Fighting Style: Protection, is it worth?

[Rallek25]

Hello all,
I had a question regarding the fighting style protection.
I wanted to make a paladin that is all about protecting his fellow allies with everything he's got even at the cost of his own life. I was wondering if the fighting style protection is worth getting?
It gives disadvantage to an enemy that targets your ally if it takes place within 5 feet. Is this something that is useful or should I stay away from this?
Thank you

[Blood of Gaea]

1. Will you be standing next to at least one party member every fight?
2. Do you plan to have a strong reaction to use consistently?

If 1 is yes, and 2 is no, protection is pretty solid.

[Corran]

Paladins don't get any uses for their reaction.
You can get some uses for your reaction through grabbing certain feats, like Sentinel and defensive duelist (and PAM, though with PAM the reaction probably happens less regularly than with the previous two feats).
So if you don't plan on getting any of these feats, then protection would be a good option.
Generally, sentinel is considered to be a great feat for most paladins (and it is indeed a great feat). Because it lets you keep enemies close to you. It also allows you to ''protect'' allies by giving you an attack against an enemy that targets allies next to you. So if you plan on picking sentinel, it might be a good idea choosing sth other than protection for your fighting style.

[Merudo]

I think Protection a grossly underrated fighting style, especially for Paladins & Rangers.

A Fighter who wants to protect his allies is often better off grabbing the Sentinel Feat. Paladins & Rangers however get a lot less opportunities to grab the feat, so for some builds Sentinel can only be obtained at level 8 or 12.

Sadly, most campaigns never reach level 8, much less level 12.

[Contrast]

Paladins don't get any uses for their reaction.

It's worth highlighting they get the one everyone gets - opportunity attacks. Oftentimes the mere threat is sufficient to keep enemies put. Using protection means enemies can walk away from you with no consequence a lot of the time.

The key question is how often you think you're likely to use it. Also worth saying it works best when low numbers of attacks are coming the parties way which is often(? ymmv) going to be at lower levels. When you start fighting enemies with multiattack/coming in larger numbers its less useful. That said you will occasionally fight a single enemy with high damage and comparatively few attacks where it would shine so *shrugs*

[stoutstien]

Every player that has taken in at my tables have asked to switch for a new one.
It may just be bc I tend to use npc with multiple attacks so it has less of an impact

[Corran]

It's worth highlighting they get the one everyone gets - opportunity attacks. Oftentimes the mere threat is sufficient to keep enemies put. Using protection means enemies can walk away from you with no consequence a lot of the time.

The key question is how often you think you're likely to use it. Also worth saying it works best when low numbers of attacks are coming the parties way which is often(? ymmv) going to be at lower levels. When you start fighting enemies with multiattack/coming in larger numbers its less useful. That said you will occasionally fight a single enemy with high damage and comparatively few attacks where it would shine so *shrugs*
Good points.

[SkipSandwich]

Ive used it to great effect on a "Combat Medic" build, since I could pop up a downed ally with the Healer feat and then provide cover for them so they dont get immediately whacked again.

[Chronos]

Quoth Contrast:

It's worth highlighting they get the one everyone gets - opportunity attacks.
Which are even more useful than usual for vengeance paladins, thanks to their pursuit ability.

[MinimanMidget]

The protection fighting style is the weakest of the fighting styles by a significant margin. To quickly compare (note: I'm assuming here that you're using the weapons/armour to go with the fighting style, because if you weren't, why use it?), we have:

Archery: +2 to hit. Every attack you ever make will be ~10% more likely to hit. Great.
Defense: +1 to AC. Every attack you're ever targeted by will be ~5% less likely to hit you. Amazing.
Dueling: +2 to damage. Every attack you ever hit with will do 2 more damage. Awesome.
Great Weapon Fighting: Every attack you hit with will do ~1.3 more damage. Still good, if not as good as some of the others.
Two-Weapon Fighting: An attack you'll generally make once per round will do 5 more damage if it hits. Also not great, but kinda necessary for dual-wielding to be effective.

And finally, Protection: Once per round, if you're standing next to an ally and haven't used your reaction, you can make one attack against them significantly less likely to hit. Not "make it miss", make it less likely to hit. It's situational, unreliable, competes for your reaction, and only works once per round at absolute best. If it worked when you were standing next to an enemy, rather than next to an ally, or if it actually made the attack miss, it might be worth using.

[Marcloure]

I tried to use protection in many characters, and it's very hard. It is unusual for your allies to stand right at your side, even with a bunch of melees in your party. Often you will all spread out or something, and the other options are just better.

[BoxANT]

No, stay away.

[Malifice]

The protection fighting style is the weakest of the fighting styles by a significant margin. To quickly compare (note: I'm assuming here that you're using the weapons/armour to go with the fighting style, because if you weren't, why use it?), we have:

Archery: +2 to hit. Every attack you ever make will be ~10% more likely to hit. Great.
Defense: +1 to AC. Every attack you're ever targeted by will be ~5% less likely to hit you. Amazing.
Dueling: +2 to damage. Every attack you ever hit with will do 2 more damage. Awesome.
Great Weapon Fighting: Every attack you hit with will do ~1.3 more damage. Still good, if not as good as some of the others.
Two-Weapon Fighting: An attack you'll generally make once per round will do 5 more damage if it hits. Also not great, but kinda necessary for dual-wielding to be effective.

And finally, Protection: Once per round, if you're standing next to an ally and haven't used your reaction, you can make one attack against them significantly less likely to hit. Not "make it miss", make it less likely to hit. It's situational, unreliable, competes for your reaction, and only works once per round at absolute best. If it worked when you were standing next to an enemy, rather than next to an ally, or if it actually made the attack miss, it might be worth using.

That's not true.

Defence gives +1 AC vs all attacks.

Protection grants disadvantage to one attack (a far stronger defensive buff than +1 AC, but only vs 1 attack).

[MinimanMidget]

Defence gives +1 AC vs all attacks.

Protection grants disadvantage to one attack (a far stronger defensive buff than +1 AC, but only vs 1 attack).

Yes. What's your point? What part of my post is made untrue by this?

[stoutstien]

Yes. What's your point? What part of my post is made untrue by this?
I think he is saying that ~ -5 to hit as a reaction for adjacent Ally for one attack is better than a blanket +1 ac for self.
To bad you don't get to see if the attack would hit before you use

[TripleD]

The biggest problem with protection isn’t so much the ability as it is movement.

When I play the “movie” of how protection should work in my head, I see an armoured warrior running aloside her ally, using her shield to block the blows aimed at her friend.

The problem is that that’s not really how D&D works. Even if you want to fight “alongside” an ally at some point in battle you are going to have to move, and you can’t move together. The moment one of you makes a movement you break the five-foot distance and the feat no longer works.

It’s a neat visual, but doesn’t really work with the game mechanics.

[Malifice]

Yes. What's your point? What part of my post is made untrue by this?

You're arguing that [disadvantage] is unreliable.

Its no more [or less] reliable than +1 to AC, which is only a benefit 5 percent of the time (the other 95 percent of the time it makes no difference). It's reliable 1/20 times on a dice roll, making it very unreliable.

Disadvantage turns the chance of a crit from 1/20 to 1/400. Its benefits are huge in determining hits and misses as well. Around the same as a +/- 5 or so.

If I gave you the option of a flat +1 to hit for all attacks, or the ability to make 1 attack/ turn at advantage, which do you take?

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes. What's your point? What part of my post is made untrue by this? the other thing to consider is that if this is used consistently to aid a party member, the chance of that party member being hit by a critical hit is significantly reduced.

1/20 for regular attacks
1/400 for attacks against them with disadvantage.

I don't disagree with your overall point, since the other fighting styles give features that aren't as situation dependent, and this style really requires a particular team/teaming set up to see its full benefit.

[Blood of Gaea]

Another thing to consider, you can already pretty easily give squishy party members half-cover with your body when it comes to ranged attacks, just stand between them and the attacker.

This works pretty well even if you're a fighter archer for example, and you'll still be a good bit tankier than most backliners.

[MinimanMidget]

You're arguing that [disadvantage] is unreliable.

If I gave you the option of a flat +1 to hit for all attacks, or the ability to make 1 attack/ turn at advantage, which do you take?

I'm not arguing that disadvantage is unreliable, I'm arguing that Protection is unreliable. If it gave you a guaranteed 1 enemy attack/turn at disadvantage, it would be reliable. Still questionable, because of the action economy, but considerably better. Heck, if it just worked on attacks targeting you, it would be pretty solid.

Also, it bears mentioning that the allies you most want to protect don't want to be in melee, and since Protection requires a shield, you're pretty much locked into being in melee. I guess if you were a spellcaster with 1 level of fighter (not an uncommon build), you could use Protection to protect your fellow squishies? I'd still rather have Defense, personally, but it's something.

[Malifice]

I'm not arguing that disadvantage is unreliable, I'm arguing that Protection is unreliable.

In what way? In that it requires an adjacent creature to work?

Presuming an adjacent creature, disadvantage is a far better defensive buff for them than +1 to AC is.

The dude with the F/S is likely in heavy armor and (obviously) packing a shield. He's also a fighter type with tons of HP and either second wind or Lay on Hands/ Cure wounds (the two classes that have the F/S are Fighter and Paladin).

An extra +1 AC on him is rarely going to matter much. However imposing constant disadvantage on attacks against the nearby glass cannon is more than useful.

Protecting a nearby squishy with a huge defensive buff 'at will' is no small matter.

[LudicSavant]

If you want to rigorously measure the utility of Protection, you are essentially (on average) spending a reaction to add effective hit points to an ally equivalent to the delta of the enemy's new DPR with 1 of their attacks at disadvantage, offset by any opportunity costs (such as the cost of positioning differently in order to be adjacent, or using up your reaction).

[MinimanMidget]

An extra +1 AC on him is rarely going to matter much. However imposing constant disadvantage on attacks against the nearby glass cannon is more than useful.

Protecting a nearby squishy with a huge defensive buff 'at will' is no small matter.

Well, AC is worth more the more you have. That aside, how often do you see a glass cannon in melee? Finally, the difference between 'at will' and 'once per round at the cost of a reaction' is extreme.

Anecdotally, it's been my experience that Protection is very appealing to players, especially new players, but they quickly either forget that they have it or ask if they can change it.

[LudicSavant]

Remember: If the ally is really squishy, then Protection offers less benefit. For example, let's say an attack does 2d8+4 damage and has +6 to hit.

Case 1: Protection for ally with 14 AC
- DPR for enemy's attack is reduced to ~62% for that attack (vs having no Protection).

Case 2: Protection for ally with 20 AC
- DPR for enemy's attack is reduced to ~32% for that attack (vs having no Protection).

[stoutstien]

Q: are you allowing the player see the attack roll before they choose to use the protection reaction?

[LudicSavant]

Q: are you allowing the player see the attack roll before they choose to use the protection reaction?

Protection, unlike many defensive abilities, requires that you use it before the enemy rolls.

[Malifice]

Q: are you allowing the player see the attack roll before they choose to use the protection reaction?

They cant.

The roll itself is made with disadvantage. If the dice has already been rolled, it cant be rolled at disadvantage.

It's not a re-roll. Its the roll itself.

[stoutstien]

They cant.

The roll itself is made with disadvantage. If the dice has already been rolled, it cant be rolled at disadvantage.

It's not a re-roll. Its the roll itself.
Now i see why you hold protection in high regard.
Most ppl I talk with rule that the reaction must be taken before the roll. Compared to the shield spell that states that the reaction can happens on a hit or Bard's cutting word.
If the protection fighting style had just the slightest word change from attack to hit then I believe it would be a lot better but as I still think it's weak.

Attack action ≠ attack roll

[ad_hoc]

It's worth highlighting they get the one everyone gets - opportunity attacks. Oftentimes the mere threat is sufficient to keep enemies put. Using protection means enemies can walk away from you with no consequence a lot of the time.

That's a matter of the DM making the game easy.

A single OA from a PC is not much of a threat. Creatures who are that afraid both aren't scary and should not be having life or death combats. They should just be running away from the start.

If the DM only has creatures attack the high AC characters then of course you don't need Protection. If instead they just walk past them to attack the weaker characters then it is a different story. Then you want to be standing next to the weaker party members so you can block lines of attack.

Also keep in mind that Protection works against ranged attacks as well.

I think it is a no-brainer for a Paladin with a shield. There is even more incentive to have party members nearby to benefit from their aura.

[ad_hoc]

Remember: If the ally is really squishy, then Protection offers less benefit. For example, let's say an attack does 2d8+4 damage and has +6 to hit.

Case 1: Protection for ally with 14 AC
- DPR for enemy's attack is reduced to ~62% for that attack (vs having no Protection).

Case 2: Protection for ally with 20 AC
- DPR for enemy's attack is reduced to ~32% for that attack (vs having no Protection).

What matters is whether the ally is alive or dead.

An ally with a 20 AC is likely going to be fine.

If you don't help the ally with a 14 AC then you're going to be down 1 ally and that much closer to a death spiral.

[MeeposFire]

No brainer is not how I would look at it. It has a nice effect but it is ruined by the many caveats on its use. There are so many things that can prevent you from using the ability or that makes it less useful over time that it loses a lot of value. This is one of the abilities where I find the reality to be worse than the white room analysis. I cannot tell you how many times someone with the style called to sue the ability and then found out that they violated one of its restrictions and so did not get the ability to work. This has made it very unpopular and a very common style to ask for a change.

Take off one or two of its restrictions and it becomes a lot more usable and therefor better. The idea and the overall effect is good it is the restrictions that add up to make it not as nice as you would think. It reminds me of truestrike where you have an ability that could be potent but all the restrictions on the ability add up to bringing the ability down (though to be fair to protection style it is still more effective at its job than true strike is).

[LudicSavant]

What matters is whether the ally is alive or dead.

An ally with a 20 AC is likely going to be fine.

If you don't help the ally with a 14 AC then you're going to be down 1 ally and that much closer to a death spiral.

The options aren't "don't help an ally with 14 AC" vs "help an ally with 14 AC," it's "Take Protection, or take something else that might be more effective at aiding your allies, including the one with 14 AC."

If your party composition involves allies that have low enough ACs that they gain very little effective hit points from Protection, then other options might actually do more to protect your particular party composition from harm, especially since if you have especially squishy party members you want to stop enemies from getting to them at all rather than just giving them like 5 extra effective hit points while clustering up on the back line.

[ad_hoc]

No brainer is not how I would look at it. It has a nice effect but it is ruined by the many caveats on its use. There are so many things that can prevent you from using the ability or that makes it less useful over time that it loses a lot of value. This is one of the abilities where I find the reality to be worse than the white room analysis. I cannot tell you how many times someone with the style called to sue the ability and then found out that they violated one of its restrictions and so did not get the ability to work. This has made it very unpopular and a very common style to ask for a change.

Take off one or two of its restrictions and it becomes a lot more usable and therefor better. The idea and the overall effect is good it is the restrictions that add up to make it not as nice as you would think. It reminds me of truestrike where you have an ability that could be potent but all the restrictions on the ability add up to bringing the ability down (though to be fair to protection style it is still more effective at its job than true strike is).

All of its restrictions? There really aren't that many.

It's certainly not True Strike. TS costs an action to give advantage later (if concentration is broken).

It costs a reaction to impose disadvantage to an attack made against an ally within 5ft.

You must be able to see the enemy creature. Is this the one you're talking about? That won't come up that much and in that case not being able to use Protection is the least of your worries.

Is it the wielding a shield? It's a fighting style, goes with the territory.

I don't see how it's confusing.

It remains useful as levels go up too. It is very strong against opponents who deal 50-80% of HP per attack. It isn't as useful against many weaker enemies but it's still better than nothing.

Compare that to Dueling which gets worse as levels go up as it becomes a smaller and smaller % of party damage. Dueling's damage is static while Protection works against monster damage which increases as levels go up.

In a vacuum Dueling is probably stronger on a Fighter but on a Paladin Protection is.

[LudicSavant]

If your goal is to save people with 14 AC from Storm Giants, then Protection is not going to do that very effectively because the Storm Giants are going to do approximately 96% of their original DPR to the beneficiary of Protection. Or Stone Giants would do about 88% of their original DPR.

In order for Protection to really cut into the damage output of a big slugger enemy, it needs to be applied to someone who already has at least a half-decent AC. Protection needs to be in the right party composition to pay off. This is especially true because of its positioning requirements.

[Crgaston]

The way I've seen it work well is on one of a pair of melee attackers. A fighter supporting a Barbarian or other super-high DPR build. The enemy wants to take down the high DPR character first, and the Protection fighter makes that harder. Bonus points if the high DPR build has Sentinel.

[Jophiel]

The way I've seen it work well is on one of a pair of melee attackers. A fighter supporting a Barbarian or other super-high DPR build.
Could be useful as well for defending a cleric in the thick of things who is concentrating on buffs or Spirit Guardians. Which seems more practical than having a robe-wearing wizard in the midst of melee or the fighter always hanging back with the casters.

I play with a fighter who has Protection and I'm usually playing a Cleric/Divine Soul in that group so between heavy armor, constitution proficiency and Warcaster, I don't have to worry too much about getting knocked out of my spells but he still generally hangs out near me (when practical) and adds one more layer of defense. Admittedly that's a bit of an edge case. He also uses it when possible on other party members and everyone always seems actively appreciative which is something you don't get from "+2 to my damage". So maybe not the most mechanically optimal but it keeps him feeling like he's contributing more than attack rolls.

[CorporateSlave]

If I gave you the option of a flat +1 to hit for all attacks, or the ability to make 1 attack/ turn at advantage, using your reaction for the turn, and only if an ally is within 5' of you, and you can see the attacker...and which technically is not up to you except for the first time since an enemy, having seen this special move happen once, may never allow you to make that attack and gain free advantage again...but you don't get to revert to +1 to hit on all attacks as that ship has sailed and you chose situational advantage but hey at least now you'll still have a reaction to use on something else, which do you take?

There, went ahead and fixed it for you.

Protection is unreliable because, although when it "goes off" it is certainly a significant effect, it is incredibly situational and one use per turn only. A melee fighter will be attacked routinely, making the cumulative +1 to AC relatively valuable - and its always on, at no cost to the action economy.

The same melee fighter's chance of often standing next to a squishy in melee is much lower, unless the party has no concept of how to position and hold a line in battle. Of course, the field of combat layout and/or party being ambushed could change this...but again, how often? If often, then either your party's tactics suck, or the DM is out to get you and no amount of disadvantage is going to save you!

Now as some have mentioned a particular build on a pair of melee PC's could make Protection more reliable, with Sentinel on one and Protection on the other. An enemy can attack one at disadvantage, or attack the other and get smacked back in return. An enemy might well pick making one attack at disadvantage rather than allowing "free hits" on itself.

However, I would argue that Protection does not scale well, because while disadvantage's crit protection is great at any level, the "single use" nature decreases in effectiveness as more enemies have multiple attacks available.

[ad_hoc]

A melee fighter will be attacked routinely, making the cumulative +1 to AC relatively valuable - and its always on, at no cost to the action economy.

Why? It is easy for enemy creatures to walk around and hit whoever they want.

The +1 to AC is just not very good. It doesn't matter as the fighter will be the last one standing and will still be dead in the end either way.

If you don't want Protection at least take Dueling.



The same melee fighter's chance of often standing next to a squishy in melee is much lower, unless the party has no concept of how to position and hold a line in battle.

I don't understand this mentality. The PCs are not an army. They're not even much of a skirmishing force. There is no 'front line' or 'back line'. There is no 'holding the line' in 5e.

Besides all that, if weaker party members are never targeted then the game is super easy. In that case it doesn't matter what options you took as victory will be easy. Protection is there for when the game is made difficult from a DM who rightly targets characters who don't want to be targeted.




However, I would argue that Protection does not scale well, because while disadvantage's crit protection is great at any level, the "single use" nature decreases in effectiveness as more enemies have multiple attacks available.

It's not the amount of attacks that matter, it is how much damage they do. An attack for 75% of your HP is just as hurtful at a low level as it is at a higher one. It is actually even more important to dodge it when the enemy gets 2 of them instead of 1.

[OverLordOcelot]

Could be useful as well for defending a cleric in the thick of things who is concentrating on buffs or Spirit Guardians. Which seems more practical than having a robe-wearing wizard in the midst of melee or the fighter always hanging back with the casters.

But can't the concentrating cleric just dodge to give disadvantage on all attacks insteaqd of relying on having the fighter in an adjacent space using a reaction to get it on one? If you dodge, you render his protection worthless.

[Jophiel]

But can't the concentrating cleric just dodge to give disadvantage...
You could but I'd prefer to do something actively useful with my turn rather than Dodge.

[Skylivedk]

You could but I'd prefer to do something actively useful with my turn rather than Dodge.

Like Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians? ... Wait a minute!

[MeeposFire]

You could but I'd prefer to do something actively useful with my turn rather than Dodge.

One could say keeping your spirit guardians up would be a useful use of your turn if you were going to be attacked more than once in the upcoming round. Protection can only help you once at best. I know when I use spirit guardians I become a beacon to all enemies of "kill that guy" and if I am not careful losing my concentration is a very real possibility.

[OverLordOcelot]

The +1 to AC is just not very good. It doesn't matter as the fighter will be the last one standing and will still be dead in the end either way.

I like the +1 to AC as a second fighting style, I agree that as a first it's just so-so. I think that's why some people trying to 'tank' run into problems, they make themselves unhittable and end up with enemies entirely or mostly ignoring them, since they have no damage output to threaten.


I don't understand this mentality. The PCs are not an army. They're not even much of a skirmishing force. There is no 'front line' or 'back line'. There is no 'holding the line' in 5e.

I wonder about the kind of fights that a lot of people here have, because the stuff people describe boggles my mind. There's a lot of talk about a 'front line' and a 'back line' and how you can hold them solidly. And there was another thread where someone insisted that sunbeam, a 60' x 5' line, was not party friendly because you'd never be able to fire it without friendly fire. I wonder if people are just doing straight fights in 10' wide corridors with no adds and no interesting opponents, or if they're doing pure theorycraft.

What I run into in real games is vary varied - I recently had a T2 fight where our party was raiding an underground dock and had to fight across in a 150x200 area against a swarm of weak pirates with a few 'boss' types, plus a chimera flying in and invisible stalkers summoned at the back of the party. A couple of wees ago I was in a cool T1 climactic battle on a ship where we had to run around to rigging and steering to try and save the ship while Sahuagin climbed over the sides (all of them, not just one end) to attack us. It's pretty rare to see something ameanable to a clear front line and back line, and these are encounters in published AL modules.

[OverLordOcelot]

You could but I'd prefer to do something actively useful with my turn rather than Dodge.

Like keeping guardian spirits plus spiritual weapon going to sustain the kind of damage output that makes evoker mages cry? If there's a group of enemies, the protection fighter can only defend against one, and if it is just one then guardians are kind of wasted since you're blowing an AOE effect for one guy. Guardians plus weapon plus dodge on a heavy armor and shield cleric is simply one of the most effective setups in the game.

[stoutstien]

I like the +1 to AC as a second fighting style, I agree that as a first it's just so-so. I think that's why some people trying to 'tank' run into problems, they make themselves unhittable and end up with enemies entirely or mostly ignoring them, since they have no damage output to threaten.



I wonder about the kind of fights that a lot of people here have, because the stuff people describe boggles my mind. There's a lot of talk about a 'front line' and a 'back line' and how you can hold them solidly. And there was another thread where someone insisted that sunbeam, a 60' x 5' line, was not party friendly because you'd never be able to fire it without friendly fire. I wonder if people are just doing straight fights in 10' wide corridors with no adds and no interesting opponents, or if they're doing pure theorycraft.

What I run into in real games is vary varied - I recently had a T2 fight where our party was raiding an underground dock and had to fight across in a 150x200 area against a swarm of weak pirates with a few 'boss' types, plus a chimera flying in and invisible stalkers summoned at the back of the party. A couple of wees ago I was in a cool T1 climactic battle on a ship where we had to run around to rigging and steering to try and save the ship while Sahuagin climbed over the sides (all of them, not just one end) to attack us. It's pretty rare to see something ameanable to a clear front line and back line, and these are encounters in published AL modules.

if you are trying to get really high ac early the free +1 ac can make all the difference. my personal favorite is 1-2 fighter then go forge domain . go warforged for free plate at lv 1 or use your channel to start making a suit of plate and suddenly you are rocking 22ac. most 1/8 to 2 CR npc only have a +3 to hit.
this build is fun b/c while you have bless or other buffs up you are a prime target but with less than a 20% chance to even hit you it gives them a lose/lose choice. this build loses steam after lv 10 when ac stacking has less of an impact but you are still a monster.

[Misterwhisper]

I like the +1 to AC as a second fighting style, I agree that as a first it's just so-so. I think that's why some people trying to 'tank' run into problems, they make themselves unhittable and end up with enemies entirely or mostly ignoring them, since they have no damage output to threaten.



I wonder about the kind of fights that a lot of people here have, because the stuff people describe boggles my mind. There's a lot of talk about a 'front line' and a 'back line' and how you can hold them solidly. And there was another thread where someone insisted that sunbeam, a 60' x 5' line, was not party friendly because you'd never be able to fire it without friendly fire. I wonder if people are just doing straight fights in 10' wide corridors with no adds and no interesting opponents, or if they're doing pure theorycraft.

What I run into in real games is vary varied - I recently had a T2 fight where our party was raiding an underground dock and had to fight across in a 150x200 area against a swarm of weak pirates with a few 'boss' types, plus a chimera flying in and invisible stalkers summoned at the back of the party. A couple of wees ago I was in a cool T1 climactic battle on a ship where we had to run around to rigging and steering to try and save the ship while Sahuagin climbed over the sides (all of them, not just one end) to attack us. It's pretty rare to see something ameanable to a clear front line and back line, and these are encounters in published AL modules.

That is because FAR too many people have been programmed with the MMO mentality of classes have roles and you have to use that role and that you need every role to run a dungeon or campaign.

There is no such thing as a front and back line because in this game there are VERY few ways to stop someone from moving past you in the first place.

If you are playing captain defense as a paladin/fighter/barbarian and you are the front line guy, you are still just getting in the way of one person, and only if they are melee.
- The caster does not care what you are doing, they just cast past or around you.
- The archer does not care because they don't have to go past you and if you are there you are not moving to them
- The second, third, and so on melee guys will just laugh at you as you attempt to stop them.

You get one reaction, if you use it to use protection for an ally, you have now given that enemy free reign to just move wherever they want, stopped yourself from getting a reaction attack, and are now clustered up with an ally for a nice AOE target.

If you want to be "front line" just take defense and Sentinel.

Unless you are fighting in a 5ft wide hallway protection is kind of Meh.

[CorporateSlave]

I don't understand this mentality. The PCs are not an army. They're not even much of a skirmishing force. There is no 'front line' or 'back line'. There is no 'holding the line' in 5e.


Ah, semantics. Ok I'll grant my choice of the specific word "line" may not have been ideal, but if you've seriously never had the party try to arrange the battlefield so that the casters/ranged fighters are back from the main melee in the middle, I'm not sure we're talking about the same game. (But I can see why that would make Protection seem so much better) If there's really no holding the line in 5e, I am sure curious exactly what all the fighters/monks/barbarians/paladins in all the 5e campaigns have been doing when they rush in and keep the enemies out of melee range of the casters and shooters...it sure felt like they were holding the line. Granted it didn't always work perfectly, but it was definitely a "thing."

Sure sometimes the bad guys make it around back because that's what DM's do. But unless you were totally AOE-diotically bunched up to begin with, the fighter is going to have to eat some OA's to get back there (dash?) and possibly still be in time to use his Protection to force Disadvantage on one attack.

I'll grant that Dueling / Archery are both vastly superior to both Defense and Protection as fighting styles go. But the quote I was discussing was debating the Defense/Protection choice specifically. I would certainly take Dueling first for melee and Archery for ranged, absolutely. Killing an enemy faster is obviously an even better way to protect both yourself and the back line (sorry for using the "l-word" again!).

Look, my first character took Protection, and it was a relatively long campaign. My DM even eventually allowed a magic item that extended it's range to 30' (!!!) Still barely ever found use though (either used my reaction for an OA or something else, or even with a range of 30' just wasn't close enough much). I feel like if you are getting a lot of use out of Protection, your DM is probably setting you up for it because those same enemies that "walk around and hit whoever" ought not be dumb enough to constantly ignore the fighter next to them to try and hit someone else at disadvantage every round. I had fun with it, which is most important I guess. But every time an enemy hit me hit me by 1 point...and every time I failed to drop them by 1 HP (our DM liked to tell us this) so they managed to attack me again, I felt like a moron for not taking a better fighting style.

[Jophiel]

One could say keeping your spirit guardians up would be a useful use of your turn if you were going to be attacked more than once in the upcoming round. Protection can only help you once at best. I know when I use spirit guardians I become a beacon to all enemies of "kill that guy" and if I am not careful losing my concentration is a very real possibility.
My usual group has a couple melees so enemies are usually engaged and the DM doesn't have all the bad guys ignore their combatants and charge me for casting a spell. Heavy armor+shield+Con Prof+Warcaster is almost always enough to keep me concentrating (note I didn't say the fighter was necessary, but that it's a welcome extra layer of protection when he's there). And for as rare as it is for me to drop concentration from an attack roll, the opportunity cost of passing on my turn to dodge versus doing something else doesn't really wash. Plus dodging is boring. This doesn't mean I won't dodge if three guys are on me or something but it's rarely my default choice.

More to the point, though, I also said that I wasn't claiming "protect the cleric" was why people should choose Protection but rather that the fighter seems to enjoy using the ability to actively help the group members versus taking a more passive ability. That alone is good enough reason if that's what the player likes to see themselves doing.

[PeteNutButter]

Protection Style is crud IMO. It's just such a lackluster use of the reaction. Maybe it'd be worth taking in a game without feats, but you're going to be better off taking Defense, or usually better, Dueling FS.

If you have an ally with low AC, the disadvantage on one hit will have little luck keeping them alive, and they aren't going usually be next to you. If you have an ally with high AC, then you don't want to discourage enemies from attacking them. It's a bit of a catch 22.

The best case scenario is if you have two melee focused PCs with reasonable AC, and the one with slightly higher is using protection style. Even then, the party would likely save more resources in the long run if the protection style character took defense or dueling instead.

[MagneticKitty]

If rather use my reaction on paladin oath of redemptions taking a hit for a friend. But I did run protection on my oath of vengeance paladin (my first character). It felt nice protecting them from a hut. Later when everything has multi attack it's not great.. I prefer heat metal for this job. Though might have to multiclass to get it.

[Snails]

There is no such thing as a front and back line because in this game there are VERY few ways to stop someone from moving past you in the first place.

I see that as the bigger problem with Protection. If I burn my Reaction, am I encouraging the enemy to move past me and choose my squishiest friend? Depends on the DM, but the answer is probably "yes", unfortunately.

The other thing is it does not scale. Giving the equivalent of +5 AC to my friend a few times a combat is good enough at low levels. But the value degrades over time with potentially more attacks coming in at higher level play. A fussy little trick I have to think about to benefit from should hold its value better, IMO.

[ad_hoc]

I see that as the bigger problem with Protection. If I burn my Reaction, am I encouraging the enemy to move past me and choose my squishiest friend? Depends on the DM, but the answer is probably "yes", unfortunately.


They can easily move past you anyway. OAs from PCs just aren't a big deal. And if they are then the foes are so weak that it doesn't matter what you're doing.

It depends on the DM like you said, but if the DM is not threatening the party then it doesn't matter what class choices the characters are making. They're going to easily win the fights anyway.

[GlenSmash!]

The way I've seen it work well is on one of a pair of melee attackers. A fighter supporting a Barbarian or other super-high DPR build. The enemy wants to take down the high DPR character first, and the Protection fighter makes that harder. Bonus points if the high DPR build has Sentinel.

Paladin using it to Protect the Wolf Totem Barbarian is my favorite combo for Protection.

[Corran]

The best case scenario is if you have two melee focused PCs with reasonable AC, and the one with slightly higher is using protection style. Even then, the party would likely save more resources in the long run if the protection style character took defense or dueling instead.
Even better if it's more than two melee focused PC's.
Protection might have some value in such parties, at least when compared to the defense fs. Where due to many melee pc's, the AC of just one PC wont be tested all that often, so it will take more ''time'' for defense than for protection to mitigate the same amount of damage. All that of course if you don't already have any better uses for your reaction (and taking into account Contrast's previous point about OA's, which in such a party they probably wouldn't be missed that much). Of course, this is probably an edge case and it has little to do with the norm of a dnd party.

[djreynolds]

Ask your DM to let you try it out?

I've let players change out fighting styles, just because who cares.

It tough, 4 to 5 people sit at a table, and you have no idea what everyone is making.

A fighter at level 1 has to know what they're doing in the first fight.... all the way to level 20.

I let players switch styles all the time, keeps them happy. Why not?

The game and players can change quickly, in game and IRL. A magic weapon found may change everything, be flexible.

[Snails]

They can easily move past you anyway. OAs from PCs just aren't a big deal. And if they are then the foes are so weak that it doesn't matter what you're doing.

Yes and no. :smalltongue:

IME Players and DMs alike tend to vastly overestimate the importance of OAs. By giving a DM a reason to leave that combatant there, I have given him a reason. The DM is looking for quick justifications to simplify his or her analysis of potential monster tactics. Any reason to not think about moving that monster is very useful, even if it does turn out to be only a small reason when illuminated by the bright lights of a carefully considered expected damage calculation weighed against the crunched numbers on the tactical advantages of being elsewhere.

[Snails]

Even better if it's more than two melee focused PC's.

I would say that is where the big value lies, because the PCs can tune their defenses on the fly. Did the Ranger get unlucky and was hit twice hard in the opening round? Doesn't matter! No one in the melee is going to touch him, except with Disadvantage. The Reactions become an actively managed resource to spread the risk/damage around the way that keeps the Party fighting at peek efficiency.

Really not for most groups of Players, though -- too fussy.

[LudicSavant]

They can easily move past you anyway. OAs from PCs just aren't a big deal. And if they are then the foes are so weak that it doesn't matter what you're doing. This really isn't true. At the very least, it's an overly hasty generalization. Sure, it doesn't matter much that that vanilla Champion fighter is OAing, but it matters a helluva lot when that buffed critfisher Warcaster Eldritch Smite / Booming Blader does, dealing massive damage and applying status effects while they're at it. There are a variety of ways to get OAs that make a big impact, whether it be in the form of damage, status effects, or both.

OAs only don't matter if your build isn't good at OAs.

[Corran]

I would say that is where the big value lies, because the PCs can tune their defenses on the fly. Did the Ranger get unlucky and was hit twice hard in the opening round? Doesn't matter! No one in the melee is going to touch him, except with Disadvantage. The Reactions become an actively managed resource to spread the risk/damage around the way that keeps the Party fighting at peek efficiency.

That's a clever way to look at it. Thanks for the perspective.

[LudicSavant]

I would say that is where the big value lies, because the PCs can tune their defenses on the fly. Did the Ranger get unlucky and was hit twice hard in the opening round? Doesn't matter! No one in the melee is going to touch him, except with Disadvantage. The Reactions become an actively managed resource to spread the risk/damage around the way that keeps the Party fighting at peek efficiency.

Really not for most groups of Players, though -- too fussy.

Yeah, this is how I've seen Protection used effectively. It's very much reliant on party composition and teamwork to get value.

[PeteNutButter]

I've seen a lot of groups kind of ease into the house rule of allowing it to reroll a hit instead of just imposing disadvantage.

DM: 23 Hits you.
Other player: Wait, can I use protection style!

It's one of those odd abilities that if the DM didn't give you a chance to use it, then they might feel obligated to let you after the fact. If that were just how it worked it'd feel a lot better, for both the player and DM. At least that way you'd know it helped, when it turns a hit into a miss.

[Pex]

Well, AC is worth more the more you have. That aside, how often do you see a glass cannon in melee? Finally, the difference between 'at will' and 'once per round at the cost of a reaction' is extreme.

Anecdotally, it's been my experience that Protection is very appealing to players, especially new players, but they quickly either forget that they have it or ask if they can change it.

There's no harm in using protection even for another warrior next to you. I agree it's the poorest fighting style, but protecting another warrior is still an ok thing to do when the squishie is safely away.

[MeeposFire]

Well I would agree if you have the style you should try to use it as much as possible. The effect can be good if you can get it to happen for you and your team.

[Corran]

The biggest problem with protection isn’t so much the ability as it is movement.

When I play the “movie” of how protection should work in my head, I see an armoured warrior running aloside her ally, using her shield to block the blows aimed at her friend.

The problem is that that’s not really how D&D works. Even if you want to fight “alongside” an ally at some point in battle you are going to have to move, and you can’t move together. The moment one of you makes a movement you break the five-foot distance and the feat no longer works.

It’s a neat visual, but doesn’t really work with the game mechanics.
Adding a half-speed move as part of the reaction seems like an intersting idea to me (so that you can move this distance if you want, before you get to apply disadvantage on the attack against the ally you rushed to protect).

''Get down!'' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhkv2sL2Uxw)
Only with a shield...

[Asmotherion]

Honestly enough it's not something you optimise around. You either get it as an option or leave it.

it's one of those things i feel they are rubish but it may as well be because i haven't tested it so i don't know any better. i just know i personally wouldn't touch it.

The list of limitations seem to me that they would come up far too often to ever occure to be a viable FS.

-A Creature i can See (So not one that is behind my back i suppose)
-A target other than me (sure because why would i ever profit from MY shield... but alright)
-Withith 5 feet (So i have to babysit backrow the whole encounter wile being the Tank... Strategically something seems off)
-Reaction (My characters always have something more useful to do with their reactions. That's not up to debate).

[Crgaston]

Honestly enough it's not something you optimise around. You either get it as an option or leave it.

it's one of those things i feel they are rubish but it may as well be because i haven't tested it so i don't know any better. i just know i personally wouldn't touch it.

The list of limitations seem to me that they would come up far too often to ever occure to be a viable FS.

-A Creature i can See (So not one that is behind my back i suppose)
-A target other than me (sure because why would i ever profit from MY shield... but alright)
-Withith 5 feet (So i have to babysit backrow the whole encounter wile being the Tank... Strategically something seems off)
-Reaction (My characters always have something more useful to do with their reactions. That's not up to debate).


So yep, you shouldn’t probably ever take it.

It’s one of those flavor things... Definitely not optimal. But it can be fun and effective with appropriate party composition and tactics.

Minor detail: there are no facing rules in 5e, so “a target you can see” just means if you’re not blinded or they’re not invisible.

[stoutstien]

So yep, you shouldn’t probably ever take it.

It’s one of those flavor things... Definitely not optimal. But it can be fun and effective with appropriate party composition and tactics.

Minor detail: there are no facing rules in 5e, so “a target you can see” just means if you’re not blinded or they’re not invisible.

Best tactics with it that I've seen is a BM fighter with it and rouge with sentinel. No good targets. When xans came out they rerolled the fighter to caviler so the protection style was replaced with defence but yes it worked ok.

[Skylivedk]

I would say that is where the big value lies, because the PCs can tune their defenses on the fly. Did the Ranger get unlucky and was hit twice hard in the opening round? Doesn't matter! No one in the melee is going to touch him, except with Disadvantage. The Reactions become an actively managed resource to spread the risk/damage around the way that keeps the Party fighting at peek efficiency.

Really not for most groups of Players, though -- too fussy.

That's not true. A lot of someones will be touching the ranger normally, in fact only the first strike from the first enemy will be at a disadvantage which means that if the enemies play just a bit like players (ie try to focus fire) the ranger is soon counting stars and death rolls.


Best tactics with it that I've seen is a BM fighter with it and rouge with sentinel. No good targets. When xans came out they rerolled the fighter to caviler so the protection style was replaced with defence but yes it worked ok.

Why Battlemaster? He already had reactions

[Crgaston]

That's not true. A lot of someones will be touching the ranger normally, in fact only the first strike from the first enemy will be at a disadvantage which means that if the enemies play just a bit like players (ie try to focus fire) the ranger is soon counting stars and death rolls.



Why Battlemaster? He already had reactions

Hit on BM, Parry
Miss on BM, Riposte.
Either way Rogue gets a Sentinel Attack too.

-or-

Attack on Rogue gets disadvantage from BM’s reaction. If it hits anyway, Rogue gets Uncanny Dodge.

[LudicSavant]

Protection is an ability that must be used with the proper party composition and strategy in order to be worth anything.

The most optimal use of Protection I've found is to help create a situation where enemies are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" and everyone in the party has layered defenses and there are no good targets, and you are not sacrificing your positioning to use it.

For example, if you're a EB-flinging Padlock, you can sit back and fling Repelling Blasts while standing in front of an ally who already has a half-decent AC, providing them cover (yep, creatures provide cover according to the PHB) + access to Protection + Paladin aura. That's a fairly tough nut to crack for something that isn't using any daily resources.


Why Battlemaster? He already had reactions

I'd assume it's as cgaston said; the goal is to create a situation where the enemy faces a poor situation with each possible outcome.

[Skylivedk]

I'd assume it's as cgaston said; the goal is to create a situation where the enemy faces a poor situation with each possible outcome.
My point was rather that the Battlemaster often would have great uses for their Reaction already; I wouldn't call it the optimal* build for Protection for this reason. The earlier suggestion for a Paladin makes more sense.

*Small grammar note. There is no most optimal, like there is no "most best". Optimal is already the best. In the same sense there's no "less optimal", but there is "less optimised".

[LudicSavant]

*Small grammar note. There is no most optimal, like there is no "most best". Optimal is already the best. In the same sense there's no "less optimal", but there is "less optimised".

Interesting. A habit from my computer science background, I'm afraid. I looked it up and it seems that there has been some debate about this, but the top answers I could find all seem to be rather akin to this one: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/114274.

Still, thanks for pointing this out. :smallsmile:

[Skylivedk]

Interesting. A habit from my computer science background, I'm afraid. I looked it up and it seems that there has been some debate about this, but the top answers I could find all seem to be rather akin to this one: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/114274.

Still, thanks for pointing this out. :smallsmile:

Thanks. I've been living in blissful ignorance then. My teachers (in math; different language, same word and issues) and parents used to be on my ass for this. Probably because they belong to those with a more conservative view on the English language:

"English grammar, in its truest sense, is not a set of rules. It's what proficient speakers say. If a community of proficient speakers have started saying more optimal then, within that speech community, more optimal is correct. Presumably, they consider optimal to be gradable.

However, in the more conservative / formal forms of English, optimal is non-gradable, and better optimized should be preferred."

Another poster mentions it is more illogical than a grammar flaw (or a lexical rather than a grammatical error as mentioned later) and the condescending a-hole who suggests using a dictionary didn't do that him-/herself not provided a reference. Google's own (which is exactly the same as the Living Oxford one):

"optimal
/ˈɒptɪm(ə)l/Submit
adjective
best or most favourable; optimum."

So my example with "more/most best" isn't off. Whichever, pardon my digression. If you still like saying more optimal, go ahead.

[LudicSavant]

Thanks. I've been living in blissful ignorance then. My teachers (in math; different language, same word and issues) and parents used to be on my ass for this.

I bet your parents would also give a hard time to the drafters of the Constitution for saying "in order to form a more perfect union," which is a rather similar case (since "perfect" also means "as good as it is possible to be"). :smallbiggrin:

If you would like additional sources, here's another: https://qr.ae/TUy1zZ

But anyways, back to the topic!


My point was rather that the Battlemaster often would have great uses for their Reaction already

What reaction do you have in mind? If their reaction requires them to be hit (a la Parry or Riposte), and the enemy hits someone else, then they don't get a reaction.

[Skylivedk]

I bet your parents would also give a hard time to the drafters of the Constitution for saying "in order to form a more perfect union," which is a rather similar case (since "perfect" also means "as good as it is possible to be"). :smallbiggrin:

But anyways, back to the topic!

What reaction do you have in mind? If their reaction requires them to be hit (a la Parry or Riposte), and the enemy hits someone else, then they don't get a reaction.

A) they definitely would if it were in Danish (more cannot mean closer to in Danish; thank you for the source! Much better than the other one); at the very least they would, with a time machine and chosen as consultants, have suggested another phrasing. My mother still ridicules journalists for bad use of language when they use double subjects in sentences "The President, he says..."

B) my point was that if you already have good/great Reaction uses then getting one more is not worth as much; also the odds of you having spent the Reaction on something else are higher. For example, you've first punished someone for the audacity of not just attacking you, but missing as well and then the very same someone decides to rearrange the face of your companion.

Of course you can choose to take other maneuvers, but Riposte is very tasty! And with that in mind, I would not opt for the Battlemaster as the optimal choice for Protection.

[LudicSavant]

And with that in mind, I would not opt for the Battlemaster as the optimal choice for Protection.

Thanks for the clarification. Personally that wouldn't be my preference either, which is why my suggestion was for a padlock instead.

Said padlock just sort of sits next to, say, a Nuclear Wizard (a great Hexblade 1/Evoker 19 build) who then has 21 passive AC and Disadvantage to be hit. And then if something actually hits them, they can spend a Shield to pop up to 26. And they simultaneously have great saves all around, and so forth.

Both swarms and single enemies will have poor DPR against either of them, and the Padlock wasn't getting extra damage on their eldritch blasts from Dueling anyways (and represents a relatively small fraction of their damage when they decide to smite), and their defense is very high even without the Defense fighting style. That's the sort of situation I see optimizers considering Protection.

As I've said before, it's very much a thing you only take on particular builds and party compositions. I've seen a lot of new players take it and just sort of... accomplish nothing with it. Sometimes less than nothing, because they sacrifice their positioning to use it!

[djreynolds]

Hello all,
I had a question regarding the fighting style protection.
I wanted to make a paladin that is all about protecting his fellow allies with everything he's got even at the cost of his own life. I was wondering if the fighting style protection is worth getting?
It gives disadvantage to an enemy that targets your ally if it takes place within 5 feet. Is this something that is useful or should I stay away from this?
Thank you

Let's compare this to duelist style and say 11th level

1 minute of combat, and the fighter hits every time.

So that's 2+2+2=6 times 10= 60points of damage. That's a lot of damage

Now let's give that fighter protection style and they can only use it twice.... and assuming it works twice... depends on what you are fighting

A CR 11, horned devil, can land 3 attacks, +10 to hit... its fork does 15 a hit... 30hp saved

So 60 damage vs 30hp saved.

Protection style's worth is based your party's play style, in early play it can save your butts but +2 damage vs orcs is nice also

At higher levels, its very likely a S&B fighter is landing most attacks and for protection.... sometimes disadvantage isn't as strong with creatures having +10 or higher to hit, but saving your buddy's bacon on a crit is huge

I'd stick with the duelist style, its just more dependable

[ad_hoc]

Let's compare this to duelist style and say 11th level

1 minute of combat, and the fighter hits every time.


They get Fighting Style at 1st level. So you are waiting 10 levels for a pay off which will probably never come anyway.

We're also discussing the Paladin.

I think most of the time Protection is better on a Paladin than Dueling. It could go either way on a Fighter due to many circumstances. In any case, Protection isn't a mistake.

The only Fighting Style I think is a mistake to take is Defense (unless it is your 2nd one).


A CR 11, horned devil, can land 3 attacks, +10 to hit... its fork does 15 a hit...

15 a hit on a CR 11 is pretty low.

[OverLordOcelot]

-A Creature i can See (So not one that is behind my back i suppose)

There's no facing in 5e - a creature you can't see is one who is invisible or obscured, or anyone while you're blinded.

[Corran]

The only Fighting Style I think is a mistake to take is Defense (unless it is your 2nd one).

Why do you think that? It does the same job as protection, which is damage mitigation. They just do it differently, and one aspect of this difference is that defense works best when protection does not, and vice versa. I'll admit that it is not easy to make accurate comparisons between the two, but I think that defense will end up on top most of the time. Simply because IMO it is not common to come across a situation (from a mechanical perspective) where protection's benefits would translate to something worth of investing a fighting style for it (when you compare it with what another fighting style would give you, that is).

[ad_hoc]

Why do you think that? It does the same job as protection, which is damage mitigation. They just do it differently, and one aspect of this difference is that defense works best when protection does not, and vice versa. I'll admit that it is not easy to make accurate comparisons between the two, but I think that defense will end up on top most of the time. Simply because IMO it is not common to come across a situation (from a mechanical perspective) where protection's benefits would translate to something worth of investing a fighting style for it (when you compare it with what another fighting style would give you, that is).

It doesn't matter if you're the last one alive because you're still going to die.

Keeping multiple characters alive is better than increasing the AC on the character who already has the highest AC (will be less likely to be targeted as a result).

[Skylivedk]

It doesn't matter if you're the last one alive because you're still going to die.

Keeping multiple characters alive is better than increasing the AC on the character who already has the highest AC (will be less likely to be targeted as a result).

I don't get this argument. If you use Protection on an ally, that person is probably already close to melee, so not super squishy. By using Protection, you've removed your own Attack of Opportunity. Haven't you just made it easier for players to run past your lines?

[djreynolds]

I don't get this argument. If you use Protection on an ally, that person is probably already close to melee, so not super squishy. By using Protection, you've removed your own Attack of Opportunity. Haven't you just made it easier for players to run past your lines?

Protection style can at lower levels prevent death, when you have 20hp a couple of hits can take you out.

And duelist style is very strong at lower levels also, you might roll a 4 on your flail, but the +3 from strength and +2 from duelist will make that a 9... and a kill

I wouldn't mind, and the idea was in the weapon master that Mr Mearles was working on, like a supreme style, but that would be cool.

At 11th level, really all the fighting styles lose steam but archery.

Its really tactics and team players, if you have a buddy in melee, grab protection.

But we all know how games go, some players leave and new players come in, so duelist is at least consistent.

So that's why I favor duelist is consistency. Defense is also good, +1 to AC is never a bad idea

[Corran]

It doesn't matter if you're the last one alive because you're still going to die.

Keeping multiple characters alive is better than increasing the AC on the character who already has the highest AC (will be less likely to be targeted as a result).
I get that keeping your allies alive is important. But protection's contribution to that effect, is not necessarily better than what defense does in that it helps you keep your own character alive (which is another member of your side after all). We have to make some assumptions regarding targeting in order to try and figure out which of the two will be more useful. So for example, if a high percentage of enemy dpr is testing one character, then defense is going to be a better fighting style than protection for that character. So if you disagree because you think that protection will be more useful most of the times, simply because having the bulk of the enemy attacks be targeted at one PC is an edge case, well, I can understand that (my experience shows the opposite, but in the end this comes down to how the DM handles enconters and also to other factors; with the DM being the most crucial of them I would say).

[ad_hoc]

I get that keeping your allies alive is important. But protection's contribution to that effect, is not necessarily better than what defense does in that it helps you keep your own character alive (which is another member of your side after all).

You're already going to be the last one alive most of the time because you have the highest AC. Adding more AC on top of that won't change that you're the last to die.


I don't get this argument. If you use Protection on an ally, that person is probably already close to melee, so not super squishy. By using Protection, you've removed your own Attack of Opportunity. Haven't you just made it easier for players to run past your lines?

If party gets to dictate what the enemy creatures do so much as to pick who gets attacked, then there is no real threat and it doesn't matter what options are taken.

The game is on easy mode so everything is good.

[Corran]

If party gets to dictate what the enemy creatures do so much as to pick who gets attacked, then there is no real threat and it doesn't matter what options are taken.

The game is on easy mode so everything is good.
Playing on an easier mode does not make 'making choices' or optimization obsolete though. It just changes the way you go about it.

Sometimes the players might also try to dictate who the enemy creatures attack by using the mechanics available to them. In which case, the second half of such a plan could very well be to have one (or a few) characters with as much AC boosts they can get their hands on.

Either way, it has to do with how enemy attacks are distributed against the pc's. That is if we are talking only about fighting styles. Because in actuality (and this is just how I look at it when making the decision for a character I am playing), there are other factors as well. Notably the following two. First, that you can rely on other ways to try and keep your allies alive (both regarding how enemy damage is distributed/mitigated and healed). Secondly, that you might have or planning to get other (and better) uses for your reaction (which by itself is enough to lower the value of the protection fs). Character building in 5e does not present you with a rediculously big number of choices, and certainly picking a fighting style is one of the relatively few choices you get to make about the character build you are playing. But if you arrange these choices by order of significance, well, I usually end up with the fighting style at the bottom of the list, meaning I will choose it after making the majority (if not all) of all the other choices I get to make. So, in this way, the value of small but passive benefits increases somewhat, simply because they are passive.

[ad_hoc]

Secondly, that you might have or planning to get other (and better) uses for your reaction (which by itself is enough to lower the value of the protection fs).

There are certainly cases where Protection isn't great.

That doesn't make Defense good.

All of the attack Fighting Styles are good for characters who will be making use of them. That is, they're all better than Defense (though Defense is worst w/a Shield).

All else being equal Protection is still good, the focus of the thread. I'm not saying it's the best Fighting Style. W/a Shield Duelist is certainly good too. It comes down to who your character is.

The only Fighting Style I think is bad is Defense.

[Corran]

There are certainly cases where Protection isn't great.

That doesn't make Defense good.

All of the attack Fighting Styles are good for characters who will be making use of them. That is, they're all better than Defense (though Defense is worst w/a Shield).

All else being equal Protection is still good, the focus of the thread. I'm not saying it's the best Fighting Style. W/a Shield Duelist is certainly good too. It comes down to who your character is.

The only Fighting Style I think is bad is Defense.
How do you determine though that defense is bad while dueling is good?
There can be cases where defense spares you from more damage than what dueling allows you to deal (I say ''deal'' because it's hard to estimate how much damage a 'damage boost' spares you from, but for the sake of the argument I am assuming that it will be roughly the same amount). Are you acknowleding that there can be cases where defense can be better than dueling and you are dismissing them because you consider them to be adge cases, or you dont think that's even possible?

[ad_hoc]

How do you determine though that defense is bad while dueling is good?
There can be cases where defense spares you from more damage than what dueling allows you to deal (I say ''deal'' because it's hard to estimate how much damage a 'damage boost' spares you from, but for the sake of the argument I am assuming that it will be roughly the same amount). Are you acknowleding that there can be cases where defense can be better than dueling and you are dismissing them because you consider them to be adge cases, or you dont think that's even possible?

Sparing damage matters little as long as the damage you are taking isn't likely to make you hit 0.

Not only are you less likely to be attacked because you are a fortress (plate+shield), when you are attacked you are not likely to be hit enough to threaten your HP total (plus with a d10 hit die you are likely to have more HP than the rest of the party too).

For example, it doesn't matter very much whether Tom the Fighter w/50 HP took 20, 30, or 40 damage that fight. Tom still has more than 0 HP which is what matters.

The likelihood that Defense is the difference between hitting 0 or not is very low. So in the vast majority of combats (possibly for the entire campaign) it is inconsequential, whether it had mitigated damage or not.

It doesn't matter how many HP you have left when everyone else is dead, you're still going to eventually die.

Defense isn't useless, it's just the worst Fighting Style.

[Corran]

Sparing damage matters little as long as the damage you are taking isn't likely to make you hit 0.
That's one way to look at it. Attrition is the other side of that coin. I think looking at it from an attrition perspective is more productive, and I will explain why just below.


The likelihood that Defense is the difference between hitting 0 or not is very low. So in the vast majority of combats (possibly for the entire campaign) it is inconsequential, whether it had mitigated damage or not.
I agree with that. But I also think this is the case for all others fighting styles (with the exception of archery, but lets not go into that). The impact fighting styles have during an encounter is so small (we can discuss this if you dont find it self evident) , that it's hardly of any value to measure them using the chances of winning or losing the encounter as a metric. Fighting styles were not designed to have that much of an effect in combat. I get that selecting a fighting style that boosts damage might seem more meaningful than one that just adds 1 point to AC, but at the end of the day the difference is not that big, and it can go in favor on either one depending on factors that you seem to consider fixed but I dont. And here is, I think, the source of whatever disagreement we might have. But to conclude what I was saying previously, I think it's far more meaningful to try and measure the impact fighting styles have in combat from an attrition perspective. That's a scale that allows for more clear comparisons.


Not only are you less likely to be attacked because you are a fortress (plate+shield), when you are attacked you are not likely to be hit enough to threaten your HP total (plus with a d10 hit die you are likely to have more HP than the rest of the party too).
If that's the case, then yes, defense is a poor choice as a fighting style, obviously. But that's an assumption, not a fact. If you are likely to be attacked often, defense gains value. So looking at it from as attrition, all it takes for defense to be better than dueling, is to have enough attacks target you so that the damage mitigated due to this extra point of AC is greater than the damage mitigated on your party by killing enemies faster because of the extra damage from dueling/gwf/twf (or compared by the extra damage dueling would allow us to do -which is probably not a great approximation but let's assume it is just to make our lives easier).

[djreynolds]

Defense is fine, its always on. +1AC and that can be significant.

Players at my table have murdered up and down the sword coast for +1 plate armor

The styles are about usage, there is a thread recently about a sentinel/protection tag team.... okay here protection is going to be awesome

Dueling at lower levels is awesome, +2 damage on an attack is lethal. But at 20th level is +8 damage that big? or for an 11th level paladin is +4 damage worth it when you have improved divine smite, smite, and smite spells?

Protection can stop a critical hit, that is huge at any level. But I have seen lots of players all spread out in melee seeking glory and with no one to protect.

It is really about team dynamics.

The thing about defense is it good for any style, and for a paladin any weapon layout. If you take duelist style, you are stuck S&B probably

The thing is a paladin shouldn't be relegated to weapon choices, especially if you are the only extra attack melee combatant, you don't need the damage from dueling you have smite, also you have the bless spell so even at 12th level when you come across a magic greatsword you can snag GWM and that's why defense might be the better choice.

Fighting styles, unless you are 100% sure... like an archer or TWF, can be a trap. Defensive style is good for any melee combatant

[Snails]

Protection can stop a critical hit, that is huge at any level. But I have seen lots of players all spread out in melee seeking glory and with no one to protect.

I know, I know. I have been in groups where the barbarian "man, why would anyone take Wolf when Bear is so much better!"
<sigh>

[djreynolds]

I know, I know. I have been in groups where the barbarian "man, why would anyone take Wolf when Bear is so much better!"
<sigh>

Right, its like playing a wizard and your just about to drop a fireball and everyone charges in....

I would really love to see a well-oiled team actually play, I would love to DM that.

[LudicSavant]

Right, its like playing a wizard and your just about to drop a fireball and everyone charges in....

I would really love to see a well-oiled team actually play, I would love to DM that.

It's a lot of fun to DM for. I hope you find such a group! :smallsmile:

I actually think it's tragic that so many people demonize "minmaxers" because the most fun group of roleplayers I've had the privilege of playing with and DMing for are also hardcore optimizers who pull out all the stops on team combos and the like. And it's a blast. Not to mention that I feel like it enhances the story, rather than detracts from it, when players are really invested in the struggles of their characters to survive and succeed.

I've never understood the objection that the DM can't keep up with the "overpowered" PCs. It's not like I'm on a budget for the challenges I can throw at them. I can scale up the difficulty infinitely.

[djreynolds]

It's a lot of fun to DM for. I hope you find such a group! :smallsmile:

We can hope. I even cue players and even nestle groups of mooks in small cluster, they just really "recklessly attack"

At least their wizard took evocation and has sculpt spell

[skerbgs]

Having played a squishy frontline fighter (monk/rogue), I always appreciated having the Paladin next to me ready to impose disadvantage.

[Snails]

We can hope. I even cue players and even nestle groups of mooks in small cluster, they just really "recklessly attack"

At least their wizard took evocation and has sculpt spell

I know your pain. "Why would anyone go Wolf when Bear is so much better?" <sigh>

[qube]

As someone who likes playing tanks, the question is quite easy. Yes, I feel protection is worth it.

I don't care if isn't "always on" - it's there when I need it.
I don't care the enemy can walk away without me taking an opportunity attack. I welcome him walking away (since I'm suing protection when the enemy is in a bad spot, ... yeah, move. PLEASE do.)
I don't care +1 AC on my towering AC is great - for it also makes enemies want to attack me even less. and I got hp up the wazoo anyway (goliath HAM fighter FTW).
That one point of AC is not worth it, if it's the difference between a cleric who needs to spend resources curing a downed ally vs one who can debuf the enemy.


In the end, I'm geared to take it like a boss. my allies aren't.
Protection encourages enemies to ply my game - not theirs.

That makes it worth it. Simple as that.

-------------------

Also, to the people who think that a single opportunity attack is sufficient to keep a monster at bay.
... you do realise that they guy you're guarding can still make his opportunity attack, right?


Well, the fighter used his reaction, so now I can just walk around this fighter & rogue and *gurgle*
*drops dead*
Rogue: wans't me *bluff check*

[Skylivedk]

You're already going to be the last one alive most of the time because you have the highest AC. Adding more AC on top of that won't change that you're the last to die.



If party gets to dictate what the enemy creatures do so much as to pick who gets attacked, then there is no real threat and it doesn't matter what options are taken.

The game is on easy mode so everything is good.

Correction: should have been players running by.

It's presumptuous of you to write that I play on easy mode. There's many ways to make enemies have to deal with the high AC characters: positioning, battlefield control and visibility being top of the list. That make that 1ac worth a lot and losing your reaction very bad. YMMV

[qube]

Correction: should have been players running by.

It's presumptuous of you to write that I play on easy mode. There's many ways to make enemies have to deal with the high AC characters: positioning, battlefield control and visibility being top of the list. That make that 1ac worth a lot and losing your reaction very bad. YMMVCan you elaborate, 'cause I feel you're either in a Shrodinger's box, or try to act as though a very specific senario is something common. How can you have gotten yourself in a situation where both
the enemy can attack an adjacent ally (a.k.a. you're in a situation where a protection fighting style fighter would lose his reaction to give disadvantage)
the enemy wants move away and attack someone else (since, apparently, you want to keep your reaction for if he triggers an OA)
your opportunity attack actually matters (Seriously, if you as monster got 100 hp, soaking 1d8+4 to shred the wizard is morth then worth it)
the enemy attacks you (a.k.a. you're in a situation that that +1 AC is worth anything)
AND somehow that +1 AC is worth "a lot" *

* in a void, +1 AC is a lot on a high AC, because of the increasing return (getting hit on a 19+ vs 20-only, is a 50% means getting hit 50% less) - but when you take into account hp, that's not a "huge boost", but "icying on the cake" - you'll already have more then enough hp to tank with a 19+ so, getting hit even is from a certain optic meaningless.

[OverLordOcelot]

It's presumptuous of you to write that I play on easy mode. There's many ways to make enemies have to deal with the high AC characters: positioning, battlefield control and visibility being top of the list. That make that 1ac worth a lot and losing your reaction very bad. YMMV

Like I said earlier, people online seem to be playing very different 5e games than I am. It sounds like you're routinely fighting in very cramped corridors against enemies without things like reach, ranged attacks, unusual movement, or spells. But when I think of the hard fights I've been involved in, they often involve open spaces, flying or teleporting enemies, multiple opponents, opponents using stealth/invisibility, and opponents who aren't limited to just melee. There's only so much you can do, especially when it takes a round or two before you can land battlefield control spells past the bulk counterspelling. I just don't see how you consistently force the opponents to concentrate AC attacks on high AC characters when you have enemies using tactics and either a good number of enemies (1-2 per PC) or single tough opponents like a mummy lord, who has what's effectively a teleport.

[djreynolds]

I gotta say there has been a great argument made for a paladin and protection style.

1. S&B paladin can still smite, lot of damage and can let the fighter and barbarian run with GWM
2. Duelist style +2 for a paladin isn't a big deal with smite, so perhaps protection makes a better choice.

But I value defensive styles +1,
Would you rather have an 18 strength or 20 strength... it's only +1 to your attack
If that + 1 in your attack stat is that strong, I've seen up wards of 10% increase in attacks landed, wouldn't you want +1 to defense?

At my table I let players change them out, really, because it allows for growth

But arguments for both sides have been really enlightening, especially for paladin's and protection style

[qube]

If that + 1 in your attack stat is that strongSigh, I actually quite dislike it when people spread this myth. It's actually not "that strong", in fact, in quite possible it's inferior to what is commonly considered the lowest boost, namely +1 damage
55% hit chance, 1d8+4 = avr 4.475 (incl. the 5% crit chance)
50% hit chance, 1d8+5 = avr 4.5 (incl. the 5% crit chance)

+2 STR, OTOH, obvious does both; which results in a a kwadratic boost to average damage.

[GlenSmash!]

+2 STR, OTOH, obvious does both; which results in a a kwadratic boost to average damage.

Quadratic?

Or is this a joke I'm not aware of.

[djreynolds]

+1 to hit, not just +1 to damage.

+1 to hit. It will increase your overall damage output per day. Just more attacks hitting

So +1 to A.C. is the reversal to that +1 to hit.

It may not be a noticeable increase in damage throughout the day, but it's something.

Protection style can be very powerful, but for me it's big draw back is it forces you to be S&B.

Defensive style allows for any weapon layout.

[Snails]

Protection style can be very powerful, but for me it's big draw back is it forces you to be S&B.

Defensive style allows for any weapon layout.

That is fair; defense is the most flexible.

I can see there are many builds and certain parties for which Protection would be a poor choice. I just do not believe that it is never a good choice.

If averages were all that mattered, the PCs win every battle without picking up the dice. Tactics are about making good results and good luck more likely, while mitigating bad luck. Protection potentially smooths out bad luck, so if you can employ it effectively it is actually more valuable than simple averages suggest.

Not every party can make good use of Protection, as I already said.

[ad_hoc]

If averages were all that mattered, the PCs win every battle without picking up the dice. Tactics are about making good results and good luck more likely, while mitigating bad luck. Protection potentially smooths out bad luck, so if you can employ it effectively it is actually more valuable than simple averages suggest.


This is one of many factors people overlook when attempting to 'optimize'.

It's not just about simple math.

[Corran]

I gotta say there has been a great argument made for a paladin and protection style.

1. S&B paladin can still smite, lot of damage and can let the fighter and barbarian run with GWM
2. Duelist style +2 for a paladin isn't a big deal with smite, so perhaps protection makes a better choice.

Sentinel is a great pick for many paladins. And it competes for your reaction, so if you pick it, then that takes value away from protection. Defense fs helps a little with giving you sentinel attacks on a more regular basis. Being able to make sentinel attacks on a regular basis also adds value to dueling.

Even without sentinel, paladins have the ability to threaten with strong opportunity attacks, cause they can add to them the damage from IDS and smites. Yes, smites use spell slots, so you cannot smite infinitely. But opportunity attacks are usually a good time to smite. Because when someone leaves your reach to go after your casters, you want that person dead faster than the enemies that are sticking next to you and who try to beat your 20-21 AC.

Nothing is fixed and no fighting style is bad, until you know your allies. In a party with many melee tough-ish allies (and assuming I am not planning for sentinel), I would take protection. Firstly because OA's dont matter much in such a party, secondly because as it was said previously, because protection then becomes a way of distributing risk/damage a bit more evenly across your melee allies, whom you want up and conscious so that the party will keep going on maximum efficiency (no downed character). But in a party with few tanks (many casters/ skirmishers/ archers), I would avoid protection (and I'd go with one of the other fighting styles), because of the exact opposite reasons. That is, the less less value to mitigate some damage on the fighter standing next to me, because it's only me that is sharing the tanking burden with that fighter. There is less value in me using my reaction with protection, when OA's will be important for me in this set up. There is even less incentive for the fighter to stick and fight next to me (to make any use of protection), because with many squishy characters the tankier ones might need to spread in order to answer emergency type of situations (eg 2 enemies managed to get next to the wizard and I need to go over there asap and smite them, or lay on hands the wizard, or whatever).

I'd add, and this is based purely on opinion and experience and not on anything I would call solid fact, that the times where one plays at a party where protection would be the best choice are relatively few. Because IMO you need many melee and tanky enough allies to make good use of it.

[LudicSavant]

There seems to be this premise bandied about that the person selecting a fighting style is already going to have the highest AC, despite not investing in abilities that boost their AC beyond their base kit (like Defense). I think that's quite a hasty assumption. That Sorlock in the back line has a 19 base AC and plenty of slots for Shield, Absorb Elements, and bigger defensive spells. That Cleric over there is a Hill Dwarf who bumped up to 18 Con when they took Resilient (Constitution) and is wearing plate and a shield, has Defensive Duelist (because dwarves can dump strength while wearing plate), and has a bevy of powerful defensive spells. The Arcane Trickster is a tank in their own right when targeting them is even an option. Often the party will be imposing Disadvantage without the aid of Protection. And so on and so forth.

Personally, I've played at tables where a person whose defenses consist of just plate, a shield, and a d10 hit die would actually be the party's squishiest member when it comes to AC-targeting attacks.


Like I said earlier, people online seem to be playing very different 5e games than I am. It sounds like you're routinely fighting in very cramped corridors against enemies without things like reach, ranged attacks, unusual movement, or spells. But when I think of the hard fights I've been involved in, they often involve open spaces, flying or teleporting enemies, multiple opponents, opponents using stealth/invisibility, and opponents who aren't limited to just melee. There's only so much you can do, especially when it takes a round or two before you can land battlefield control spells past the bulk counterspelling. I just don't see how you consistently force the opponents to concentrate AC attacks on high AC characters when you have enemies using tactics and either a good number of enemies (1-2 per PC) or single tough opponents like a mummy lord, who has what's effectively a teleport.

So let's take the example of the Mummy Lord and their "teleport." Let's even say that they successfully used that to get past you, despite the fact that it actually cannot get past various tanking abilities, like Sentinel.

Now, that teleport took 2 legendary actions. If they had just attacked the person in melee with them already instead of teleporting, they would have gotten 2 extra attacks. What this means is that the new target not only has to be less durable than the melee fighter to be the "correct target," they have to be less durable by enough that 2 extra attacks (or anything else they can do with Legendary actions) wouldn't make up the difference. For spellcasters with Misty Step it's often even worse; they've used up their spell for the turn. That's a serious opportunity cost that may well offset any benefit they get from targeting someone with a slightly lower AC.

This is before we even really get into the kinds of abilities and strategies good tank builds can use to really throw a monkey wrench into the enemy's decision tree, but it is already sufficient to falsify the premise that a character with a lower AC is necessarily a better target, and demonstrates how one character's durability can be leveraged in a way that offsets a difference in durability between two or more characters. Don't get me wrong, it's possible for players to over-invest in AC when other options could be more beneficial for their particular situation, but taking Defense doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing that.

_______

So what about all those other, less specific things you mentioned?

Flying enemies? That often puts the enemy in a more precarious position when in melee with a proper tank, not a less precarious one. That Aarakocra tries to leave your space and gets reduced to zero by Sentinel or Eldritch Smite or Tripping Attack or any of a number of other things, and they fall. What if they were a mage concentrating on keeping themselves aloft? They have to make Concentration checks or fall! Someone else holding then aloft? Then you can use dispel, or just go hit that someone else.

Ranged enemies? If an enemy is in melee with you, they have Disadvantage on all ranged attacks (and also can't better angle their attacks for getting around cover and the like). They need to get out of melee range with you, with all of the attendant consequences of trying to do that.

Stealth/Invisibility? If you can't see the creature attacking, Protection doesn't work, while Defense does.

Enemies who use something other than AC targeting attacks? Then Protection isn't going to defend people any more than Defense is.

Open spaces? All of the stuff I just mentioned applies in open spaces. If anything, open spaces open up some new kiting options for your allies.

Swarming foes? Protection applies to only a single enemy attack.



Nothing is fixed and no fighting style is bad, until you know your allies.

This. Whether Protection or Defense is best will depend on your build and party composition.

[opaopajr]

I don't get this argument. If you use Protection on an ally, that person is probably already close to melee, so not super squishy. By using Protection, you've removed your own Attack of Opportunity. Haven't you just made it easier for players to run past your lines?

You are assuming things. :smallamused: Protection also works on ranged attacks, as long as: a) you can see who is attacking, b) it is a target other than you, but within 5' of you.

"Protection: When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield."

Yup, that means you can protect nouns (a person, place, thing), be it the attack is melee or ranged, weapon or spell. :smallsmile: Caster's Firebolt targeting the landlady's roses next to you? Yeah, you can Protection that. :smalltongue:

[Skylivedk]

Can you elaborate, 'cause I feel you're either in a Shrodinger's box, or try to act as though a very specific senario is something common. How can you have gotten yourself in a situation where both
the enemy can attack an adjacent ally (a.k.a. you're in a situation where a protection fighting style fighter would lose his reaction to give disadvantage)
the enemy wants move away and attack someone else (since, apparently, you want to keep your reaction for if he triggers an OA)
your opportunity attack actually matters (Seriously, if you as monster got 100 hp, soaking 1d8+4 to shred the wizard is morth then worth it)
the enemy attacks you (a.k.a. you're in a situation that that +1 AC is worth anything)
AND somehow that +1 AC is worth "a lot" *

* in a void, +1 AC is a lot on a high AC, because of the increasing return (getting hit on a 19+ vs 20-only, is a 50% means getting hit 50% less) - but when you take into account hp, that's not a "huge boost", but "icying on the cake" - you'll already have more then enough hp to tank with a 19+ so, getting hit even is from a certain optic meaningless.

1) Forced movement first, split allies. Any kind of darkness, blinding effect, etc.
2) Sentinel is a top of the line feat for melee tanks.
3) Again, Sentinel, but also OAs with Smite, Sneak Attack, Booming Blade or other spell (from Warcaster - quite normal on Padlocks, Sorcadins, Baradins etc.).
4) Again, Sentinel; high DPS from other features (manoeuvres, GWM, Smite, etc.)

I'm not saying it's useless, just that you and your melee buddy have to fight in a very specific way, which has to be matched by the opponents NOT doing it and that the Action Economy opportunity cost can be significant. I'm happy to see the use on Paladins: It has made me actually consider the feat for some builds, whereas before I had put it to the back of my mind. Mostly for Conquest Paladins though, since most other Paladins I probably want to multi into a Cha spell-caster and then I have more fun with Warcaster or Reaction spells.


Like I said earlier, people online seem to be playing very different 5e games than I am. It sounds like you're routinely fighting in very cramped corridors against enemies without things like reach, ranged attacks, unusual movement, or spells. But when I think of the hard fights I've been involved in, they often involve open spaces, flying or teleporting enemies, multiple opponents, opponents using stealth/invisibility, and opponents who aren't limited to just melee. There's only so much you can do, especially when it takes a round or two before you can land battlefield control spells past the bulk counterspelling. I just don't see how you consistently force the opponents to concentrate AC attacks on high AC characters when you have enemies using tactics and either a good number of enemies (1-2 per PC) or single tough opponents like a mummy lord, who has what's effectively a teleport.

Not really. See above. And also below from Ludic Servant. Depends on party composition. I DM a campaign where the main party members (lvl 9) are:
Openhanded Monk (8) / Ranger (1)
Sorcadin
Forge Cleric/Abjurer
Wolfbarian

- often aided by Diviner (2)/Arcane Trickster (7), sometimes a Battlemaster/Rogue
In this party, Protection is bad for everybody who can take it. It might have been OK for the Sorcadin, but since he is in reality one of the most vulnerable (not squishy) in the party, and the only one he could really defend can spend 1 ki-point and outdo Protection, it would have been a horrible pick. Also, he prefers having reactions to either punish people, Shield or use Absorb Elements.

I play as a Gnome Illusionist with a Cavalier, a Sword Bard and a Shepherd druid. - not a viable option for the Cavalier.



Sigh, I actually quite dislike it when people spread this myth. It's actually not "that strong", in fact, in quite possible it's inferior to what is commonly considered the lowest boost, namely +1 damage
55% hit chance, 1d8+4 = avr 4.475 (incl. the 5% crit chance)
50% hit chance, 1d8+5 = avr 4.5 (incl. the 5% crit chance)

+2 STR, OTOH, obvious does both; which results in a a kwadratic boost to average damage.

It is NOT a 5% increase in most cases. Considering the amount of riders melee classes usually throw around, that extra hit chance has an added value which is harder to compute. I do agree though that often you want the riders/special effects from feats before the stat increase (GWM, PAM, Sentinel, Warcaster, Mobile, etc.). Also the feats are, IMO and IMX, more fun.


There seems to be this premise bandied about that the person selecting a fighting style is already going to have the highest AC, despite not investing in abilities that boost their AC beyond their base kit (like Defense). I think that's quite a hasty assumption. That Sorlock in the back line has a 19 base AC and plenty of slots for Shield, Absorb Elements, and bigger defensive spells. That Cleric over there is a Hill Dwarf who bumped up to 18 Con when they took Resilient (Constitution) and is wearing plate and a shield, has Defensive Duelist (because dwarves can dump strength while wearing plate), and has a bevy of powerful defensive spells. The Arcane Trickster is a tank in their own right when targeting them is even an option. Often the party will be imposing Disadvantage without the aid of Protection. And so on and so forth.

[SNIP]
So what about all those other, less specific things you mentioned?

[SNIP Great examples]

Whether Protection or Defense is best will depend on your build and party composition.

Co-sign

[MThurston]

I wish it said the following.

Any enemy with in 5 ft of you that makes an attack must target you. If you are not targeted, you can use your reaction to attack the enemy before they make their attack. If the target is dropped to zero HPs they do not get to attack.

[djreynolds]

All the styles are good.

And there are times when you will not a style. There are times when an archer will have to break out the sword and shield.

Everyone has given awesome theory about how good protection is or is not.

And remember, fighter 1 level to grab another style.

Good luck

[MThurston]

What about Booming Blade to keep peoole from wanting to move?

[CorporateSlave]

Players at my table have murdered up and down the sword coast for +1 plate armor


Right?!? "The Haters" will say that's completely different though...

Protection might be effective as a primary fighting style for certain party builds that are set up to maximize its use. In the party my PC had Protection, it's use came up very infrequently, and that was with me actively trying to set up for it to be useful (justified from an RP perspective), and the DM taking pity on my choice and extending the range to 30' with a magic item.

Defense is generally better as a second fighting style, if you have some way to pick it up, but remains useful much more often and in more situations. When you got that AC pumped up so an enemy needs (for example) an 17-18-19-20 to hit you and you can bump it by 1 more, that's not a 5% decrease in to hit chance, it is 25%. Still probably better to hit harder in the first place though.

Granted this is just my opinion (based on experience as a player in multiple campaigns), but if you're getting more than the slightest bit of use out of Protection, your DM is probably taking it easy on you and setting it up to work. As a PC I always found ways to position around this sort of ability in an enemy. If the NPC's generally aren't...well...

[OverLordOcelot]

So let's take the example of the Mummy Lord and their "teleport." Let's even say that they successfully used that to get past you, despite the fact that it actually cannot get past various tanking abilities, like Sentinel.

First, no one specified sentinel, so suddenly bringing it up while snidely commenting that it wasn't accounted for is just silly. Second, the claim is completely wrong. The 'convert to dust' ability gives a 60' move, which can simply detour to go AROUND a character with sentinel. If sentinel character is already in melee and the room is cramped, then odds are the mummy can simply stay in reach of sentinel guy while walking to the target he wants. If not, then the mummy lord just moves past the sentinel character on his turn. If the sentinel guy hits him to freeze him, then attacks or casts a spell on his turn, then uses the legendary action to move where he wants to go on the next initiative tick, and sentinel guy has no reaction to stop him. If the sentinel guy doesn't hit him, then he just strolls to where he wants to go.

Also, if you're planning on doing something like "Tank stands in the doorway, squishy guy stands in the back", remember that mummy lords are generally in tombs, which are known for traps. It's really not uncommon for a fight like that to involve the door closing, which is going to turn your clever positioning into "hope the tank can solo the enemy". That's part of why I get the impression that people online must either be playing really easy games or doing pure white room analysis, I would never go into a tomb expecting that there is no way the door could be sealed by a powerful enemy during combat.


Now, that teleport took 2 legendary actions. If they had just attacked the person in melee with them already instead of teleporting, they would have gotten 2 extra attacks. What this means is that the new target not only has to be less durable than the melee fighter to be the "correct target," they have to be less durable by enough that 2 extra attacks (or anything else they can do with Legendary actions) wouldn't make up the difference.

A good example of a target that's clearly worth this is someone who appears to be the only wizard or cleric in the party, as they're likely to be the only ones able to cast remove curse. If the mummy lord can take down that one character, then the party has no way to cure the curse his hits have inflicted, and even if they 'win' in the short term the mummy's curse will lead them to join the Mummy Lord in death within a few days. Or if there's only one person using fire attacks, cutting their doubled damage out is likely worth two attacks on a high AC character.


For spellcasters with Misty Step it's often even worse; they've used up their spell for the turn. That's a serious opportunity cost that may well offset any benefit they get from targeting someone with a slightly lower AC.

Why would a caster that doesn't have a strong melee attack misty step into melee with someone? If a caster who doesn't want to melee someone is using spells to teleport into melee range, then the DM is just playing him incredibly stupidly.


This is before we even really get into the kinds of abilities and strategies good tank builds can use to really throw a monkey wrench into the enemy's decision tree, but it is already sufficient to falsify the premise that a character with a lower AC is necessarily a better target,

I'm not sure why you're writing that in response to me, I never claimed that a character with a lower AC is necessarily a better target, and I don't believe the premise. Falisfying something I didn't say and don't believe is pretty pointless, you may as well 'prove' that water is wet. What I quoted and disagreed with was the claim that "There's many ways to make enemies have to deal with the high AC characters: positioning, battlefield control and visibility being top of the list." I am disagreeing with the premise that it's easy to force enemies to fight high AC characters instead of low AC characters, whether the enemy wants to target low AC enemies in the first place is a seperate question that depends on circumstances.


Flying enemies? That often puts the enemy in a more precarious position when in melee with a proper tank, not a less precarious one... Ranged enemies? If an enemy is in melee with you, they have Disadvantage on all ranged attacks (and also can't better angle their attacks for getting around cover and the like). Stealth/Invisibility? If you can't see the creature attacking, Protection doesn't work, while Defense does.

Flying enemies played intelligently will attack targets of their choice instead of flying straight to the tank and putting themselves in a 'precarious position'. If they have flyby they'll only end their turn in melee when they want to. Ranged enemies played intelligently won't all bunch up and allow you to be in melee with all of them at once. Stealthed enemies will pick their target, then reveal themselves when they attack. This idea that tanks are somehow in 15 different places on the battlefield at once with unlimited reactions to punish every enemy everywhere is just silly.


Enemies who use something other than AC targeting attacks? Then Protection isn't going to defend people any more than Defense is. Swarming foes? Protection applies to only a single enemy attack.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I was arguing for protection over defense, when in fact I have done no such thing. None of this protection vs defense stuff that you're posting indicates how the tank is going to force people to attack the high AC target over the lower one, which is the claim I disagreed with.


Open spaces? All of the stuff I just mentioned applies in open spaces. If anything, open spaces open up some new kiting options for your allies.

Kiting doesn't work against an enemy that is faster than you, has ranged attacks, or can stop your movement. And, again, it doesn't actually force the enemy to attack the high AC character over a low AC one.

[PastorofMuppets]

It has saved 2 members of the game I’m in several times over sonid say its good

[Pex]

2. Duelist style +2 for a paladin isn't a big deal with smite, so perhaps protection makes a better choice.



It is a big deal when the paladin isn't smiting.

[Man_Over_Game]

After looking at each of the fighting styles, I think each of them fit a role:


Archery: Your team has plenty of melee defense and could use more ranged offense
Defense: You are the team's primary melee combatant and you expect to be attacked a lot.
Dueling: Your team needs a slightly more durable front line.
Great Weapon Fighting: Your team has a durable front line but needs more damage. You need your Bonus Action. Your team does not need more ranged combatants.
Protection: Your team has a lot of melee damage but it needs some durability to keep them alive.
Two-Weapon Fighting: Your team has a durable front line but needs more damage. You do not need your Bonus Action. Your team may need more ranged combatants.


However, I find that most players prefer to play ranged characters, which causes options like Protection and Two-Weapon Fighting to fall behind in power (as they are best in melee-focused teams). Naturally, things like Defense or Dueling are going to see more use when the character in question is one of the only melee combatants.

[Snails]

I would put it this way...

Protection vs Defense (or other) is much like the question of Wolf totem vs. Bear totem.

If it is obvious to you that Wolf totem is the most awesome, it is probably because you have a party where 3+ meleeists are clustering up to rip the enemy apart -- Protection will be easy to use effectively.

If it is obvious to you that Bear totem is the most awesome, it is probably because you have a party where the ability to solo and not need rescuing for a few rounds is valuable -- Protection will prove worthless.

[stoutstien]

It has saved 2 members of the game I’m in several times over sonid say its good
how do you know that you saved them? you dont know if the attack was even going to hit before you use it?

[LudicSavant]

First, no one specified sentinel, so suddenly bringing it up while snidely commenting that it wasn't accounted for is just silly. Second, the claim is completely wrong. The 'convert to dust' ability gives a 60' move, which can simply detour to go AROUND a character with sentinel.

Both of these are straw man arguments.

First of all, I didn't say anyone specified sentinel, least of all you. I commented on the fact that my example would not be accounting for various tanking abilities that could counteract the mummy's ability (with Sentinel being an example of one such ability), and would simply assume that the mummy succeeds for the sake of simplicity.

Second, my position is that if you are engaged in melee with a Mummy Lord, Sentinel would be able to interrupt the movement of their Whirlwind of Sand. I don't think that was unclear to anyone. And that claim is completely accurate.

Finally, I have taken time out of my day to attempt to answer the questions you raised, in the interest of trying to be helpful to you, and am now being insulted and called "snide" for it. I would be appreciative if we could have a respectful conversation with each other. Thank you.


If sentinel character *snip*

My argument stipulated only that the Mummy Lord uses their teleport ability to successfully bypass the tank. No other steps are required for the point to be made (e.g. that the optimal target is not necessarily the one with the lowest AC, and that a character with a higher AC does not need to actually force an enemy's choice in order to be targeted).


A good example of a target that's clearly worth this is someone who appears to be the only wizard or cleric in the party, as they're likely to be the only ones able to cast remove curse. If the mummy lord can take down that one character, then the party has no way to cure the curse his hits have inflicted, and even if they 'win' in the short term the mummy's curse will lead them to join the Mummy Lord in death within a few days. Or if there's only one person using fire attacks, cutting their doubled damage out is likely worth two attacks on a high AC character.

Yes. Of course, the character with Remove Curse or fire attacks could just as easily be the tank as anyone else (especially since we've been focusing on Paladins for much of the thread, who can remove curse).


Why would a caster that doesn't have a strong melee attack misty step into melee with someone? If a caster who doesn't want to melee someone is using spells to teleport into melee range, then the DM is just playing him incredibly stupidly. I said nothing whatsoever about Misty Stepping into melee with someone. In fact, I had the exact opposite in mind: Misty Stepping out of melee.


Flying enemies played intelligently will attack targets of their choice instead of flying straight to the tank and putting themselves in a 'precarious position'.
I said nothing whatsoever about enemies flying to the tank, either.

Again, I had the exact opposite in mind: The tank would engage the enemies, rather than the other way around.


I'm not sure why you're writing that in response to me, I never claimed that a character with a lower AC is necessarily a better target

And, again, it doesn't actually force the enemy to attack the high AC character over a low AC one.

I just don't see how you consistently force the opponents to concentrate AC attacks on high AC characters

The point being made is that you do not have to "actually force" an enemy to attack a high AC character. It is sufficient for there to be tactical costs that offset the benefits of attacking a lower AC character.

Perhaps this will make my position clearer to you:


I have repeatedly said that the manner by which you tank in D&D 5e, as in most human vs human games with tanking roles, isn't via a World of Warcraft style hijacking of the enemy and forcing them to attack you, let alone only your armor class. So I don't know why you're talking about that or asking for me to post links to how to do that.

Doesn't matter whether it's Reinhardt in Overwatch, Asana in Atlas Reactor, Warriors in Guild Wars PvP, or Nautilus in League of Legends. These characters are all tanks, and they're all good at it, and not a single one of them actually forces enemy targeting

[CorporateSlave]

how do you know that you saved them? you dont know if the attack was even going to hit before you use it?

Conceivably, the DM could just be rolling one d20 twice for disadvantage, and if the first roll came up 20, then the reroll 5, you could certainly say the disadvantage "saved" the PC from the hit.

[stoutstien]

Conceivably, the DM could just be rolling one d20 twice for disadvantage, and if the first roll came up 20, then the reroll 5, you could certainly say the disadvantage "saved" the PC from the hit.
Fair point.

[mephnick]

It's very thematic for a group willing to RP their characters in combat instead of going for the optimal decision every time. I had one Paladin use it to great effect to protect a more frail party member he had sworn to protect. It was a great bond between the characters and really livened up combat.

Unfortunately, once the grid comes out characters seem to vanish and be replaced with stat sheets and pawns.

[Angelalex242]

I see no reason to use it when I'm using Sentinel anyway.

I get but one reaction, I'd rather use it reducing an enemy's movement to 0 for attacking anyone that isn't me. Or trying to run away from me.

[opaopajr]

It's very thematic for a group willing to RP their characters in combat instead of going for the optimal decision every time. I had one Paladin use it to great effect to protect a more frail party member he had sworn to protect. It was a great bond between the characters and really livened up combat.

Unfortunately, once the grid comes out characters seem to vanish and be replaced with stat sheets and pawns.

It is a tragedy of our times. :smallfrown:

I am fascinated how no one contemplates about alternate combinations. A squishy caster concentrating on a helpful spell (Bane?), a Fighter with Protection and Javelins traveling as a linked pair. Attack & defense, at the same time, while roleplaying a social relationship. It's possible, because 5e wants all editions to play at the same table. :smalltongue:

[stoutstien]

It is a tragedy of our times. :smallfrown:

I am fascinated how no one contemplates about alternate combinations. A squishy caster concentrating on a helpful spell (Bane?), a Fighter with Protection and Javelins traveling as a linked pair. Attack & defense, at the same time, while roleplaying a social relationship. It's possible, because 5e wants all editions to play at the same table. :smalltongue:

In my view protection is even more gamey than any of the other fighting styles. The 5-foot range really hammers down grid positioning.
Does give an interesting idea. what if we allowed up to half your movement speed as part of the same reaction too protective an ally?

[Cynthaer]

It's very thematic for a group willing to RP their characters in combat instead of going for the optimal decision every time. I had one Paladin use it to great effect to protect a more frail party member he had sworn to protect. It was a great bond between the characters and really livened up combat.

Unfortunately, once the grid comes out characters seem to vanish and be replaced with stat sheets and pawns.

Similarly, I have a paladin who (for personal reasons) really wants to be, and to be seen as, a heroic protector.

It may well be the case that that Defense or Dueling are mechanically superior fighting styles over the long term with her party's composition, but that doesn't really matter, because neither of those let her heroically block an attack that was headed for someone else.

In the end, that's all there is to it for me. Whether Protection is a weaker or more situational fighting style, the fact remains that no other style is better at doing the specific thing that Protection actually does.

[OverLordOcelot]

First of all, I didn't say anyone specified sentinel, least of all you. I commented on the fact that my example would not be accounting for various tanking abilities that could counteract the mummy's ability (with Sentinel being an example of one such ability), and would simply assume that the mummy succeeds for the sake of simplicity.

You didn't directly state that, no. But you snidely responded with the incorrect assertion that you repeated here with the clear implication that I was overlooking the fact that (supposedly) Sentinel would counteract the mummy lord's ability to pick targets. But sentinel doesn't do that, as I demonstrated and you refused to acknowledge.


Finally, I have taken time out of my day to attempt to answer the questions you raised, in the interest of trying to be helpful to you, and am now being insulted and called "snide" for it. I would be appreciative if we could have a respectful conversation with each other. Thank you.

If you want to have a respectful conversation, you'll need to stop with snide, derisive comments, accusing me of making strawman arguments when I refute things that you've said, and making strawman arguments like claiming I hold a position that I have explicitly and clearly stated I do not hold. As far as I can tell, you did not attempt to answer any question I actually raised, but instead came up with a position that I don't agree with, and continue to insist that it's my position even when I've explicitly and clearly stated that I don't agree with it.


My argument stipulated only that the Mummy Lord uses their teleport ability to successfully bypass the tank. No other steps are required for the point to be made (e.g. that the optimal target is not necessarily the one with the lowest AC, and that a character with a higher AC does not need to actually force an enemy's choice in order to be targeted).

Here we go again: At no point did I assert that 'the optimal target is necessarily the one with the lowest AC' or that 'a character with a higher AC needs to actually force an enemy's choice in order to be targeted'. I pointed out in the last post that I asserted neither of these things, but you keep acting like I did. I didn't. Simply didn't.


Perhaps this will make my position clearer to you:

In that quote it appears that you completely agree with my point, which makes your weird and factually incorrect arguments against me all the harder to make sense of.

[opaopajr]

In my view protection is even more gamey than any of the other fighting styles. The 5-foot range really hammers down grid positioning.
Does give an interesting idea. what if we allowed up to half your movement speed as part of the same reaction too protective an ally?

Yes and no about being too gamey (meaning needing a grid to finction with the mechanics). :smallsmile: I can see Theater of the Mind with some coordinated conversation. Depending on initiative the duo talks out who goes where, when, to be followed up by the other. That way the GM can let the table TotM happen as it will only be the minions between the duo's initiative when they split up to worry about.

That said, your idea sounds like fun. :smallcool: It does give free movement, which can be a hard to balance feature against exploitation. But it might rock some tables!

I may leave it as is because I sort of love people using the Ready action to "program" their Reaction. :smalltongue: Something about the coordination, deciding which turn to Dodge and which turn to Ready movement to follow your protector (or protected,) feels very cinematic to me. There's a meaningful choice tension there that I love. :smallsmile:

It also helps when encounters are not all to the death or all enemies ran like Spec Op Hit Squads. :smallwink: That's the GM's responsibility of stakes nuance.

[Skylivedk]

Yes and no about being too gamey (meaning needing a grid to finction with the mechanics). :smallsmile: I can see Theater of the Mind with some coordinated conversation. Depending on initiative the duo talks out who goes where, when, to be followed up by the other. That way the GM can let the table TotM happen as it will only be the minions between the duo's initiative when they split up to worry about.

That said, your idea sounds like fun. :smallcool: It does give free movement, which can be a hard to balance feature against exploitation. But it might rock some tables!

I may leave it as is because I sort of love people using the Ready action to "program" their Reaction. :smalltongue: Something about the coordination, deciding which turn to Dodge and which turn to Ready movement to follow your protector (or protected,) feels very cinematic to me. There's a meaningful choice tension there that I love. :smallsmile:

It also helps when encounters are not all to the death or all enemies ran like Spec Op Hit Squads. :smallwink: That's the GM's responsibility of stakes nuance.

10 ft movement or something like that, I'd probably test it for the bodyguard feel.

But... I need to understand: you like it when players use their action to prepare Protection?

If I understood that correctly, it sounds plain awful and also not by the book. I don't want to straw man you though.

[opaopajr]

No, no, no. :smallredface: I mean for whoever is to be protected making a meaningful choice between Dodge (etc.) and Ready:"Keep up with protector's movement." :smallsmile: You could do some complex triggers with that, as long as they did not give alternate functions afterward (basically a complex "if" with a single and clear "then,").

e.g. Squishy Cleric casted Bane (or other good conc. spell) previously. This round said Cleric takes Move to a drawbridge switch, Interacts to turn switch on, finishes move next to drawbridge, takes Ready action to program its reaction. Trigger is: "if my protecting fighter reaches my [directional plane] and goes across the bridge.." new Reaction: "then I will Move (technically 'Dash') to be next to my protecting fighter as they across the bridge."

Protection Fighter does their thing, then Moves to cross drawbridge, enough so as to trigger the Ready Reaction. Squishy Cleric takes Reaction to Move with Protecting Fighter as far as Dash Speed allows, ideally crossing drawbridge. Perhaps the Cleric & Fighter ends up next to other side's drawbridge switch and the Fighter then Interacts with switch to draw it back up. :smallcool:

Complex but currently all legal without rules changes. Cool things like that are way fun tactically and feel strangely absent in modern playstyle. There's this awesome coordination capacity in 5e that I feel is being left behind in this chase for 'DPS builds'. :smalltongue:

[LudicSavant]

You didn't directly state that, no. Indeed, I did not state such a thing. Nor was I seeking to imply it. You are reading things into my statements other than the positions I actually hold. Or, in other words, making a straw man argument. Several of them, in fact.

Note that saying you're making a straw man argument does not imply that you are doing so intentionally or anything. It is just pointing out that I feel my position is not being accurately represented in your posts.


As far as I can tell, you did not attempt to answer any question I actually raised, but instead came up with a position that I don't agree with, and continue to insist that it's my position even when I've explicitly and clearly stated that I don't agree with it.
The great irony is that this is precisely what you are doing to me. I have clarified my position, and why the "implications" you are reading into my text are not, in fact, the positions I hold.

I talk about casters Misty Stepping out of melee, you tell me that I'm really saying they're Misty Stepping into melee.
I talk about tanks moving into melee range of flying creatures to put them into a precarious position, you tell me that I'm really saying that the flying creatures are the ones doing the engaging instead.
I say that Sentinel need not be taken into account, you say that I am deriding you for not taking Sentinel into account.
I say that Sentinel can interrupt the movement of the Whirlwind of Sand ability, you say that I am claiming that it can stop entirely different actions.

Clearly a great deal is being lost in translation here. :smallsigh:

For example, when I say "I'm going to put this flying creature into a precarious position in melee" the kind of scenario I have in mind is that my Paladin is going to ride up there on their spell-sharing mount and put them in that position. Yet you apparently translate it to "The flying creature is going to purposely move into melee range of the tank," which is pretty much the complete opposite.


As far as I can tell, you did not attempt to answer any question I actually raised

The question you raised, was, quote: "I just don't see how you consistently force the opponents to concentrate AC attacks on high AC characters." And more generally calling into question Skylived's assumptions.

My answer to which is "You do not need to, and I believe that Skylived's position is supported by the existence of this alternative option to forcing enemy targeting." Incidentally, this is also why things like Protection and Defense were mentioned; because they're relevant to Skylived's position and the larger discussion involved.

You also seem to be operating under the misapprehension that my post was solely addressing you. I quoted your post so that I could build on the examples you had laid out for enemy strategies, in order to address a variety of premises that had been bandied about by a variety of people throughout this thread.


In that quote it appears that you completely agree with my point
Then it's very strange that you're disagreeing with my other quote which makes the very same point.

[Skylivedk]

No, no, no. :smallredface: I mean for whoever is to be protected making a meaningful choice between Dodge (etc.) and Ready:"Keep up with protector's movement." :smallsmile: You could do some complex triggers with that, as long as they did not give alternate functions afterward (basically a complex "if" with a single and clear "then,").

e.g. Squishy Cleric casted Bane (or other good conc. spell) previously. This round said Cleric takes Move to a drawbridge switch, Interacts to turn switch on, finishes move next to drawbridge, takes Ready action to program its reaction. Trigger is: "if my protecting fighter reaches my [directional plane] and goes across the bridge.." new Reaction: "then I will Move (technically 'Dash') to be next to my protecting fighter as they across the bridge."

Protection Fighter does their thing, then Moves to cross drawbridge, enough so as to trigger the Ready Reaction. Squishy Cleric takes Reaction to Move with Protecting Fighter as far as Dash Speed allows, ideally crossing drawbridge. Perhaps the Cleric & Fighter ends up next to other side's drawbridge switch and the Fighter then Interacts with switch to draw it back up. :smallcool:

Complex but currently all legal without rules changes. Cool things like that are way fun tactically and feel strangely absent in modern playstyle. There's this awesome coordination capacity in 5e that I feel is being left behind in this chase for 'DPS builds'. :smalltongue:

It's cool and cinematic, but wouldn't both, fighter and cleric, of them be better off of the cleric just took the Dodge action? Then the fighter could protect someone else and the cleric would impose disadvantage on all hits rather than one.

In other words: in a lot of situations Protection faces way more coordination issues (especially due to the nature of turn based combat) than expected leading to it being less used than the player picking it had hoped for. It's a fairly complex feature to get to work in comparison to its competition

[LudicSavant]

It's cool and cinematic, but wouldn't both, fighter and cleric, of them be better off of the cleric just took the Dodge action? Then the fighter could protect someone else and the cleric would impose disadvantage on all hits rather than one.

In other words: in a lot of situations Protection faces way more coordination issues (especially due to the nature of turn based combat) than expected leading to it being less used than the player picking it had hoped for. It's a fairly complex feature to get to work in comparison to its competition

If I'm understanding opaopajr's post correctly, the benefit of readying a dash would be that you get to move twice during the turn, whereas using Dodge would mean you only move once.

[opaopajr]

If I'm understanding opaopajr's post correctly, the benefit of readying a dash would be that you get to move twice during the turn, whereas using Dodge would mean you only move once.

Yes, and a bit more. It ends up with both PCs still paired up while still allowing them to change the 'battle' context. They have different turns in the round, yet can still end up spatially tethered by next round. It's just an example, but the drawbridge (and its switches) stands for tactical location opportunities.

So yeah, one can presume the example has "more allies" to protect in an assumed fight to the death. But that's drawing out an example beyond its use. I could similarly say it is a situation of oncoming endless hordes, a drawbridge, and just you two, with Bane as insurance... but that's an exchange elaborating context for a mere example of principle. :smallsmile: