Reviewing Defensive Duelist

[Grognerd]

So I've been looking at the Defensive Duelist feat, and I cannot see any reason whatsoever to restrict it to finesse weapons. I get the intention behind this, but it doesn't make sense. There's no reason that a skilled swordsman shouldn't be able to use a longsword and gain the benefits of this feat, and I don't see any balance issues in allowing any weapon to be used.

First, it's eating a Reaction, so it's automatically limited in its application. Second, I looked for equivalent abilities. The closest PC ability (thematically) is the Battlemaster's Parry ability, but that 1) reduces damage rather than improve AC, and 2) uses a limited resource, the Superiority Die. So really the closest equivalent ability is not any PC ability, but rather the NPC ability that Bandit Captains, Gladiators, Knights, etc. have. In each of those cases, the parry ability is equal to their Proficiency, uses their reaction, and is performed with non-finesse weapons. It looks like the same thing to me!

I am going to houserule my games to allow any weapon to use Defensive Duelist (as long as they have the DEX 13). Anyone think I'm missing some kind of balance issue?

[Misterwhisper]

So I've been looking at the Defensive Duelist feat, and I cannot see any reason whatsoever to restrict it to finesse weapons. I get the intention behind this, but it doesn't make sense. There's no reason that a skilled swordsman shouldn't be able to use a longsword and gain the benefits of this feat, and I don't see any balance issues in allowing any weapon to be used.

First, it's eating a Reaction, so it's automatically limited in its application. Second, I looked for equivalent abilities. The closest PC ability (thematically) is the Battlemaster's Parry ability, but that 1) reduces damage rather than improve AC, and 2) uses a limited resource, the Superiority Die. So really the closest equivalent ability is not any PC ability, but rather the NPC ability that Bandit Captains, Gladiators, Knights, etc. have. In each of those cases, the parry ability is equal to their Proficiency, uses their reaction, and is performed with non-finesse weapons. It looks like the same thing to me!

I am going to houserule my games to allow any weapon to use Defensive Duelist (as long as they have the DEX 13). Anyone think I'm missing some kind of balance issue?

The problem is it is still not a very good feat.

Reaction, for your prof to ac of one attack, and that attack has to be melee based.

That is not worth a feat even if it can use any weapon, maybe, maybe as a half feat

[MaxWilson]

The problem is it is still not a very good feat.

Reaction, for your prof to ac of one attack, and that attack has to be melee based.

That is not worth a feat even if it can use any weapon, maybe, maybe as a half feat

It's much better than that. You know exactly what your own AC is, and you get to choose to use it after you see the attack roll, and Defensive Duelist (unlike Cutting Words or Bardic inspiration) has a fixed bonus, so what this really means in practice is that you get to negate one enemy hit per turn, as long as the attack roll isn't too much higher than your AC. If you've got a pretty decent AC already, one hit per turn might be all you take anyway, so now you take zero!

The main reason I can see for keeping Defensive Duelist tied to Finesse weapons + Dex 13 is to prevent it from being used in GWM shenanigans. A GWM PAM fighter is already terrifying enough without adding in Defensive Duelist on top of that for effective AC 21-25ish. At that point it's basically at-will Shield spell, at least in melee and against small groups of monsters.

I understand the motivation for the OP, because parrying is indeed a thing that can be done with any weapon, but I don't recommend removing the Finesse restriction on Defensive Duelist. If you want to represent parrying with greatswords, do something else like use DMG Disarm maneuvers, or invent a Parry maneuver modeled on DMG Disarm:

Parry: This is a special type of attack which attacks attacks. When you Attack on your turn, you may choose to dedicate one or more of those attacks to Parrying. If an enemy attacks you with a melee weapon before your next turn, you may roll a melee weapon attack and replace your AC with your attack roll against that attack. You can do this a number of times equal to the number of attacks you dedicated to Parrying.

Example: Robilar the Mighty, an 11th level fighter, has been attacked in his bed by two assassins. Unarmed and unarmored, he snatches up a nearby log to use as an improvised club, and dedicates two of his three attacks to parrying. Robilar inflicts some damage on an assassin with his remaining attack, but then the assassins strike back. On the first assassin's attack, Robilar parries, and rolls d20+8 on his melee attack (for Strength 18 and proficiency bonus +4), getting a total of 23, which he uses instead of his normal unarmored AC of 10. The assassin rolls d20+6, gets a 15, and fails to hit AC 23! Then the second assassin strikes, and Robilar rolls d20+8 and gets a 14. The assassin rolls d20+6 and gets 17, so Robilar is hit! The assassin rolls 5d6+4 poison damage and inflicts 27 HP of damage on Robilar--Robilar is in trouble if he doesn't finish them off soon!

[CheddarChampion]

OP's change shouldn't have any problems.

The usefulness overall depends on the order of operations your group goes with:
Do you know what the accuracy roll against you is before you have to decide whether or not to use DD?
Do you know what the damage roll against you is before you have to decide whether or not to use DD?

As was already stated, if you know if it'll change a hit into a miss it can be pretty good.
But if you have to guess, it'll be pretty bad.

[Misterwhisper]

It's much better than that. You know exactly what your own AC is, and you get to choose to use it after you see the attack roll, and Defensive Duelist (unlike Cutting Words or Bardic inspiration) has a fixed bonus, so what this really means in practice is that you get to negate one enemy hit per turn, as long as the attack roll isn't too much higher than your AC. If you've got a pretty decent AC already, one hit per turn might be all you take anyway, so now you take zero!

The main reason I can see for keeping Defensive Duelist tied to Finesse weapons + Dex 13 is to prevent it from being used in GWM shenanigans. A GWM PAM fighter is already terrifying enough without adding in Defensive Duelist on top of that for effective AC 21-25ish. At that point it's basically at-will Shield spell, at least in melee and against small groups of monsters.

I understand the motivation for the OP, because parrying is indeed a thing that can be done with any weapon, but I don't recommend removing the Finesse restriction on Defensive Duelist. If you want to represent parrying with greatswords, do something else like use DMG Disarm maneuvers, or invent a Parry maneuver modeled on DMG Disarm:

Parry: This is a special type of attack which attacks attacks. When you Attack on your turn, you may choose to dedicate one or more of those attacks to Parrying. If an enemy attacks you with a melee weapon before your next turn, you may roll a melee weapon attack and replace your AC with your attack roll against that attack. You can do this a number of times equal to the number of attacks you dedicated to Parrying.

Example: Robilar the Mighty, an 11th level fighter, has been attacked in his bed by two assassins. Unarmed and unarmored, he snatches up a nearby log to use as an improvised club, and dedicates two of his three attacks to parrying. Robilar inflicts some damage on an assassin with his remaining attack, but then the assassins strike back. On the first assassin's attack, Robilar parries, and rolls d20+8 on his melee attack (for Strength 18 and proficiency bonus +4), getting a total of 23, which he uses instead of his normal unarmored AC of 10. The assassin rolls d20+6, gets a 15, and fails to hit AC 23! Then the second assassin strikes, and Robilar rolls d20+8 and gets a 14. The assassin rolls d20+6 and gets 17, so Robilar is hit! The assassin rolls 5d6+4 poison damage and inflicts 27 HP of damage on Robilar--Robilar is in trouble if he doesn't finish them off soon!


You play in games where the dm tells you want the roll was?

Never seen that before.

If is always just:
They hit
They crit
Or
They miss

Also it is an ability that is 100% up to the dm if they want it to work or not.
If the fight doesn’t matter much and just there to burn resources, sure.
If the fight is important don’t be surprised if all of a sudden you are being hit my more than your proficiency bonus or you just get hit with spells or ranger attacks.

It is a very, very, narrow use feat that only does one thing.

I can not see a time where someone would take it over actually good feats or just getting more dex.

[Tanarii]

You play in games where the dm tells you want the roll was?

Never seen that before.
That’s a problem with the DM, not a problem with the Feat.

[MaxWilson]

OP's change shouldn't have any problems.

The usefulness overall depends on the order of operations your group goes with:
Do you know what the accuracy roll against you is before you have to decide whether or not to use DD?
Do you know what the damage roll against you is before you have to decide whether or not to use DD?

As was already stated, if you know if it'll change a hit into a miss it can be pretty good.
But if you have to guess, it'll be pretty bad.

Even if you have to guess, it's still quite good, if you have a high enough AC.

E.g. if you know that a given enemy is only hitting you on 17-20, and the DM says they hit you, you've got a 75% chance it's not a crit and therefore a 75% chance that Defensive Duelist can turn it into a miss.

It's basically the same information problem as the Shield spell, which is widely-acknowledged to be a great spell. They both give you the same amount of information about the attack you're defending against: you know it's a hit, and you may or may not know what the die roll was.

[Speely]

It's much better than that. You know exactly what your own AC is, and you get to choose to use it after you see the attack roll, and Defensive Duelist (unlike Cutting Words or Bardic inspiration) has a fixed bonus, so what this really means in practice is that you get to negate one enemy hit per turn, as long as the attack roll isn't too much higher than your AC. If you've got a pretty decent AC already, one hit per turn might be all you take anyway, so now you take zero!

The main reason I can see for keeping Defensive Duelist tied to Finesse weapons + Dex 13 is to prevent it from being used in GWM shenanigans. A GWM PAM fighter is already terrifying enough without adding in Defensive Duelist on top of that for effective AC 21-25ish. At that point it's basically at-will Shield spell, at least in melee and against small groups of monsters.

I understand the motivation for the OP, because parrying is indeed a thing that can be done with any weapon, but I don't recommend removing the Finesse restriction on Defensive Duelist. If you want to represent parrying with greatswords, do something else like use DMG Disarm maneuvers, or invent a Parry maneuver modeled on DMG Disarm:

Parry: This is a special type of attack which attacks attacks. When you Attack on your turn, you may choose to dedicate one or more of those attacks to Parrying. If an enemy attacks you with a melee weapon before your next turn, you may roll a melee weapon attack and replace your AC with your attack roll against that attack. You can do this a number of times equal to the number of attacks you dedicated to Parrying.

Example: Robilar the Mighty, an 11th level fighter, has been attacked in his bed by two assassins. Unarmed and unarmored, he snatches up a nearby log to use as an improvised club, and dedicates two of his three attacks to parrying. Robilar inflicts some damage on an assassin with his remaining attack, but then the assassins strike back. On the first assassin's attack, Robilar parries, and rolls d20+8 on his melee attack (for Strength 18 and proficiency bonus +4), getting a total of 23, which he uses instead of his normal unarmored AC of 10. The assassin rolls d20+6, gets a 15, and fails to hit AC 23! Then the second assassin strikes, and Robilar rolls d20+8 and gets a 14. The assassin rolls d20+6 and gets 17, so Robilar is hit! The assassin rolls 5d6+4 poison damage and inflicts 27 HP of damage on Robilar--Robilar is in trouble if he doesn't finish them off soon!

You could just rule that Defensive Duelist only works with weapons that lack the two-handed property rather than weapons that possess the finesse property.

[Greywander]

The closest PC ability (thematically) is the Battlemaster's Parry ability,
Mechanically, look at the Shield spell and the War wizard's Arcane Deflection. The first uses a limited resource, but gives +5 AC against all attacks until the start of your next turn. The second is at-will, but only gives a +2 and prevents the use of non-cantrip spells on your next turn.

Personally, I'm frustrated by a couple different instances of restrictions to finesse weapons (Sneak Attack, for example), so I see nothing wrong with your proposal. I was actually looking at Defensive Duelist on a monk build, the thing was I wanted to go Kensei and use a longsword. Monk/kensei weapons may use DEX, but they aren't technically finesse, so RAW it wouldn't work. I thought that was kind of dumb, but I'll have to ask whatever DM should I ever actually run said character.

[RSP]

Also it is an ability that is 100% up to the dm if they want it to work or not.
If the fight doesn’t matter much and just there to burn resources, sure.
If the fight is important don’t be surprised if all of a sudden you are being hit my more than your proficiency bonus or you just get hit with spells or ranger attacks.

If the DM is fudging rolls to negate the PC’s abilities, which it seems like you’re eluding to here, essentially making character choices and builds moot, they’re a horrible DM. Period.

This has nothing to do with the DD Feat or this thread. There’s plenty of abilities in the game that the DM can decide to hand-waive away. If they do so, they’re a bad DM.

[CheddarChampion]

E.g. if you know that a given enemy is only hitting you on 17-20, and the DM says they hit you, you've got a 75% chance it's not a crit and therefore a 75% chance that Defensive Duelist can turn it into a miss.

I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought.
I agree with your reasoning of if you know hit or miss (and to-hit-bonus vs AC) but I mean 'guess' as 'you don't know what was rolled or if the attack was a hit or a miss.'

[Amechra]

Defensive Duelist and Savage Attacker really should've been half-feats (for Dexterity and Strength, respectively). If it gave +1 Dex, I could see it being a good feat that still wouldn't be a must-take.

[stoutstien]

I just put thia feat as a weapon feature on daggers that don't have a thrown feature or a parry dagger in other words.
I did the same for most of the weapon feats to give martials a little more wiggle room for feats/ASI.

[qube]

You play in games where the dm tells you want the roll was?

Never seen that before.:smallconfused: ... yes

Does your DM keep track that your bladesinger's inteliigence is +4 when he activates bladesong? or that cleric just cast an AC boosting spell on 3 of the PCs ? That your barbarian druid just wildshaped into a dex 14 con 18 beast and thus now has an AC of 16 ? That you attunded another item, so you no longer get the +1 AC of cloak of protection?

In 20 years of D&D, I've never sat at a table where the DM keeps track of the players AC. Nor do I for that matter when I DM. I've got enough on my mind as it is.


Defensive Duelist and Savage Attacker really should've been half-feats (for Dexterity and Strength, respectively)....euh, no.
Consider the simple maths, if you got +5 proficiency bonus, and your enemy has hits you on a 11+ , that means half his hits will be preventable with a +5 AC bonus.

If you get attacked once per round, parry will effectively reduce the hits from 50% to 25%. ... and the more you get attacked, the more chance you have that you'll get in a situation that you can trigger parry.

---------------
as +5 proficiency means lvl 13 - lets look to a random CR 13 monster - the Nalfeshnee.


Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +10 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 32 (5d10 + 5) piercing damage.
2x Claw. Melee Weapon Attack: +10 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 15 (3d6 + 5) slashing damage.


Tanking the Nalfeshnee (assuming you've got an AC of 20 for that 50% hit chance), with an AC of 20,

you'll get an average of 31 damage per round without the feat
you'll get an average of 18.8 damage per round with the feat.

... that's 40% damage reduction right there.

[djreynolds]

I have used this feat for a fighter/rogue, its really good.

I mean you have an idea of whether the attack is going to hit or might miss, I had to quickly decide between defensive duelist and uncanny dodge

The tough thing is this feat actually has 2 pre-req.... finesse weapon and 13 dex... easy for a rogue-multiclass cause you're usually got something finesse in your hand

Now its easy for a bowman, who can hold his bow in one hand, to freely draw a dagger to block a hit.... we've seen Legolas do this

I could see even a greatsword wielder using this, and holding his sword in one hand (not attacking) and drawing out a dagger

The unfair thing is a S&B warrior has to drop their non-finesse weapon and draw a dagger or short sword

IMO, if the player is compelling enough I might them have it

I might even let them use it without the 13 dex, but that is actually very fair of you

[Smoothjedi]

Now its easy for a bowman, who can hold his bow in one hand, to freely draw a dagger to block a hit.... we've seen Legolas do this

I could see even a greatsword wielder using this, and holding his sword in one hand (not attacking) and drawing out a dagger

I don't think it's possible to draw a weapon on your reaction for the feat to trigger.

[qube]

The unfair thing is a S&B warrior has to drop their non-finesse weapon and draw a dagger or short sword

IMO, if the player is compelling enough I might them have it

I might even let them use it without the 13 dex, but that is actually very fair of youa S&B fighter can use a rapier (d8, finesse) just as well as a longsword or axe (both also d8)

Thoguh obviously, it might ruin the flavor of the character (rapier wielding dward might not be what you had in mind), and the DM can be a douche with the treasure (there you go, yet another +1 longsword :smalltongue: )

[MaxWilson]

I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought.
I agree with your reasoning of if you know hit or miss (and to-hit-bonus vs AC) but I mean 'guess' as 'you don't know what was rolled or if the attack was a hit or a miss.'

You know it was a hit, because the feat says Defensive Duelist only triggers when you get hit.

Defensive Duelist is better than it looks for exactly the same reason that Hunter Ranger's Multiattack Defense is worse than it looks.


I don't think it's possible to draw a weapon on your reaction for the feat to trigger.

Draw it beforehand after you make your attacks, using your free object interaction.

[djreynolds]

I don't think it's possible to draw a weapon on your reaction for the feat to trigger.


You know it was a hit, because the feat says Defensive Duelist only triggers when you get hit.

Defensive Duelist is better than it looks for exactly the same reason that Hunter Ranger's Multiattack Defense is worse than it looks.



Draw it beforehand after you make your attacks, using your free object interaction.

I don't know, my player just showed me clips of Legolas.... I was bamboozled by the flashy display.

Thank you Smoothjedi, I have a divine DM lightning bolt planned for my player

pg 196 interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your movement or your action.... or you could draw a weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

I don't know, but it appears you cannot draw a finesse weapon on your reaction (only during your action or movement) to use defensive duelist

[Tanarii]

Defensive Duelist is better than it looks for exactly the same reason that Hunter Ranger's Multiattack Defense is worse than it looks.
The latter doesn’t take a reaction, and if you’re being mobbed works against every multi-attacking creature (individually) that hits you, and it stacks for the third attack if the first two hit. It needs to be weaker.

But yeah, you’re right about potential perception of strength (or lack thereof) based on a quick glance.

[Greywander]

I'd say the usefulness of Defensive Duelist is dependent on three inter-related factors:

How high your AC is.
How often you get attacked.
How many hits you take per round.

If you never get attacked, then Defensive Duelist is of limited use. Likewise, if your AC is too low/every attack hits you, then DD only gives you marginal benefits, and might not even be enough to turn a hit into a miss. (As an aside, DD would be more useful for low AC characters if it straight up turned a hit into a miss, while high AC characters wouldn't notice much difference.) Where DD really shines is when you're consistently getting hit no more than once per round. Those single hits would gradually wear you down, but thanks to DD you can emerge entirely unscathed. The more hits you take, the less total damage reduction DD gives you (e.g. taking two hits per round makes DD only give 50% rather than 100% damage reduction, three hits is 33%, four 25%, etc.). This also means DD is less effective against swarms than it is against single big monsters.

TL;DR, Defensive Duelist is most useful when you're consistently taking only one hit per round. This translates to 100% damage reduction, assuming AC is high enough that DD turns a hit into a miss. In other words, higher AC makes DD more useful.

[Misterwhisper]

I'd say the usefulness of Defensive Duelist is dependent on three inter-related factors:

How high your AC is.
How often you get attacked.
How many hits you take per round.

If you never get attacked, then Defensive Duelist is of limited use. Likewise, if your AC is too low/every attack hits you, then DD only gives you marginal benefits, and might not even be enough to turn a hit into a miss. (As an aside, DD would be more useful for low AC characters if it straight up turned a hit into a miss, while high AC characters wouldn't notice much difference.) Where DD really shines is when you're consistently getting hit no more than once per round. Those single hits would gradually wear you down, but thanks to DD you can emerge entirely unscathed. The more hits you take, the less total damage reduction DD gives you (e.g. taking two hits per round makes DD only give 50% rather than 100% damage reduction, three hits is 33%, four 25%, etc.). This also means DD is less effective against swarms than it is against single big monsters.

TL;DR, Defensive Duelist is most useful when you're consistently taking only one hit per round. This translates to 100% damage reduction, assuming AC is high enough that DD turns a hit into a miss. In other words, higher AC makes DD more useful.

You forgot one of the biggest requirements, the attack that hit you must be melee.

You can get hit all day long by crossbows, longbows, firebolts, eldritch blasts, or a thrown rock or javelin and it won’t do you a bit of good.

It is a feat that is essentially a very weak version of the shield spell that only works one one kind of attack and only if you are using one kind of weapon, with no other benefits at all.

If it was a half feat, I might take it after I max dex first.

It is good late game when you have a proficiency of 5 or 6.

It should either be a half feat or instead of giving ac it should give them disadvantage on the roll.

[Grognerd]

The main reason I can see for keeping Defensive Duelist tied to Finesse weapons + Dex 13 is to prevent it from being used in GWM shenanigans. A GWM PAM fighter is already terrifying enough without adding in Defensive Duelist on top of that for effective AC 21-25ish. At that point it's basically at-will Shield spell, at least in melee and against small groups of monsters.

Except it's not. It increases AC against ONE attack, and until you hit high levels, it is nowhere near as effective against shield. I'm also not sure how you think having DD and PAM is somehow a game breaker. PAM aids when people first enter into melee. DD aids once one is in melee.


I understand the motivation for the OP, because parrying is indeed a thing that can be done with any weapon, but I don't recommend removing the Finesse restriction on Defensive Duelist. If you want to represent parrying with greatswords, do something else like use DMG Disarm maneuvers, or invent a Parry maneuver modeled on DMG Disarm:

This is well thought out, but it misses the purpose. The original DD feat is actually very simple. I don't see any reason to replace a simple feat with a convoluted mechanic. I like it when things stay simple (it's one of the reasons that 5e is so much better than the monster that 3.5/3.75/PF turned into).


OP's change shouldn't have any problems.

I didn't think so, but wanted other eyes on it to make sure I didn't miss anything obvious.


You could just rule that Defensive Duelist only works with weapons that lack the two-handed property rather than weapons that possess the finesse property.

A much better solution IMHO.


Personally, I'm frustrated by a couple different instances of restrictions to finesse weapons (Sneak Attack, for example), so I see nothing wrong with your proposal. I was actually looking at Defensive Duelist on a monk build, the thing was I wanted to go Kensei and use a longsword. Monk/kensei weapons may use DEX, but they aren't technically finesse, so RAW it wouldn't work. I thought that was kind of dumb, but I'll have to ask whatever DM should I ever actually run said character.

I hate monks, and don't allow them in non-OA settings, but if I did, then I'd allow your Kensai to have it, for what it's worth!


If the DM is fudging rolls to negate the PC’s abilities, which it seems like you’re eluding to here, essentially making character choices and builds moot, they’re a horrible DM. Period.

This has nothing to do with the DD Feat or this thread. There’s plenty of abilities in the game that the DM can decide to hand-waive away. If they do so, they’re a bad DM.

Agreed that this is off topic, but I also wholly agree that yes, that's just a bad DM.


The unfair thing is a S&B warrior has to drop their non-finesse weapon and draw a dagger or short sword

IMO, if the player is compelling enough I might them have it

I might even let them use it without the 13 dex, but that is actually very fair of you

And this is the problem. S&B fighters shouldn't have to do that, hence one of the reasons for the rules change. As for not requiring DEX 13... I'm ok with that restriction, simply because I don't mind having certain expectations to get feats. I just don't think the feat itself should be arbitrarily limited so that the people most likely to have the weapons skills to use the feat verisimilitude-wise (Fighters) wouldn't be using it with the most common weapons of their class.

[qube]

TL;DR, Defensive Duelist is most useful when you're consistently taking only one hit per round. This translates to 100% damage reduction, assuming AC is high enough that DD turns a hit into a miss. In other words, higher AC makes DD more useful.Quite true, but as examplified by the Nalfeshnee calc, all 3 attacks on you, with a 50% chance to hit, this still results in net of 40% damage reduction.

Obviously, this adds up.
(Now that I think about it ... barbarian rage + parry ...that's nearly 4 x hp ! >_< )

[MaxWilson]

I'd say the usefulness of Defensive Duelist is dependent on three inter-related factors:

How high your AC is.
How often you get attacked.
How many hits you take per round.

If you never get attacked, then Defensive Duelist is of limited use. Likewise, if your AC is too low/every attack hits you, then DD only gives you marginal benefits, and might not even be enough to turn a hit into a miss. (As an aside, DD would be more useful for low AC characters if it straight up turned a hit into a miss, while high AC characters wouldn't notice much difference.) Where DD really shines is when you're consistently getting hit no more than once per round. Those single hits would gradually wear you down, but thanks to DD you can emerge entirely unscathed. The more hits you take, the less total damage reduction DD gives you (e.g. taking two hits per round makes DD only give 50% rather than 100% damage reduction, three hits is 33%, four 25%, etc.). This also means DD is less effective against swarms than it is against single big monsters.

TL;DR, Defensive Duelist is most useful when you're consistently taking only one hit per round. This translates to 100% damage reduction, assuming AC is high enough that DD turns a hit into a miss. In other words, higher AC makes DD more useful.

Yep. Ditto if you're e.g. Dodging or something.

On the other hand, I think I've talked myself around to deciding that the OP's rule change isn't a big deal, because even today you can already do this on your turn:

(1) Attack to Shove an enemy prone,
(2) Extra Attack to attack prone enemy at advantage, with GWM -5/+10
(3) Bonus action attack from Polearm Master, also at advantage with -5/+10
(4) Draw a dagger with your object interaction
(5) Move back 20'-30 or so, taking an opportunity attack at disadvantage from the prone enemy, and using Defensive Duelist with your dagger to parry his disadvantaged attack even if it hits, likely winding up too far from your enemy for him to Attack you back next turn (because standing up costs half his movement),
(6) If he misses you, drop the dagger so you'll be able to take your PAM reaction attack even if he does Dash to you or past you.
(7) Otherwise, it doesn't matter if you drop the dagger--you can always re-sheathe it next turn before you attack.

Then end your turn.

If you'd rather stand and fight than kite, you can do pretty much the exact same thing just without the retreat part--in that case it might make sense to skip the Shove too (depends), and just make as many GWM attacks as you can then draw a dagger (or dart).

The OP's rule change would prevent you from leaving a trail of dropped daggers (or darts!) behind you as you move/fight, or it would let you use your object interaction for something else (like opening doors as you retreat), but ultimately it's a minor change to WotC's rules.

Having realized that you can draw daggers with your object interaction, I'm going to have to start putting Defensive Duelist on my EK Sharpshooters now. It's really annoying to decide that a given fight is too peanuts to be worth spending a precious Shield or Blur slot on, and then to get hit by annoying trash mobs for minor damage every round when you get caught in melee. Being able to probably-block one hit per round will reduce the annoyance factor.

For a Sharpshooter, you can technically even just use a dart for Defensive Duelist, and then throw that dart as part of your first attack next round, especially if you've also got Crossbow Expert. Your damage on that attack is d4 instead of d6, but meh, who cares. It's better than littering.


Quite true, but as examplified by the Nalfeshnee calc, all 3 attacks on you, with a 50% chance to hit, this still results in net of 40% damage reduction.

Obviously, this adds up.
(Now that I think about it ... barbarian rage + parry ...that's nearly 4 x hp ! >_< )

For those who are interested, here's a quick Monte Carlo sim:




let r = System.Random()
let d n = 1 + r.Next n
let ds n dsize () = List.init n (fun _ -> d dsize) |> List.sum
let basic =
[for x in 1..1000 do
let hit damage bonus =
let roll = d 20
let mutable ac = 20
let tohit = 10
if roll = 20 then (damage() + damage() + bonus)
elif roll + tohit >= ac then damage() + bonus
else 0
(hit (ds 5 10) 5) + (hit (ds 3 6) 5) + (hit (ds 3 6) 5) |> float
] |> List.average
printfn "AC 20: Nalfeshnee average damage = %f" basic
[for x in 1..1000 do
let mutable react = true
let hit damage bonus =
let roll = d 20
let mutable ac = 20
let tohit = 10
if roll + tohit >= ac && react then
ac <- ac + 5
react <- false
if roll = 20 then (damage() + damage() + bonus)
elif roll + tohit >= ac then damage() + bonus
else 0
(hit (ds 5 10) 5) + (hit (ds 3 6) 5) + (hit (ds 3 6) 5) |> float
] |> List.average |> fun x -> printfn "AC 20 + Defensive Duelist: Nalfeshnee average damage = %f (%f%% reduction)" x ((basic - x)/basic * 100.)
[for x in 1..1000 do
let hit damage bonus =
let roll = min (d 20) (d 20)
let mutable ac = 20
let tohit = 10
if roll = 20 then (damage() + damage() + bonus)
elif roll + tohit >= ac then damage() + bonus
else 0
(hit (ds 5 10) 5) + (hit (ds 3 6) 5) + (hit (ds 3 6) 5) |> float
] |> List.average |> fun x -> printfn "AC 20 + Protection From Evil: Nalfeshnee average damage = %f (%f%% reduction)" x ((basic - x)/basic * 100.)
[for x in 1..1000 do
let mutable react = true
let hit damage bonus =
let roll = min (d 20) (d 20)
let mutable ac = 20
let tohit = 10
if roll + tohit >= ac && react then
ac <- ac + 5
react <- false
if roll = 20 then (damage() + damage() + bonus)
elif roll + tohit >= ac then damage() + bonus
else 0
(hit (ds 5 10) 5) + (hit (ds 3 6) 5) + (hit (ds 3 6) 5) |> float
] |> List.average |> fun x -> printfn "AC 20 + Protection From Evil + Defensive Duelist: Nalfeshnee average damage = %f (%f%% reduction)" x ((basic - x)/basic * 100.)



Results after 1000 simulations:
AC 20: Nalfeshnee average damage = 37.98
AC 20 + Defensive Duelist: Nalfeshnee average damage = 25.77 (32.1% reduction)
AC 20 + Protection From Evil: Nalfeshnee average damage = 19.11 (49.7% reduction)
AC 20 + Protection From Evil + Defensive Duelist: Nalfeshnee average damage = 8.54 (77.5% reduction total, 55% reduction relative to Protection From Evil alone)

[Greywander]

Quite true, but as examplified by the Nalfeshnee calc, all 3 attacks on you, with a 50% chance to hit, this still results in net of 40% damage reduction.

Obviously, this adds up.
(Now that I think about it ... barbarian rage + parry ...that's nearly 4 x hp ! >_< )
Even a 25% reduction (4 hits without DD) is pretty significant. But 4 hits isn't the same as 4 attacks; if the enemy has a 50% change to hit, then you'd have to be taking 8 incoming attacks to average out to 4 hits! This is why high AC is so important here. If you can get your AC high enough that enemies only have a 25% chance to hit, then you'd need 16 incoming attacks to average 4 hits.


(5) Move back 20'-30 or so, taking an opportunity attack at disadvantage from the prone enemy, and using Defensive Duelist with your dagger to parry his disadvantaged attack even if it hits, likely winding up too far from your enemy for him to Attack you back next turn (because standing up costs half his movement),
(6) If he misses you, drop the dagger so you'll be able to take your PAM reaction attack even if he does Dash to you or past you.
If you've already used your reaction on Defensive Duelist, you can't use it for PAM. Or did you mean if he misses you without needing to use DD?

I'm AFB, but IIRC Defensive Duelist requires a melee weapon, so a dart shouldn't work. But maybe I'm wrong? That could lead to some interesting combos.

Otherwise, yeah, it's possible to get some pretty ridiculous setups, the thing is that they're often either so niche that they're easy to counter or require so many feats that it's not worth spending so many ASIs to set up. Although, it is possible to gain feats via training...

[MaxWilson]

If you've already used your reaction on Defensive Duelist, you can't use it for PAM. Or did you mean if he misses you without needing to use DD?

I meant the latter--if he misses you initially, so you don't have to use your reaction. This is the overwhelmingly likely scenario in most cases--hitting AC 19 with disadvantage is very difficult for most enemies.


I'm AFB, but IIRC Defensive Duelist requires a melee weapon, so a dart shouldn't work. But maybe I'm wrong? That could lead to some interesting combos.

I was surprised today to discover this too--the PHB does not require a melee Finesse weapon, just a Finesse weapon. Darts qualify, weirdly enough, although don't be surprised if your DM rules that's stupid and changes it. In that case switch to daggers.

(Darts have the advantage of benefiting from Archery style whereas daggers don't, but you can always just drop the dagger instead of spending on attack on using it.)


Otherwise, yeah, it's possible to get some pretty ridiculous setups, the thing is that they're often either so niche that they're easy to counter or require so many feats that it's not worth spending so many ASIs to set up.

I think this thread is more about which feats to prioritize when. E.g. after you have GWM/PAM, do you boost Str to 20 or branch out into stuff like Alert and Lucky and Resilient (Wis) or do you take Defensive Duelist? Considering this thread I'm more inclined than before to take Defensive Duelist even on a melee dude. +4ish to AC is still +4ish to AC even if your DPR suffers slightly.


Although, it is possible to gain feats via training...

AFAIK this is not true in RAW, it would have to be a DM-specific thing just like potions that permanently shrink you or give permanent stat mods. Not saying I don't do those things, just saying that for Internet discussion purposes "it is possible to gain feats via training" should be treated as false.

[Greywander]

AFAIK this is not true in RAW, it would have to be a DM-specific thing just like potions that permanently shrink you or give permanent stat mods. Not saying I don't do those things, just saying that for Internet discussion purposes "it is possible to gain feats via training" should be treated as false.
It's in the DMG as an alternate quest reward. But you're right that it's still DM dependent and shouldn't be considered in build advice.

That said, if a player really wanted a feat in order to make their build work, I wouldn't be opposed to letting them train the feat provided they put in the effort, i.e. it would indeed be a quest reward and not something that could just be bought with gold. Something like this would also be a good opportunity to have the character sit out while training, allowing you to bring in a guest character for that player to control. Changes things up a bit and allows players to try new things out with little risk (since it's a temporary character).

[MaxWilson]

It's in the DMG as an alternate quest reward. But you're right that it's still DM dependent and shouldn't be considered in build advice.

Huh! Interesting. I knew it was an alternate Epic Boon option--is that what you're referring to, or is there another place too? Edit: turns out it's DMG 231, under Marks of Prestige, actually right between the Epic Boon sidebar and the actual Epic Boon option. Gaining a skill proficiency is also a Marks of Prestige/Training option. Interesting!

[HiveStriker]

Defensive Duelist is better than it looks for exactly the same reason that Hunter Ranger's Multiattack Defense is worse than it looks.

Sorry to steer a bit off-thread, but that bit makes me curious. What problem do you see with Multiattack? Could you plz detail?

@OP IMO Defensive Duelist is a great feat, although of varying value depending on both character and effective level of play.
In my personal experience the sweet spot to take it is around level 8, and it's great up to level 13-14.
Before level 4 it's not worth enough imo unless you're taking it at level 1 to help survive the first few levels (but at level 4 you otherwise usually want to bump a stat or pick a "build-enabler" feat anyways), and even at a +3 it's often not your best option.

After level 14 you have so many creatures with multiattack and strong bonus to hit that it goes from "extremely useful" to "just a decent thing when you don't have anything better to to with your reaction" (OA with Sentinel/PAM that may kill or stop a guy, Warcaster with a Command/Hold Monster etc), or if you're just worrying the next attack may put you to 0.

As long as you put the limit of "no heavy weapon" and "no two-handed weapon", your houserule should be fine.



I think this thread is more about which feats to prioritize when. E.g. after you have GWM/PAM, do you boost Str to 20 or branch out into stuff like Alert and Lucky and Resilient (Wis) or do you take Defensive Duelist? Considering this thread I'm more inclined than before to take Defensive Duelist even on a melee dude. +4ish to AC is still +4ish to AC even if your DPR suffers slightly.

Note bouncing on that: the characters were DD was the most effective in my experience were Ranger (who had to act as secondary meat-shield or simply stays at range), Druid/most Clerics/most Bards/Sorcerers/most Warlocks (you don't have anything interesting to do with your reaction anyways, unless you build towards it specifically like a Tempest Cleric picking Sentinel + Magic Initiate, or a Sorcerer that likes to cast Heightened single-target debuff with Warcaster).
Even for Sorcerers who could technically spam Shield, it would eat into their resources to convert spells. DD is a great alternative to conserve slots considering in the backline you should rarely be targeted by more than 1 or 2 attacks per round, barring special situations (frontliner down or inexisting, focus fire because intelligent enemy).

It can be great on Fighters too, but usually the players I see specs into reaction offense in the first place. Same with Barbarians (plus those usually go two-handed). Rogue have Uncanny Dodge for free which is not the same indeed but comparatively make the added value of DD weaker.
Wizard can ultimately get free Shield should they feel it required, so DD would have a big opportunity cost like "I prefer 'wasting' a feat and live up to 18 than pick something else and finally die half-way". Considering the numerous emergency/contingency tactics you can set up with level 5 and above spells, plus Arcane Recovery (so at least 8 Shield per day without upcast), it's hard to justify imo.

Plus, as you illustrated, while it's much easier to keep in play every turn when you play middle-range with thrown weapons, nothing prevents a character to keep a two-handed weapon in one arm while drawing another at the end of its turn, worst case dropping it at start of next turn to attack with bow, rinse and repeat.

[Chaosmancer]

Sorry to steer a bit off-thread, but that bit makes me curious. What problem do you see with Multiattack? Could you plz detail?

@OP IMO Defensive Duelist is a great feat, although of varying value depending on both character and effective level of play.
In my personal experience the sweet spot to take it is around level 8, and it's great up to level 13-14.
Before level 4 it's not worth enough imo unless you're taking it at level 1 to help survive the first few levels (but at level 4 you otherwise usually want to bump a stat or pick a "build-enabler" feat anyways), and even at a +3 it's often not your best option.

After level 14 you have so many creatures with multiattack and strong bonus to hit that it goes from "extremely useful" to "just a decent thing when you don't have anything better to to with your reaction" (OA with Sentinel/PAM that may kill or stop a guy, Warcaster with a Command/Hold Monster etc), or if you're just worrying the next attack may put you to 0.

As long as you put the limit of "no heavy weapon" and "no two-handed weapon", your houserule should be fine.


I think, if memory serves me, the hunter's multiattack defense only activates after you've been hit, and it only works for the same creature.

So, if you get hit by 3 different creatures once, it never activates.
If you are missed by a creature with three attacks, it never activates.
Ect.

Plus, requiring you to get hit, and therefore lose hp, is a pretty hefty price to pay for the low benefit of +4 AC against the next attack.

[HiveStriker]

I think, if memory serves me, the hunter's multiattack defense only activates after you've been hit, and it only works for the same creature.

So, if you get hit by 3 different creatures once, it never activates.
If you are missed by a creature with three attacks, it never activates.
Ect.

Plus, requiring you to get hit, and therefore lose hp, is a pretty hefty price to pay for the low benefit of +4 AC against the next attack.
Yeah, that's indeed that.
I don't see how it's bad though tbh.

If one takes it thinking it will be a great tool for groups of mobs, then indeed it will be bad, but I'd daresay the problem lies in the person reading too fast, not the ability itself.
Let's recall three things...

1) It's activated automatically: you still get your reaction available for something useful (like the further down Uncanny Dodge, or a multiclass Parry on that attack/Riposte on a later, or an Absorb Elements if elemental damage, or a multiclass Shield as reaction / Dodge as bonus action *cough Monk *cough* etc).

2) It works on ANY attack, including spells (focus fired Scorching Ray) and ranged attacks (against which you may have managed a much better AC thanks to cover).

3) Something like >75% of all creatures maybe, past CR 5, have multiple attacks (at least 2) so it's like a "free Defensive Duelist" as long as the creature is focus-firing on you (which should usually be the case, per basic rules of fighting, unless you're already three-quarters dead and a single hit should finish you ^^). And quite a decent number of creatures boast 3,4 or even more attacks past CR 12 (I remember one I stumbled upon when fast-reading the Monster Manual a long time ago, dont remember the name or CR, but had like 8 attacks in a single action, yikes!).

So it's much more effective than you'd expect at a first glance, it's actually kind of a big deal for a great handful of levels.
Obviously though it won't change much by itself when facing CR 18+ creatures (although at that time I expect you have other things to help survive, like a Shield from multiclass or Ring of Spell Storing -even if that's a costly option action-wise, or magical equipment, or friendly buffs as well as simply Dodging if you feel it's gonna hurt real much, sometimes its better than dealing damage now and be dead the next turn ^^).

[MaxWilson]

Sorry to steer a bit off-thread, but that bit makes me curious. What problem do you see with Multiattack? Could you plz detail?

Sure. Multiattack Defense gives you +4 to AC on subsequent attacks from a creature, after it's already hit you with one attack. This means that in order for it to have a big impact on a combat, your AC needs to be low enough relative to the creature's to-hit bonus that it's likely to hit you multiple times, which is also the point at which a +4 AC bonus isn't doing you that much good.

Example 1: you've got AC 18 and you're fighting a creature with +4 to hit and two attacks. It hits you on a 14-20, which means only 12.25% of the time would it even hit you twice in one round, so 7 rounds out of 8 Multiattack is completely irrelevant. 1 round in 8 it would hit you twice, but Multiattack Defense will reduce the damage on that attack by about half (hits on 18-20, so slightly over half the hits turn into misses but crits still do double damage, so it's about half damage). Multiattack Defense is only reducing the damage you take by about 6%, because your AC is too high for it to be relevant.

Example 2 (opposite scenario): you've got AC 15 and are fighting a Marilith with 8 attacks and +9 to hit. The Marilith is going to hit you approximately six times per round: Multiattack Defense will almost always be relevant. But even when it's relevant it's only turning a 5-20 hit range into a 9-20 hit range: instead of getting hit 6 times per round you're going to get hit (1+(8-(20/15))*(11/20))=4.67 times per round. Multiattack Defense is very relevant here, but it's also too weak to have much effect: it never turns fighting a Marilith from a bad idea into a good idea, it just makes it slightly less bad.

Every time I've tried to come up with an in-game scenario where Multiattack Defense is a strategically relevant option (turns bad/infeasible ideas into good/feasible ones), I've failed. Contrast this with something like Escape the Horde, where it's absolutely trivial to come up with scenarios with it's strategically relevant, e.g. take Sharpshooter and just cast Longstrider pre-combat and just eat opportunity attacks at disadvantage all day, retaliating with bow fire. It doesn't quite let you ignore opportunity attacks but it's pretty close.

It's easier to come up with a scenario where Defensive Duelist fails to be relevant (e.g. skeletons shooting bows), but it's still stronger than it looks for the inverse reason of Multiattack Defense: it's irrelevant only when you're not taking melee attacks or when you're getting hit LOTS of times per turn. If you're in a scenario #1 type situation (AC 18 vs. two attacks at +4 to hit), 7 times out of 8 it will reduce your damage by ~50% because the enemy will only hit you once anyway. 1 time out of 8 it will reduce it by ~25%.

[Nagog]

I find Defensive Duelist is an amazing choice of feats specifically for high level Monks. DD allows Monks to temporarily gain an AC above 20 (which late game makes them much more viable than they typically would be defensively), and provides a melee counterpart to Deflect Missiles. For Fighters and other equally high defense classes, it'd be a waste of a Feat. I'd even throw this on something like a Bladelock or even a Sorc/Wiz as a less powerful alternative to Shield. Considering the scaling nature and that it eats your reaction, I don't think it's OP at all.

[Morty]

As a rule of thumb, I think most if not all requirements for finesse weapons should be replaced by requirements of one-handed weapons, at the very least. There's no real point in restricting it, since a rapier deals the same damage as a longsword or battleaxe anyway.

Allowing such things to work with two-handed weapons is a different story and should be judged individually, but I don't think it could cause any problems here.

[Frozenstep]

Why couldn't they make multiattack defense work for the rest of the round? At least then it would have some use for disengaging from a thing thats hit you multiple times, and great against creatures with legendary actions that involve making attacks like dragons.

[HiveStriker]

Sure. Multiattack Defense gives you +4 to AC on subsequent attacks from a creature, after it's already hit you with one attack. This means that in order for it to have a big impact on a combat, your AC needs to be low enough relative to the creature's to-hit bonus that it's likely to hit you multiple times, which is also the point at which a +4 AC bonus isn't doing you that much good.

Example 1: you've got AC 18 and you're fighting a creature with +4 to hit and two attacks. It hits you on a 14-20, which means only 12.25% of the time would it even hit you twice in one round, so 7 rounds out of 8 Multiattack is completely irrelevant. 1 round in 8 it would hit you twice, but Multiattack Defense will reduce the damage on that attack by about half (hits on 18-20, so slightly over half the hits turn into misses but crits still do double damage, so it's about half damage). Multiattack Defense is only reducing the damage you take by about 6%, because your AC is too high for it to be relevant.

Example 2 (opposite scenario): you've got AC 15 and are fighting a Marilith with 8 attacks and +9 to hit. The Marilith is going to hit you approximately six times per round: Multiattack Defense will almost always be relevant. But even when it's relevant it's only turning a 5-20 hit range into a 9-20 hit range: instead of getting hit 6 times per round you're going to get hit (1+(8-(20/15))*(11/20))=4.67 times per round. Multiattack Defense is very relevant here, but it's also too weak to have much effect: it never turns fighting a Marilith from a bad idea into a good idea, it just makes it slightly less bad.

Every time I've tried to come up with an in-game scenario where Multiattack Defense is a strategically relevant option (turns bad/infeasible ideas into good/feasible ones), I've failed. Contrast this with something like Escape the Horde, where it's absolutely trivial to come up with scenarios with it's strategically relevant, e.g. take Sharpshooter and just cast Longstrider pre-combat and just eat opportunity attacks at disadvantage all day, retaliating with bow fire. It doesn't quite let you ignore opportunity attacks but it's pretty close.

It's easier to come up with a scenario where Defensive Duelist fails to be relevant (e.g. skeletons shooting bows), but it's still stronger than it looks for the inverse reason of Multiattack Defense: it's irrelevant only when you're not taking melee attacks or when you're getting hit LOTS of times per turn. If you're in a scenario #1 type situation (AC 18 vs. two attacks at +4 to hit), 7 times out of 8 it will reduce your damage by ~50% because the enemy will only hit you once anyway. 1 time out of 8 it will reduce it by ~25%.
Thanks for answering.

I'm sorry I have to say though, but here again, you pick tailored examples without explaining.
Why in example 1 would Ranger have 18 AC, and the example 2 only 15?
With starting 15, you go from 75% to 55%.
With starting 18, you go from 60% to 40%.
As a reminder, everyone around here agrees that the actual value of extra AC is really depending on how high you start from.
So the minimum is you want to compare situations is to make as many parameters as possible "static" ones.
Furthermore, I see no reason for any Ranger to have anything below 18 at level 7-8 (either by wielding a shield, or using Defense FS, or Dual Wielder/MAM/Heavily Armored feat).

Besides, you post like people would choose to fight a Marilith ill-prepared (which I find very dubious), or that a 25% damage reduction in average is bad, which I strongly disagree with.

Anyways, let's pick another iconic example while we're at it: Adult Dragon (whatever color I think), has +11 to hit on three attacks.
I don't know all monsters, far from it, I expect it's an accurate representant of a CR 15 creature as far as To Hit goes, which if I'm not mistaken should be fairly common in the late part of your career.

Against the 18 AC (medium armor + Defense FS), needs 7, so 70% chance to hit (50% with Multiattack activated).
Chance to miss all attacks: 0.3*0.3*0.3 = 2%
Chance to hit only on third attack (= Multiattack defense useless): miss + miss + hit = 0.3*0.3*0.7 = ~6%.
Chance to hit only on second attack and still hit after Multiattack is activated is 0.3*0.7*0.5 = ~10%
Chance to hit only on second attack then miss on third thanks to Multiattack: 0.3*0.7*0.5 = 10%
Chance to hit only on second and third attack without Multiattack: 0.3*0.7*0.7 = 15%.

I'm not a king of maths, far from it, but I don't think I made mistakes in in reasoning here, except maybe on the last case (not sure how to write down the probability for linked events but I adjusted the AC on the fly). I just don't know how to properly take crits into account but in that situation it's irrelevant if I'm mistaken since we are talking probability of hit, not actual damage.
So Multiattack has 92% chance to be active for at least one attack.

"Best" case now: first attack hit, attacker misses the two other: 0.7*0.5*0.5 = 15%.
"Second best": first attack hit, then a mix of one hit and one miss: 0.7*0.5*0.5 = 15%.

So, how often will Multiattack provide a net benefit?
"Hit on first, two other miss"
"Hit on first, one of remaining miss"
"Hit on second, third miss"
1-(0.10+0.15+0.15) = 60%.
AND you still have your reaction on whatever you may have (including Uncanny Dodge at later level).
How much will have it made a real difference? In terms of probability, probably not much, something like 10% of all "3 attacks chains" maybe? I'm too lazy to compare chances with and without in all cases. ^^

Can we generalize from this? Probably not.
And I don't have the required maths skills to define a function computing chance of Multiattack "providing a net benefit compared to without it" that would take into account everything needed meaning...
- respective AC or Ranger,
- number of attacks of attacker,
- to-hit bonus of attacker,
- and average damage on hit (because avoiding an attack that deals <10 damage is irrelevant, one that deals 25+ or adds nasty effect starts to be interesting).

However, considering the number of chained attacks one can suffer in a given day past level 6-7 (especially in melee), this saves a very hefty amount of effective HP.
In that regard, it's very much like Heavy Armor Master: very unflashy yet effective: it won't usually make a difference in a life-threatening round except those special cases of Marilith and similar creatures you'd be face-tanking for some reason (we agree here, it's not something one would want), but it makes a big, big difference in the long run.*

And if/when you want your Ranger to really tank something for some reason, 20 AC + Dodge does the job quite nicely without further investment added.
Would you beat the same Ranger that multiclassed into something for Shield? Certainly not. But that one would be deprived of reaction whenever he uses Shield.

* Of course, if you have some cheesy healer like Life Cleric / Druid / Warlock that kind of resilience is completely irrelevant ^^.


Why couldn't they make multiattack defense work for the rest of the round? At least then it would have some use for disengaging from a thing thats hit you multiple times, and great against creatures with legendary actions that involve making attacks like dragons.
This is a fair criticism, I sadly have no idea why either. Considering the majority of defensive features that come to my mind last "for the round"... And it would certainly not be OP either, even considering the Legendary Actions. After all, creatures that have those are usually deadly dangers for the party. ^^

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for answering.

I'm sorry I have to say though, but here again, you pick tailored examples without explaining.
Why in example 1 would Ranger have 18 AC, and the example 2 only 15?
With starting 15, you go from 75% to 55%.
With starting 18, you go from 60% to 40%.
As a reminder, everyone around here agrees that the actual value of extra AC is really depending on how high you start from.
So the minimum is you want to compare situations is to make as many parameters as possible "static" ones.
Furthermore, I see no reason for any Ranger to have anything below 18 at level 7-8 (either by wielding a shield, or using Defense FS, or Dual Wielder/MAM/Heavily Armored feat).

They aren't tailored scenarios. (It's not like I did the math before choosing which examples to post.)

As I explained, I was trying to pick two opposite scenarios: one where Multiattack Defense is very likely to trigger, and one where it isn't likely at all, but as I also explained, I can't find any scenarios in the middle either where it matters. If you give the Ranger 18 instead of 15, nothing changes--it's still a quite small reduction in damage.


Besides, you post like people would choose to fight a Marilith ill-prepared (which I find very dubious), or that a 25% damage reduction in average is bad, which I strongly disagree with.

That's probably the key point of contention then. To me, 25% damage reduction all the time would be decent, but a feature which gives you a ~25% damage reduction in niche situations is quite bad. Damage reductions on the order of 70-90% are not uncommon, and 25% is bad compared to that.


Anyways, let's pick another iconic example while we're at it: Adult Dragon (whatever color I think), has +11 to hit on three attacks.
I don't know all monsters, far from it, I expect it's an accurate representant of a CR 15 creature as far as To Hit goes, which if I'm not mistaken should be fairly common in the late part of your career.

Against the 18 AC (medium armor + Defense FS), needs 7, so 70% chance to hit (50% with Multiattack activated).

*snip*

How much will have it made a real difference? In terms of probability, probably not much, something like 10% of all "3 attacks chains" maybe? I'm too lazy to compare chances with and without in all cases.


Okay, let's go with this example. Adult Black Dragon against AC 18, AC 18 target. Results after 10,000 simulations:

Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against AC 18: average damage 35.227500 HP per round
Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against AC 18 with Multiattack Defense: average damage 30.694900 HP per round (12.866652% reduction)


let r = System.Random()
let d n = 1 + r.Next n
let thunk x _ = x
let thunk1 f x _ = f x
let thunk2 f x y _ = f x y
let ds n dsize () = List.init n (thunk1 d dsize) |> List.sum
let basic =
[for x in 1..10000 do
let hit damage bonus =
let roll = d 20
let ac = 18
let tohit = 11
if roll = 20 then
(damage() + damage() + bonus)
elif roll + tohit >= ac then
damage() + bonus
else 0
(hit (fun () -> ds 2 10 () + d 8) 6) + (hit (ds 2 6) 6) + (hit (ds 2 6) 6) |> float
] |> List.average
basic |> printfn "Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against AC 18: average damage %f HP per round"

[for x in 1..10000 do
let mutable alreadyHit = false
let hit damage bonus =
let roll = d 20
let ac = 18 + (if alreadyHit then 4 else 0)
let tohit = 11
if roll = 20 then
alreadyHit <- true
(damage() + damage() + bonus)
elif roll + tohit >= ac then
alreadyHit <- true
damage() + bonus
else 0
(hit (fun () -> ds 2 10 () + d 8) 6) + (hit (ds 2 6) 6) + (hit (ds 2 6) 6) |> float
] |> List.average
|> fun x -> printfn "Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against AC 18 with Multiattack Defense: average damage %f HP per round (%f%% reduction)" x ((basic - x)/basic * 100.)
The value of Multiattack Defense in this scenario is tiny. Note that I'm not going to accuse you of "tailoring" this example, nor should you accuse me of tailoring mine. As I said before, I've looked for scenarios where Multiattack Defense really matters, and I just can't find any.


However, considering the number of chained attacks one can suffer in a given day past level 6-7 (especially in melee), this saves a very hefty amount of effective HP.

It just doesn't.


And if/when you want your Ranger to really tank something for some reason, 20 AC + Dodge does the job quite nicely without further investment added.

It's still basically irrelevant in that situation.

Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against dodging AC 18: average damage 23.123800 HP per round
Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against dodging AC 18 with Multiattack Defense: average damage 19.553200 HP per round (15.441234% reduction)


* Of course, if you have some cheesy healer like Life Cleric / Druid / Warlock that kind of resilience is completely irrelevant ^^.

And unfortunately 5E has made extreme healing very cheap to access.

Your comparison to Heavy Armor Master is a fair one, but Multiattack Defense's ceiling on effectiveness is pretty close to HAM's floor: even against CR 20+ heavy-hitters like dragons, HAM still usually reduces damage by 15-30% if they don't have magic weapons, and in ideal scenarios (legions of Dolgrims!) HAM reduces damage by about 50% and could be the key to survival. Multiattack Defense on the other hand never gets out of the 15-30% range AFAICT, and in many common scenarios its value is 0%.
Summarizing results in a way relevant to the thread:

Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against AC 18: average damage 34.926800 HP per round
Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against AC 18 with Multiattack Defense: average damage 30.781900 HP per round (11.867391% reduction)
Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against AC 18 with Defensive Duelist (+5): average damage 28.093700 HP per round (19.564060% reduction)
Adult black dragon bite/bite/claw against AC 18 with Multiattack Defense AND Defensive Duelist (+5): average damage 24.807400 HP per round (28.973167% reduction)

[qube]

@ MaxWilson; It's actually Bite/claw/claw, not Bite/bite/claw.

And this gets the following results FYI: (adult black dragon Bite Claw Claw DPR without parry / DPR with parry )

AC 28: 11.0
AC 26: 15.7
AC 24: 20.4, 10.8
AC 22: 25.2, 15.6
AC 20: 29.8, 20.3
AC 18: 34.7, 25.1
AC 16: 39.5, 29.9
AC 14: 44.2, 34.6

I've colored a couple of numbers to show the trend: in the example: regardless of initial AC, parry+5 is equivalent to AC+4

[MaxWilson]

@ MaxWilson; It's actually Bite/claw/claw, not Bite/bite/claw.

Hehehe, embarrassing typo in the print statement. Don't worry, the simulation does not in fact make two bites and one claw. The numbers are accurate.


And this gets the following results FYI: (adult black dragon Bite Claw Claw DPR without parry / DPR with parry )

AC 28: 11.0
AC 26: 15.7
AC 24: 20.4, 10.8
AC 22: 25.2, 15.6
AC 20: 29.8, 20.3
AC 18: 34.7, 25.1
AC 16: 39.5, 29.9
AC 14: 44.2, 34.6

I've colored a couple of numbers to show the trend: in the example: regardless of initial AC, parry+5 is equivalent to AC+4

Interesting trend. I note that you're apparently assuming optimal parrying (i.e. knowledge of the die roll), which is why you get damage numbers lower than I do. My sim was just assuming that you parry the first time you're hit (bite/claw/claw in that order) without being able to see the die roll, but I only get the same numbers you do if I assume that Defensive Duelist never gets wasted.

Following your format (regular, without die foreknowledge, with die foreknowledge)

AC 28: 11.3, 5.1, 4.8
AC 26: 15.9, 6.4, 6.0
AC 24: 20.9, 11.8, 11.0
AC 22: 25.1, 17.5, 15.8
AC 20: 29.8, 22.8, 20.3
AC 18: 34.7, 28.3, 25.2
AC 16: 39.4, 33.3, 30.0
AC 14: 44.2, 38.3, 34.5

which seems to match up pretty well with yours. Anyway, it's an interesting trend.

[Tanarii]

MaxWilson Multiattack Defense stacks each time you get hit. So its great against a creature with 6 attacks thats likely to hit you.

[stoutstien]

MaxWilson Multiattack Defense stacks each time you get hit. So its great against a creature with 6 attacks thats likely to hit you.

Does it? I figured it followed the ' only one effect of the same name can apply at once" rules.
If it does stack it really changes the power of it.

[Chaosmancer]

MaxWilson Multiattack Defense stacks each time you get hit. So its great against a creature with 6 attacks thats likely to hit you.

Huh, I'd never thought about it stacking, but nothing in the ability prevents it

[MaxWilson]

Huh, I'd never thought about it stacking, but nothing in the ability prevents it

At one point it would arguably have stacked with itself, but modern DMG printings forbid it via the Combining Game Effects rule (DMG p. 252), unless the DM rules an exception specifically for Multiattack Defense.

See https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DMG_Errata.pdf for the DMG change.

[Aaron Underhand]

Just like to add one thing I think has been missed from this thread.

DD is fun!

It may not be as mechanically strong as other options but the feat will reward the player with many dramatic moments, and a narrative and style which brings value well beyond the mechanical. It'll seem much better than the numbers say, and you'll likely love playing it.

It's a good feat for this reason...

[Greywander]

Just like to add one thing I think has been missed from this thread.

DD is fun!

It may not be as mechanically strong as other options but the feat will reward the player with many dramatic moments, and a narrative and style which brings value well beyond the mechanical. It'll seem much better than the numbers say, and you'll likely love playing it.

It's a good feat for this reason...
Another aspect of this is that it's resource-free (action economy aside). While this necessarily means it has to be nerfed a bit (compared to, say, the Shield spell), it means you have no reason not to use it any chance you get. In other words, you'll be using it more often than if it had a resource cost, which means you get a lot of chances to feel good about having picked this up.

It's kind of the same thing as getting Shield Master or Tavern Brawler on a character who has nothing to use their bonus action with. They can spam their new ability every chance they get and feel good about getting that feat.

[Chaosmancer]

At one point it would arguably have stacked with itself, but modern DMG printings forbid it via the Combining Game Effects rule (DMG p. 252), unless the DM rules an exception specifically for Multiattack Defense.

See https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DMG_Errata.pdf for the DMG change.

There could be an argument put forth that it is not two separate effects.

The example of the Fire elemental in the errata could be seen as the damage coming from being ignited, whether that is from the fire form or the touch attack, so the damage does not stack because you cannot be ignited twice. (but you could also ignite someone with alchemist fire which is just dumb)

Meanwhile, this ability could be seen as a single effect, if hit increase AC, repeat as hit.


But, likely you are right and it would need an exception.

[Squeak]

Up to +6 against a single melee attack is not a bad effect, but I suspect usually most classes have more important feats to get.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The problem is it is still not a very good feat.

Reaction, for your prof to ac of one attack, and that attack has to be melee based.

That is not worth a feat even if it can use any weapon, maybe, maybe as a half feat

It's an amazing feat as many characters don't have a good use of their reaction.

This is great on a Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, and so many others.

Spellcasters don't want to blow through all their spells, so they have a reason to pick this up.

Sadly, too many people think offensive feats are a good choice in 5e, so DD gets **** on or forgotten. Everyone is already offensively viable in 5e and stacking more offense on top is a waste of reserources while grabbing things like DD helps you in ways you couldn't do before.

DD could stand to be expanded, but as is, it's a good feat.

[Misterwhisper]

It's an amazing feat as many characters don't have a good use of their reaction.

This is great on a Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, and so many others.

Spellcasters don't want to blow through all their spells, so they have a reason to pick this up.

Sadly, too many people think offensive feats are a good choice in 5e, so DD gets **** on or forgotten. Everyone is already offensively viable in 5e and stacking more offense on top is a waste of reserources while grabbing things like DD helps you in ways you couldn't do before.

DD could stand to be expanded, but as is, it's a good feat.

Defensive feats are great, everyone loves resilient and things.

My issue is that the feat only does one thing, and that one thing only works on some attacks, and even if you use it it might not make a difference.

Thinks like Shield Master, armor proficiency, resilient or even the also pretty crummy dual wielded at least do two or three things or give you a +1 to a stat.

If it was a feat that gave a +1 dex or str, or it could work on any attack roll it would be ok, but that is super narrow of use for it to be the only benefit.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Defensive feats are great, everyone loves resilient and things.

My issue is that the feat only does one thing, and that one thing only works on some attacks, and even if you use it it might not make a difference.

Thinks like Shield Master, armor proficiency, resilient or even the also pretty crummy dual wielded at least do two or three things or give you a +1 to a stat.

If it was a feat that gave a +1 dex or str, or it could work on any attack roll it would be ok, but that is super narrow of use for it to be the only benefit.

DD could be spruced up a bit, but bonuses to AC are not easy to come by.

DD works against a majority of the attacks you will see in a typical game. DD stacks with all other AC boosts and you get to choose to apply it after you find out if the roll hit. This last part is critical as the DM will ask "does a 19 hit your AC" and you can then decide to use your reaction to make your 18AC go above the attack roll.

DD is better the later you take it, +6 AC is stupid high, but the feat is a suppliment to what you already got.

I think a lot of feats need work, the whole section is thrown together is a rushed way (why is there not more skill feats like Actor? Are you kidding me?). So yeah, DD could have been designed better but I can point at almost every feat in the game and tell you why it sucks.

[Tanarii]

At one point it would arguably have stacked with itself, but modern DMG printings forbid it via the Combining Game Effects rule (DMG p. 252), unless the DM rules an exception specifically for Multiattack Defense.

See https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DMG_Errata.pdf for the DMG change.
Hmmm. That’s a shame. I’ll just have to pretend I never saw this so my few hunter players that take it get a nice benefit from it. (I’d have to double check, but I think Steel Will and Escape the Horde are more common picks anyway.)

[MaxWilson]

DD could be spruced up a bit, but bonuses to AC are not easy to come by.

DD works against a majority of the attacks you will see in a typical game. DD stacks with all other AC boosts and you get to choose to apply it after you find out if the roll hit. This last part is critical as the DM will ask "does a 19 hit your AC" and you can then decide to use your reaction to make your 18AC go above the attack roll.

Actually it's even better than that: the DM has to tell you first if you were hit, just like Shield. "You're hit! Do you want to Shield or DD?" You may or may not know that it was a 19 but you will definitely know that you've been hit--you will never waste DD on a miss, just like you will never waste Shield on a miss.

DD is like Lucky in that it helps you turn unlikely events into practically-never-happens events, which is great if you're fighting monsters that rarely hit you in the first place ('rarely' becomes 'practically never'). Unlike Lucky you can use it every round, but it does cost your reaction.

[Witty Username]

Just like to add one thing I think has been missed from this thread.

DD is fun!

It may not be as mechanically strong as other options but the feat will reward the player with many dramatic moments, and a narrative and style which brings value well beyond the mechanical. It'll seem much better than the numbers say, and you'll likely love playing it.

It's a good feat for this reason...
I think alot of the argument agrees with this, there is just a group that thinks not being able to parry with a longsword is odd. I would say all weapon maybe not, non-heavy yes.
Like rogue's sneak attack with spell attacks, and longswords that they are proficient with for somesuch reason(I assume grandfather clause)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think alot of the argument agrees with this, there is just a group that thinks not being able to parry with a longsword is odd. I would say all weapon maybe not, non-heavy yes.
Like rogue's sneak attack with spell attacks, and longswords that they are proficient with for somesuch reason(I assume grandfather clause)

Can't parry with a greatsword, but can shoot fire out of my fingers.

[Witty Username]

Can't parry with a greatsword, but can shoot fire out of my fingers.
I said maybe not, I am still mulling it over.
It sounds like we can agree on non-heavy weapons though.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I said maybe not, I am still mulling it over.
It sounds like we can agree on non-heavy weapons though.

If you have 20 str, that heavy weapon isn't "heavy" anymore.

I really hate that the wielder's strength doesn't factor into the category of a weapon. Even unwieldy items become easy to use once you're strong enough.

[Witty Username]

Fair point, especially if one is say a str 20 halfling. Still have disadvantage despite being able to lift 300 pounds.

[qube]

If you have 20 str, that heavy weapon isn't "heavy" anymore.

I really hate that the wielder's strength doesn't factor into the category of a weapon. Even unwieldy items become easy to use once you're strong enough.that's because there's more to fighting with a weapon then carrying capacity.

A hallberd only weigh 3 lb. But to use a hallbard as a hallbard you need two hands. Anyone can wield a hallbard with one hand - but then you get a bad axe. or a bad shortspear, if you use it to thrust.

Weapons are more then sharp pieces placed on sticks. They are designed, and actually evolved, to suit a purpose and style.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Polearms.jpg/371px-Polearms.jpg

Hallberds have a certain head, length, point of balance, etc ... to be used with two hands. Fulcrum & force about 3 ft apart, if you recall your physics classes.
http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/physics/leverclassone.gif

Before you're able to create the same speed, accuracy and power with one hand, you'd need an ungodly amount of strength. While quite obviously, if you have that ungodly strength, using a Hallberd as intended, you'd be FAR superiour against a normal person who also uses it as intended.

But the idea of "I have Str 20. Now, hallbard are one-handed weapons for me" doesn't make sense.

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

I hear you think "OK, sure, pole arms might be the exception ... what about swords?"

I in fact own two longsword (I practice HEMA), a well balanced one and a heavier, badly balanced one. I bought the latter on the cheap, and use it for practice - to build muscle mass. It's in fact true that the stronger I get, the better I can wield the unbalanced one.

But I'll never fight with the unbalanced one - because with that weapon, I lose the advantage of being stronger - having to compensate for the poor balance.

If you want to convert something like that to D&D I'd say it comes down to something like "you get a bigger damage die, but you add one less strength to attack and damage".

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Fair point, especially if one is say a str 20 halfling. Still have disadvantage despite being able to lift 300 pounds.

No.

20 strength should equal 20 strength. Being smaller doesn't matter once you hit a certain sttength because what you are holding is very light relative to your strength.

As for athletics... Someone smaller than you, but grossly overpowering, will not have a disadvantage due to size.

A 20 stregth haflling shouldn't have disadvantage against a 14 strength orc in wrestling.


Edit:

Should work like heavy armor. Once you hit X strength, the weapon goes down a category in how light it is.

Heavy -> Normal -> Light.

[Witty Username]

No.

20 strength should equal 20 strength. Being smaller doesn't matter once you hit a certain sttength because what you are holding is very light relative to your strength.

As for athletics... Someone smaller than you, but grossly overpowering, will not have a disadvantage due to size.

A 20 stregth haflling shouldn't have disadvantage against a 14 strength orc in wrestling.


Edit:

Should work like heavy armor. Once you hit X strength, the weapon goes down a category in how light it is.

Heavy -> Normal -> Light.

I think we agree, sorry if I was unclear.

[diplomancer]

No.

20 strength should equal 20 strength. Being smaller doesn't matter once you hit a certain sttength because what you are holding is very light relative to your strength.

As for athletics... Someone smaller than you, but grossly overpowering, will not have a disadvantage due to size.

A 20 stregth haflling shouldn't have disadvantage against a 14 strength orc in wrestling.


Edit:

Should work like heavy armor. Once you hit X strength, the weapon goes down a category in how light it is.

Heavy -> Normal -> Light.

"Heavy" (the weapon property) does not mean heavy. It means large. Long bow is "heavy" and there are 4 weapons that weigh less than it (blowgun, sling, dagger, and dart). Greatclub is not "heavy" and there are only two weapons that weigh more than it (pike and heavy crossbow). A halfing can get a 20 Str (let's abstract for a moment the absurdities involved, specially with carrying capacity), he will not get bigger because of it.

They probably named it "heavy" and not "large" so as to avoid people thinking that these weapons are made for large creatures. There are many cases of special terminology in the game. It's like breathing fire on someone is not considered "an attack" in D&D.

[Chaosmancer]

I agree with Diplomancer and Qube, it is more about abstracting bulk and effectiveness than it is the difficulty of swinging around 6 lbs, after all, even an average strength of 10 allows you to lift 150 lbs over your head and throw it. Which is not something I'd say the average person could reliably do.

I don't do anything like HEMA, but the concept is pretty similiar to moving bulky furniture. Somethings are just hard to get the proper leverage to easily move, regardless of "weight"

[qube]

I don't do anything like HEMA, but the concept is pretty similiar to moving bulky furniture. Somethings are just hard to get the proper leverage to easily move, regardless of "weight"Indeed. You don't even need to do hema or move furniture:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/ihmGd.jpg

Same weight, but because the point of balance is all different, that nail isn't going to go anywhere.


A 20 stregth haflling shouldn't have disadvantage against a 14 strength orc in wrestling.Why not? That disadvantage represense his size, doesn't it? Consider

halfings weigh up to 42 lbs (PHB), orcs weigh up to 367 lb (Volo)
that orc got, on average, twice the armlength that halfling has


Consider:


Weight classes are divisions of competition used to match competitors against others of their own size. Weight classes are used in a variety of sports, especially combat sports (such as boxing, kickboxing, mixed martial arts and wrestling). Alternatives to formal weight classes include catch weight and openweight.

The existence of weight divisions gives rise to the practice of weight cutting. It is a popular consideration for it to be an advantage of being the largest individual in a weight division, therefore some athletes will work hard to lose weight through dieting and dehydration prior to weigh-ins to meet the required weight class.

~~ wikipedia

And for context, the olympic men's freestyle wresling categories are 125 lb / 143 lb / 163 lb / 190 lb / 214 lb / 276 lb; meaning

The halfling has 1/3 of the minimal requirement of the lowest weight category
The orc clears the bar of the most heavy category with nearly 100 lb