Should Interception and Protection fighting styles be combined?

[Mastikator]

The premise: Interception and Protection are both kinda eh, I've never heard of anyone taking these. Maybe I don't read enough, maybe people take them and don't talk about it so I admit that's not strong data.

The fighting styles:


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



Both of these seem like they fulfill the same purpose: stop enemies from damaging your allies using your reaction. And they both seem kinda lackluster, I wonder if combined they'd actually be pretty strong though.

Guardian. When a creature you see attacks a target other than you that is withing 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. If the target hits the damage is reduced by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0). You must be wielding a shield or a simple or martial weapon that you are proficient with to use this reaction.

Overpowered? Underpowered? Boring? Brilliant?

Edit- Guardian v2

Guardian. When a creature you see attacks a target other than you, and either the attacker or the target is within 5 feet or melee weapon range, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. If the target hits the damage is reduced by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0). You must be wielding a shield or a simple or martial weapon that you are proficient with to use this reaction.

This version allows you to use it even if you are not anywhere near the target you are protecting so long as you are within striking distance of the attacker. Additionally if you can use this against ranged attackers if you are next to the target you are protecting. Making it very versatile.

[Corvino]

Your fix is more appealing than either of the initial fighting styles but still has their main limitation. The friendly target being attacked still needs to be within 5 feet for it to work.

Sentinel overcomes this by making it the attacker who needs to be within 5 feet, not the target. If either fighting style did this it would boost them hugely.

Staying directly adjacent to those you're protecting is a big drawback. Most groups melee combatants are trying to tie down multiple enemies and get flanking, which requires spreading out.

[Hytheter]

Your fix is more appealing than either of the initial fighting styles but still has their main limitation. The friendly target being attacked still needs to be within 5 feet for it to work.

Sentinel overcomes this by making it the attacker who needs to be within 5 feet, not the target. If either fighting style did this it would boost them hugely.

That's a good point, and it certainly makes sense to be able to stop an attack by interfering directly with the attacker. I'd probably make it work both ways, ie when you are within range of the victim OR the attacker.


Most groups melee combatants are trying to...get flanking

This is tangential to the main point but I'd like to point out that flanking is an optional rule, and shouldn't be assumed.

[Corvino]

Flanking is optional, but not uncommon. There are lots of reasons to be spread out though. Especially if you've got a feat/ability like Sentinel - the more targets you could cover with a Reaction attack, the better.

Conversely clumping up like a phalanx of spearmen makes targets really vulnerable to AoE. It also reduces the area you threaten with Opportunity Attacks, allowing your opponents more maneuverability. As currently written Interception and Protection styles reward clumping.

[Mastikator]

Your fix is more appealing than either of the initial fighting styles but still has their main limitation. The friendly target being attacked still needs to be within 5 feet for it to work.

Sentinel overcomes this by making it the attacker who needs to be within 5 feet, not the target. If either fighting style did this it would boost them hugely.

Staying directly adjacent to those you're protecting is a big drawback. Most groups melee combatants are trying to tie down multiple enemies and get flanking, which requires spreading out.

What if you had to be 5 feet adjacent to either the attacker or the target? Additionally, if you have reach through size or weapon type, would adding that reach be too much? For example if you have a glaive and this fighting style would it be too much that it's enough to be within 10 feet of either the attacker or the target? I'm considering what it takes for someone to take this style if they want the role of protector without making it so strong that you'd just always take it.

Edit-

Updated OP with a v2 of guardian that is exponentially more versatile.

[Hytheter]

Flanking is optional, but not uncommon. There are lots of reasons to be spread out though. Especially if you've got a feat/ability like Sentinel - the more targets you could cover with a Reaction attack, the better.

Conversely clumping up like a phalanx of spearmen makes targets really vulnerable to AoE. It also reduces the area you threaten with Opportunity Attacks, allowing your opponents more maneuverability. As currently written Interception and Protection styles reward clumping.

Yeah, I only meant to make that one little nitpick, not to undermine your overall point. I wouldn't have even bothered to bring it up if I wasn't already quoting your post.

[stoutstien]

I'd combine protection and defense and leave interception as a stand alone option.
Interception is low-key powerful.

[Kane0]

Allow protection after the attack roll and enemy within reach rather than ally within 5', then it will be plenty strong enough. Interception is pretty much fine as is though you might want to change ghe 5' range to reach as well

[stoutstien]

Allow protection after the attack roll and enemy within reach rather than ally within 5', then it will be plenty strong enough. Interception is pretty much fine as is though you might want to change ghe 5' range to reach as well

Heck. Give protection the ability to move up to 1/2 speed to intervene with an attack on an ally. That would be a fun ability to play with and super flavorful.

[Reach Weapon]

Overpowered? Underpowered? Boring? Brilliant?
Both at once seems overpowered compared to the other styles.

I could see something more like:
Guardian (v3?). When a creature you see attacks a target other than yourself, you can use your reaction to move up to half your speed to get within your reach of the attacker with the simple or martial weapon you are wielding or if wielding a shield within 5' of any point in the line of attack between the two. You provide cover as normal and impose disadvantage on that attack. When a creature you can see hits a target that you can see other than yourself, and it is either a melee attack whose line is within reach of the simple or martial weapon you are wielding or you are wielding a shield and are within 5' of the target, you can use your reaction to reduce by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus.

[Hytheter]

Heck. Give protection the ability to move up to 1/2 speed to intervene with an attack on an ally. That would be a fun ability to play with and super flavorful.

Ayyy now you're talking.

[quindraco]

This would be better:

Shield Wall: While you are wielding a shield, any time you would grant half cover against an attack made by an attacker you can see, you can choose to instead grant 3/4 cover. When a creature you can see makes an attack, you can move up to half your speed as a reaction immediately before the attack is made; you must end this move closer to the attacker or the attackee than you started.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I actually saw Interception get really good use in a campaign with the Paladin who was the melee buddy with the Fighter/Rogue (heavy on the Rogue). It helped out with the Fighter/Rogue's lower HP, and there was a good reason to stick close (Paladin's Aura, Rogue's SA).

[jas61292]

While I generally agree that protection is a weak fighting style, there are two things about it that I would be hesitant to change.

First, from a mechanical point of view, is that it is the Shield fighting style, and I think that is a good thing. There is a fighting style for two handed weapons, and one for one handed weapons. There is one for light weapons and one for ranged weapons. Having a fighting style be the shield option is a good thing, and so I prefer that requirement of Protection over the more generic one of Interception. The latter might be the more powerful choice, but from a design perspective, I don't like its more generic application.

Second, is more from a flavor, or logic, point of view. I fully accept and agree that being within 5 feet of who you are trying to protect is overly limiting. However, the entire idea behind it is that you are using your shield to try and block the incoming attack for your ally. If you are not next to your ally, how exactly are you doing that?

So, with that said, I would totally love to buff Protection, but I would rather increase its power significantly than remove its limitations. Have it absorb the benefits of Protection (though still limit it to shield) and perhaps change the disadvantage to a straight bonus to AC (either a die roll or based on your proficiency or something). And finally, I would remove the use of your reaction. That is the other big limiter on it currently, and it really hurts. I would still try and find a way to limit it to once a round, and prevent its use if you ever cannot take reactions, but I would not have it use up the reaction itself.