Fighting Style: Interception Debate

[carrdrivesyou]

So the more I think about this "fighting style" the more I hate it. I am trying to understand the logic here, but I am failing spectacularly...Can anyone help me understand this design?


My main issues:
1. This seems more on par with a Battle Master maneuver than a "fighting style."
2. This is a melee variant of the monk's Deflect Missiles class ability, albeit slightly weaker.
3. This seems like it would damage a ranged weapon in the process; there is no way a longbow is gonna take any sort of a hit from a greatsword or maul and still be usable, or at the very least knocked out of your hands. A longsword or melee weapon would probably be fine though. But listing "any shield, simple or martial weapon" is a biiiig stretch. Does this include improvised weapons (what about with Tavern Brawler?)?

Granted, item durability really isn't part of this edition, and what we consider "combat maneuvers" such as trip, disarm, etc. are a thing of the past...can anyone explain this fighting style in terms that make sense? Because as is, I am having an absurdly difficult time justifying it.

[stoutstien]

I think you're reading into it too much. while interception could be physically putting your weapon or shield in the path of an oncoming attack it doesn't necessarily have to be. It could be momentarily breaking their concentration with a quick fake or feint causing a less accurate strike.

[CheddarChampion]

I think the item sturdiness part is a valid critique. I might be inclined to houserule it to be "Any shield, simple melee weapon, or martial melee weapon" instead.

I don't really mind that it overlaps with deflect missiles. Taking interception style has an opportunity cost and it doesn't give you a counterattack.

I think the fighting style doesn't mesh with AC abstraction. People already use weapons and shields defensively when attacked, right? You don't need expert training to learn how to block. (Assuming, that is, that the fighting style still works on yourself. I don't have a copy of Tasha's yet.)

If you're DMing, and the style bothers you enough, just tell your players that it's a Battlemaster maneuver or not allowed in your game.

Edit: On the other hand, maybe flavor it as a last-second half-block, or a realization that an attack will hit so they instead do their best to soften the blow. Special training gives the PC an boost when on the defensive, but using those techniques leaves them unable to retaliate momentarily (losing their reaction).

Edit 2: I was wrong.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Like every weapon user learn you use your weapon to block in the why that will hurt it less.
Like not blocking with the blade or using it to divert and change the attack trajectory instead of blocking it by force.


And it work like the bard cutting words IMO.


I think the item sturdiness part is a valid critique. I might be inclined to houserule it to be "Any shield, simple melee weapon, or martial melee weapon" instead.

I don't really mind that it overlaps with deflect missiles. Taking interception style has an opportunity cost and it doesn't give you a counterattack.

I think the fighting style doesn't mesh with AC abstraction. People already use weapons and shields defensively when attacked, right? You don't need expert training to learn how to block. (Assuming, that is, that the fighting style still works on yourself. I don't have a copy of Tasha's yet.)

If you're DMing, and the style bothers you enough, just tell your players that it's a Battlemaster maneuver or not allowed in your game.

For you and everyone else

Interception
When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage the target takes by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0 damage). You must be wielding a shield or a simple or martial weapon to use this reaction.

[carrdrivesyou]

If it were a feint or a Cutting Words analog, subtracting from the attack roll, I would have zero issues with flavor. But subtracting damage just makes no sense, even with the abstract sense of Hit Points being "luck, stamina, and vitality." Honestly, it's just confusing.

[CheddarChampion]

For you and everyone else

Oops. Thank you for the rules clarification!

[Thunderous Mojo]

If it were a feint or a Cutting Words analog, subtracting from the attack roll, I would have zero issues with flavor. But subtracting damage just makes no sense, even with the abstract sense of Hit Points being "luck, stamina, and vitality." Honestly, it's just confusing.

First as a DM, you do not have to envision how the Fighting style works, let the player describe what their use of the ability looks like.

Secondly, if the Protection Fighting style is distracting someone, then the Interception Fighting Style would be a partial effective parry.

I like Reaction based abilities for martial characters. For myself, it keeps me engaged, when I might have a tendency to have my attention wander.

[carrdrivesyou]

First as a DM, you do not have to envision how the Fighting style works, let the player describe what their use of the ability looks like.

Secondly, if the Protection Fighting style is distracting someone, then the Interception Fighting Style would be a partial effective parry...

Emphasis mine, but YES. Thank you for getting me to understand this. Although it doesn't solve the breaking weapons thing, or the ranged vs melee debate, I can work with this. I cast Bless on your and your camels.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Thank you for the Bless spell. By RAW a camels low Dex score makes their ranged spit attack awfully unlikely to connect. 🖖

[animewatcha]

Up for consideration in this is that Interception was actually nerfed in the UA to Tasha release. In the UA release, the wording allowed you to defend yourself with it.

[MaxWilson]

I cast Bless on your and your camels.

Made me laugh.


Thank you for the Bless spell. By RAW a camels low Dex score makes their ranged spit attack awfully unlikely to connect. 🖖

And this too. :)

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Emphasis mine, but YES. Thank you for getting me to understand this. Although it doesn't solve the breaking weapons thing, or the ranged vs melee debate, I can work with this. I cast Bless on your and your camels.

Only a stupid warrior will break his weapon.
Blade to blade is a mistake if you are not using a big heavy club.

Longbow should be flexible enough and long enough to move the attacker limbs in order to change his attack trajectory.

What make be fill weird is the idea of a sling, not that it is impossible but it is way harder then every other weapon as it requires you to act with both hands from a close distance using it as a strap of fabric to cage the attacker limbs or weapon.
I saw people do it and can picture it but I only saw it done by professionals.

[carrdrivesyou]

Only a stupid warrior will break his weapon.
Blade to blade is a mistake if you are not using a big heavy club.

Longbow should be flexible enough and long enough to move the attacker limbs in order to change his attack trajectory.

What make be fill weird is the idea of a sling, not that it is impossible but it is way harder then every other weapon as it requires you to act with both hands from a close distance using it as a strap of fabric to cage the attacker limbs or weapon.
I saw people do it and can picture it but I only saw it done by professionals.

Well, my point is really that a greatsword or greataxe, or any other two handed attack would likely damage any wooden hafted weapon. And as stated above, a partially successful parry makes sense for the action taken. The issues I still have are really durability issues. Historically speaking, there are bows with bladed edges or rifles with bayonets, or other such melee modifications specifically for this type of thing, but 5e rules don't really support that.

[stoutstien]

Well, my point is really that a greatsword or greataxe, or any other two handed attack would likely damage any wooden hafted weapon. And as stated above, a partially successful parry makes sense for the action taken. The issues I still have are really durability issues. Historically speaking, there are bows with bladed edges or rifles with bayonets, or other such melee modifications specifically for this type of thing, but 5e rules don't really support that.

we're still talking about the same game where the height in which you can survive a fall is based on the amount of blood points you have or a player can go swimming in full plate and a quiver full of arrows/ javelins can come out down river no worse for wear?

[OvisCaedo]

Well, my point is really that a greatsword or greataxe, or any other two handed attack would likely damage any wooden hafted weapon. And as stated above, a partially successful parry makes sense for the action taken. The issues I still have are really durability issues. Historically speaking, there are bows with bladed edges or rifles with bayonets, or other such melee modifications specifically for this type of thing, but 5e rules don't really support that.

Well, parrying doesn't necessarily mean blocking, and especially does not necessarily mean blocking the bladed part of an incoming attack. It just requires having done something that could reduce the final effectiveness of the blow. Batting a sword slightly to the side by striking the flat of it could turn a clean hit into a more glancing blow.

Of course, when using generous visual interpretations of what can be done, unarmed should be possible to partially deflect things with, but isn't allowed... But that's probably just a deliberate mechanical restriction regardless of whether it could make sense in flavor or not. (Especially if there's just kind of some holdover language from when you could use it to defend yourself in its original UA form like someone claimed earlier)

[Zalabim]

It's worth mentioning for thoroughness of descriptions that interception style works against ranged attacks too. Then I imagine it's the crazy shooting at their arrow with your arrow, at worst.

[Dienekes]

So the more I think about this "fighting style" the more I hate it. I am trying to understand the logic here, but I am failing spectacularly...Can anyone help me understand this design?


My main issues:
1. This seems more on par with a Battle Master maneuver than a "fighting style."

I know isn't it great? Actual options in combat for non-spell casters! Brilliant! The rest of the Fighting Styles are boring as hell static bonuses. Worst of all, poorly balanced boring as hell static bonuses. Who thought a +2 to damage was the equivalent of a +2 to hit? It's not even hard math. And don't even get me started on "rerolling 1s and 2s" nonsense.



2. This is a melee variant of the monk's Deflect Missiles class ability, albeit slightly weaker.

It's just the Parry maneuver. Does it make sense that Parries reduce damage instead of altering your AC or some other way of negating an attack? No. But 5e is already horrible at modeling martial combat anyway. So what's more to the ever increasing list? Especially since it's not really one more, it's just the same thing in Fighting Style form.



3. This seems like it would damage a ranged weapon in the process; there is no way a longbow is gonna take any sort of a hit from a greatsword or maul and still be usable, or at the very least knocked out of your hands. A longsword or melee weapon would probably be fine though. But listing "any shield, simple or martial weapon" is a biiiig stretch. Does this include improvised weapons (what about with Tavern Brawler?)?

Granted, item durability really isn't part of this edition, and what we consider "combat maneuvers" such as trip, disarm, etc. are a thing of the past...can anyone explain this fighting style in terms that make sense? Because as is, I am having an absurdly difficult time justifying it.

I'll go back to "5e is horrible at modeling martial combat anyway" response.

You're not wrong. But people have grown up watching Legolas literally parry oversized cleavers with his longbow. It's a part of nerd culture now. And again, it's unrealistic, but I can't say it's more unrealistic than anything else in this game.

[Damon_Tor]

What's interesting to me is that there's nothing which prevents multiple characters with this fighting style from using it against the same attack. So if you can't reduce it to zero with one, you can do it with another. This leads to a "phalanx formation" concept, where you have your 6 PCs in a tight 2 by 3 formation, shields and spears in the front, pikes in the back, everyone running polearm mastery so the formation cant be approached. Magic is handled by one of your guys being an Ancients Paladin level 7 for great saves and resistances.

[MaxWilson]

What's interesting to me is that there's nothing which prevents multiple characters with this fighting style from using it against the same attack. So if you can't reduce it to zero with one, you can do it with another. This leads to a "phalanx formation" concept, where you have your 6 PCs in a tight 2 by 3 formation, shields and spears in the front, pikes in the back, everyone running polearm mastery so the formation cant be approached. Magic is handled by one of your guys being an Ancients Paladin level 7 for great saves and resistances.

Now have the guy in front upcast Armor of Agathys...

[stoutstien]

What's interesting to me is that there's nothing which prevents multiple characters with this fighting style from using it against the same attack. So if you can't reduce it to zero with one, you can do it with another. This leads to a "phalanx formation" concept, where you have your 6 PCs in a tight 2 by 3 formation, shields and spears in the front, pikes in the back, everyone running polearm mastery so the formation cant be approached. Magic is handled by one of your guys being an Ancients Paladin level 7 for great saves and resistances.

Would be a fun style in early game for sure. Go all Hobgoblins for flare and have a good pool of THP from someone and March off to glory.