t think people will mind as much as it is a specific rule and not a general rule.

[GalacticAxekick]

Wrestling is combat. If it doesn't make sense in combat then it can't make sense in athletics (wrestling). There is no difference.

It isn't like weapon combat is someone standing there waiting to get hit so they can then attack back at their waiting opponent.

At least be consistent.

In conventional combat, impact is the enemy. A fist or sword or arrow is soaring your way, and you must either block/deflect it (AC) or evade it entirely (Dex save). In wrestling, however, striking blows are no one's intention or concern, and so techniques that avoid impact are useless. You can't block/deflect being held. You can hardly dodge snatching arms (without leaving your space, that is). And so AC and Dex saves aren't appropriate for grapple checks.

To avoid being grappled, you can either leverage your strength in resistance or slip from the grappler's grip, contesting your Athletics or Acrobatics. And of course you will never leverage yourself against an incoming fist or slip out from a sword's grip, and so Athletics and Acrobatics are inappropriate alternatives to AC and Dex saves.

That is the difference.


At least for a general maneuver, if you make a class feature based around "dex save versus my weapon attacks" I don"t think people will mind as much as it is a specific rule and not a general rule. That's reasonable.

[Deleted]

In conventional combat, impact is the enemy. A fist or sword or arrow is soaring your way, and you must either block/deflect it (AC) or evade it entirely (Dex save). In wrestling, however, impact is no one's intention or concern, and so techniques that avoid it are useless. You can't block/deflect being held. You can hardly dodge snatching arms (without leaving your space, that is). And so AC and Dex saves aren't appropriate for grapple checks.

To avoid being grappled, you can either leverage your strength in resistance or slip from the grappler's grip, contesting your Athletics or Acrobatics. And of course you will never leverage yourself against an incoming fist or slip out from a sword's grip, and so Athletics and Acrobatics are inappropriate alternatives to AC and Dex saves.

That is the difference.

That's reasonable.

This is no different in wrestling. When someone is trying to grapple you in order to flip you, when they are trying to pull your leg out from under you, or when they are trying to put you in a headlock... It is all contested. You aren't always in full contact with your opponent. They still need to try and hit you, grab you, or whatever else.

There is no differemce between wrestling and sword fighting when it comes to the skills your body uses.

When you sword fight, especially in full armor, you run into each other a lot, your swords hit a lot, and you try to get the upper hand in much the same ways as wrestling. It is just a much a co test each time you come to blows as wrestling.

If you think you are going to avoid everything... D&D doesn't simulate movies very well (though in some cases... HP and injury, it simulates them quite well as you can fall off a mountain and not die if you are the antagonist or protagonist) when it comes to fighting.

There is no general rule on dex save in the game for weapon attacks. Its just attack roll and AC. If anything it should be a contest.

Attack Roll versus Acrobatics (dodging) or Endurance (letting your armor take the blow and rolling with it). You could call that acrobatics check a dex save with the DC set by the attack roll if it helps.

Grappling is combat. It should use the same rules.

[GalacticAxekick]

I think we're having two different conversations.

I'm not trying to say contests are inappropriate to represent conventional, striking combat. Attack roll vs defense roll would be totally fine, thematically, and identical to the AC/Dex save system mathematically.

I'm trying to say Athletics and Acrobatics are inappropriate stand-ins for such a defense roll, since they don't represent defense or dodging as AC and Dex saves do respectively.

[Capt Spanner]

Thanks for the comments, and feedback guys.

RE: opposed rolls: whether you model against acrobatics, athletics, or just a dex save:


Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming.

Based on that I don't think Athletics feels right.


Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, ...

Again, based on that description it doesn't feel right.

Having said all that:

Using a dexterity save: this idea came about because a player was having trouble hitting an enemy with high dex anyway. I feel replacing a high AC from a good dex modifier with a dexterity save would be replacing one tough problem with another.

Also, if I can resolve the attack with one dice roll it keeps things moving faster than two. As a final thing, I kind of feel that the difference between "attack vs AC" and "force them to make a save" is a key mechanical distinction that makes casters and hitters feel different mechanically, and I'd rather not blur that line without a really compelling reason to do so.


The discussion actually made me solidify what, exactly, my image of an unorthodox attack is.

My mental model for an unorthodox attack is:

- "My opponent is too good at avoiding my attacks."

- "If I go 'off book' with my attack, my opponent won't see it coming and therefore won't be able to dodge, and be easier to hit."

I think to model this better I want to lower the AC of the target:

Unorthodox Attack: For this attack only, reduce the dexterity bonus to the AC of the creature being attacked by 2, to a minimum of 0. (I.e.: because the attack catches them by surprise, they are unable to dodge it, so they don't get to use their entire dex bonus to AC. If you can't pierce the armor, it doesn't make sense to me that this should work.) Do not apply ability modifiers to the damage roll. (Because if you could hit them at full-force this way it would be an orthodox attack.) This can only be used against creatures that are intelligent and perceptive enough to be fooled (because it makes no sense to allow this against something that fights instinctively, without thought).

Is this better?

EDIT: Downside to this: no mechanical precedent for this kind of thing. I kind of feel "you get advantage on the attack roll against a creature with a dexterity bonus, if that creature is perceptive and intelligent enough to be fooled" (and "no sneak attacks this way") is more '5th-edition-y' and I should probably go that way instead. I probably also want to be clearer on "perceptive and intelligent enough to be fooled", as in "the creature can sense you" and "has intelligence of 8[? - appropriate value?] or higher".

I'll say now that I'm not too worried about making this ability underpowered: it's meant to be an edge-case thing anyway. I wouldn't want it to become a default option, though.

[Deleted]

T

Unorthodox Attack: For this attack only, reduce the dexterity bonus to the AC of the creature being attacked by 2, to a minimum of 0. (I.e.: because the attack catches them by surprise, they are unable to dodge it, so they don't get to use their entire dex bonus to AC. If you can't pierce the armor, it doesn't make sense to me that this should work.) Do not apply ability modifiers to the damage roll. (Because if you could hit them at full-force this way it would be an orthodox attack.) This can only be used against creatures that are intelligent and perceptive enough to be fooled (because it makes no sense to allow this against something that fights instinctively, without thought).

Is this better?

EDIT: Downside to this: no mechanical precedent for this kind of thing. I kind of feel "you get advantage on the attack roll against a creature with a dexterity bonus, if that creature is perceptive and intelligent enough to be fooled" (and "no sneak attacks this way") is more '5th-edition-y' and I should probably go that way instead. I probably also want to be clearer on "perceptive and intelligent enough to be fooled", as in "the creature can sense you" and "has intelligence of 8[? - appropriate value?] or higher".

I'll say now that I'm not too worried about making this ability underpowered: it's meant to be an edge-case thing anyway. I wouldn't want it to become a default option, though.

This goes against everything 5e stands for :smallwink:

You are making more work than there needs to be and dealing with fiddly bonuses.

[GalacticAxekick]

This goes against everything 5e stands for :smallwink:

You are making more work than there needs to be and dealing with fiddly bonuses.

I agree.

Honestly, because this is such an edge-case thing and because 5e is so freeform, why not treat it in a more freeform way? Ask the player "what are you doing that is unorthodox?" and see how it goes.

If a player says "I'm throwing sand in his eyes" then maybe make that Sleight of Hand vs Perception (subtly gathering sand vs ability to recognize the ploy and shut eyes). Blindness for one round on failure.

If a player says "I'm feinting an attack" then maybe make that Deception vs Passive Perception (as if taking the Hide action). Consider the enemy's attention misdirected if the player rolls high enough, so the player is "hidden" until the end of their turn. No opportunity attacks when they move! Advantage on attack rolls!

If a player says "I'm going for the groin", maybe treat that as an an disadvantaged attack that always crits on hit.

And in all of these cases, impose a "fool me once" rule. The next time the player tries something silly before the target has rested, the target is damn well expecting it and it loses all effectiveness.

[Deleted]

I agree.

Honestly, because this is such an edge-case thing and because 5e is so freeform, why not treat it in a more freeform way? Ask the player "what are you doing that is unorthodox?" and see how it goes.

If a player says "I'm throwing sand in his eyes" then maybe make that Sleight of Hand vs Perception (subtly gathering sand vs ability to recognize the ploy and shut eyes). Blindness for one round on failure.

If a player says "I'm feinting an attack" then maybe make that Deception vs Passive Perception (as if taking the Hide action). Consider the enemy's attention misdirected if the player rolls high enough, so the player is "hidden" until the end of their turn. No opportunity attacks when they move! Advantage on attack rolls!

If a player says "I'm going for the groin", maybe treat that as an an disadvantaged attack that always crits on hit.

And in all of these cases, impose a "fool me once" rule. The next time the player tries something silly before the target has rested, the target is damn well expecting it and it loses all effectiveness.


Help Action (ally) for advantage. If you can't hit with advantage then you may as well just not attack.

Knock the creature prone and then attack?

I was focused on how to make something that solves the problem, I looked past the simpler solution. Team work.


Example
Help Action: I bag tag the creature

Ally: Attacks with advantage.



Edit====

As a DM I think I would allow the help action to replace an attack but only once per turn (the advantage would only go to the next attack).

Attacking twice is better than attacking twice with advantage, i think.

[GalacticAxekick]

As a DM I think I would allow the help action to replace an attack but only once per turn (the advantage would only go to the next attack).

Attacking twice is better than attacking twice with advantage, i think. That's correct. Advantage means rolling twice and using the higher roll. Attacking twice means rolling twice and using both rolls. Attacking twice gets the same results as Advantage, plus a chance for the lower roll to hit as well.

Trading an attack or Advantage essentially totally useless, and several UA actually offer the opposite as a class feature: trading Advantage for an extra attack.

Helping an ally has the same problem. You trade one (or more!) attacks to grant Advantage on just one. Helping is only viable if your ally's attack is significantly more powerful than your own; helping a Rogue score a Sneak Attack, for instance. If the Help action granted several attacks Advantage (for instance, all attacks against the target until the start of your next turn), it might be more widely useful. It would let you open a foe up for Extra Attacks or for multiple party members. But as it is, it's kinda weak.

[Deleted]

That's correct. Advantage means rolling twice and using the higher roll. Attacking twice means rolling twice and using both rolls. Attacking twice gets the same results as Advantage, plus a chance for the lower roll to hit as well.

Trading an attack or Advantage essentially totally useless, and several UA actually offer the opposite as a class feature: trading Advantage for an extra attack.

Helping an ally has the same problem. You trade one (or more!) attacks to grant Advantage on just one. Helping is only viable if your ally's attack is significantly more powerful than your own; helping a Rogue score a Sneak Attack, for instance. If the Help action granted several attacks Advantage (for instance, all attacks against the target until the start of your next turn), it might be more widely useful. It would let you open a foe up for Extra Attacks or for multiple party members. But as it is, it's kinda weak.

It isn't useless.

Advantage is essentially a +3.3333 to a roll. If you aren't hitting with either attack because of your to-hit bonus being too low (or just not big enough) then one attack with a higher bonus would be worth more than two attacks.

Hitting once > not hitting at all.

It also helps negate disadvantage.

One neutral roll > two diadvtage rolls. Especially if you are having a hard time hitting the enemy without disadvantage (at least you could theoretically crit).

So while it wouldn't be something you always want to do, whenever you are put in tough spots it is best to at least hit once than not hit at all.

[GalacticAxekick]

It isn't useless. You mentioned somewhere that you aren't a math guy. I can see that, now.


Advantage is essentially a +3.3333 to a roll. If you aren't hitting with either attack because of your to-hit bonus being too low (or just not big enough) then one attack with a higher bonus would be worth more than two attacks.

Hitting once > not hitting at all. Advantage is very different from a +anything to a roll. Like a +#, it increases your odds of hitting. But unlike a +#, it doesn't increase the actual minimums or maximums you can roll. If you're working with 1d20 +2 prof +3 ability, you will never roll lower than 6, and never higher than 25. Advantage skews your rolls higher, and Disadvantage skews them lower, but the actual range is the same. This means Advantage will never help you hit a previously untouchable enemy, and Disadvantage will never make a touchable enemy untouchable. They can only increase or decrease the frequency at which you succeed.

You can even show this graphically. X is AC/DC, and Y is chance of success (0 to 1 meaning 000% to 100%).

Comparing a neutral roll (green) to Advantage (blue) and Disadvantage (red) (https://www.desmos.com/screenshot/ehqy9g76jz), notice that the bonus granted by Advantage (and the penalty granted by Disadvantage) changes depending on the AC/DC. They're granting +/-25% bonuses, equivalent to a +/-5, in the moderate range (like AC/DC 11 for an unmodified d20 roll), because your second d20 has many chances to roll over or under the AC/DC and improve/harm your roll. But they're granting +/-5% bonuses, equivalent to a +/-1, in the extreme range (like AC/DC 2 and 20, for an unmodified d20 roll) because your second die has very small chances of rolling any differently than your first roll, in terms of rolling over or under the AC/DC.

Also, notice that the at AC/DC 1 and 21, in the odds of success (100% and 0%) are the same, regardless of (Dis)Advantage. From those extreme points onwards, (Dis)Advantage is meaningless, like a +/-0. The (un)touchable remain (un)touchable, and the (un)doable stays (un)doable.

This is why two attacks are better than one Advantaged attack. As I said earlier, Advantage means rolling twice and using the higher roll. Attacking twice means rolling twice and using both rolls. Attacking twice gets the same results as Advantage, plus a chance for the lower roll to hit as well.


It also helps negate disadvantage.

One neutral roll > two diadvtage rolls. Especially if you are having a hard time hitting the enemy without disadvantage (at least you could theoretically crit).

So while it wouldn't be something you always want to do, whenever you are put in tough spots it is best to at least hit once than not hit at all. This is half-true. Disadvantage twice is actually a lot stronger than one neutral roll except against extremely high AC. The math behind this is ugly, but essentially the loss of accuracy is nowhere near as significant as the doubled damage. Against high AC foes where you need accuracy desperately, Disadvantage-and-two-attacks only decreases your odds to hit by 5%, while it doubles your damage. Against low AC foes, Disadvantage decreases your odds to hit by 25%, but your odds were fantastic anyway, and double damage.

Early in the game, at prof +2 ability +3, Disadvantage Twice beats the normal attack until AC 16 (https://www.desmos.com/screenshot/icsfajwlbi). Later in the game, at prof +6 ability +5, one Disadvantage Twice beats the normal attack until AC 22 and never falls more (https://www.desmos.com/screenshot/u5it4xkvou). In both cases, Disadvantage Twice is never more than 1.5 points of average damage weaker than one normal attack.

[Deleted]

You mentioned somewhere that you aren't a math guy. I can see that, now.

I'm not a math guy because I don't ignore the people element to the game. Also because Math doesn't translate well to real life. I've seen people who never rolled a crit in a year (using other peoples dice after a while). So while I understans the math, I just don't care as much as I do for the people element of the game.

If you have disadvantage on an attack, even if the target is low health, you are going to try and find another option to get rid of that disadvantage (lets say blur is the source).

If the creature is too big, you can't shove or grapple to get advantage in some way.

So you are stuck there rolling with disadvantage. You know what hapoens when you roll with disadvantage? You start missing.

Or you use the help action for a team mate. Either way you aren't being your character. Your job as the attacker is to attack. That's why you are the attacker.

Players don't like to attack with disadvantage. It doesnt matter their chances to hit, they don't feel like they will. So they seek other options.

If you can't hit, except for a crit, with a neutral hit (which is really what OP was sounding like) then gaining advantage on one hit is better than just waiting for a crit.

If you have a class feature, say sneak attack, in a multiclass negating the disadvantage is the only way to get your sneak attack off.

Niche? Sure. But not every option needs to be 100% optimization best choice ever. This isn't a game about player 1 versus player 2.

[GalacticAxekick]

I'm not a math guy because I don't ignore the people element to the game. I don't doubt that you appreciate the people element of the game, but it seems like you fundamentally misunderstood the mathematics behind it too.


Also because Math doesn't translate well to real life. I've seen people who never rolled a crit in a year (using other peoples dice after a while). So while I understans the math, I just don't care as much as I do for the people element of the game. Poor analogy. Your mistake was thinking a (Dis)Advantaged roll could do things it fundamentally cannot. The rule that (Dis)Advantage does not effect the highest/lowest result of a roll is a case where the math translates perfectly, inexorably into reality.


If you have disadvantage on an attack, even if the target is low health, you are going to try and find another option to get rid of that disadvantage (lets say blur is the source).

If the creature is too big, you can't shove or grapple to get advantage in some way.

So you are stuck there rolling with disadvantage. You know what hapoens when you roll with disadvantage? You start missing.

Or you use the help action for a team mate. Either way you aren't being your character. Your job as the attacker is to attack. That's why you are the attacker.

Players don't like to attack with disadvantage. It doesnt matter their chances to hit, they don't feel like they will. So they seek other options.

If you can't hit, except for a crit, with a neutral hit (which is really what OP was sounding like) then gaining advantage on one hit is better than just waiting for a crit.

If you have a class feature, say sneak attack, in a multiclass negating the disadvantage is the only way to get your sneak attack off.

Niche? Sure. But not every option needs to be 100% optimization best choice ever. This isn't a game about player 1 versus player 2. If I'm playing a fighter and the evil, marauding spellsword I need to stop is blurred, I'm not going to spend a whole action lining up my next swing. It isnt a matter of sub-par optimization. I'd gleefully play with sub-par Str if my character is a charismatic showboat, and I'd absolutely use a less-than-ideal loadout, like a shieldless swashbuckler, to illustrate my character's ego, and to free a hand for shenanigans.

But why would I spend my action lining up my swing in the face of an urgent threat? An in-character way to improve my accuracy would be one that actually helps because my character actually intends to help.