Soliciting opinions on a homebrewed Fighter optional feature

[Trask]

I've been toying with the idea that Fighters "tanking" presence is somewhat lacking compared to Ancestral/Bear Barbarians (notwithstanding Sentinel+Pam) and am entertaining an idea of my own to address it. I'd like some eyes on it to see if it would be imbalanced.

Threatening Presence (Enhances Action Surge)
Your skill in combat makes it hard for your enemies to ignore you. When using Action Surge, instead of using it's normal effect, you may instead cause any creature within 5 feet of you that's hostile to you to have disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you or another fighter using this feature. This effect lasts for 1 minute or until you choose to end it (no action required) or if you are incapacitated. An enemy is immune to this effect if it can't see or hear you or if it can't be frightened.

I deliberately copied the wording and conditions of the 14th level Totemic Attunement feature for Bear, to keep it consistent. Yes, this is essentially a 14th level feature being used as an optional feature, but giving up Action Surge is quite the cost for a Fighter, and makes a nice tradeoff between offense and defense. But if it is too much, perhaps it could be a feat, although then I think it could stand to be a little better.

Threatening Presence (Feat)
Your skill in combat makes it hard for your enemies to ignore you. As a bonus action you can activate a threatening presence that lasts until you choose to end it (no action required) or if you are incapacitated. Any creature within 5 feet of you that's hostile to you to has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you or another character using this feat. An enemy is immune to this effect if it can't see or hear you or if it can't be frightened.

Perhaps it could be limited in some way, like PB/long rest or short rest recovery, or making it apply only against targets you hit with a melee attack. Also set aside for the moment the concern of giving away a class feature as a feat. This would be homebrew, for a table without a Bear Barbarian.

Thoughts?

[Skrum]

Mechanically, these look fine. I like the action surge one in particular; action surge leaves something to be desired in more drawn out fights, so replacing it with something that lasts for a minute sounds pretty nice.

But my 2 cents, I don't care for the "disadvantage on all attacks not against me" abilities. I find them to be extremely narratively clunky - how am I supposed to imagine what's going on? The target is unnerved by the presence of the fighter, so they become slightly less efficient (so far so good)...unless they're attacking the fighter?? Yah lost me lol. Why not just make it the fear condition (disadvantage on all attack rolls, can't get closer to the source of the fear)?

Rather than trying to recreate "sticky tanks" a la MMO's, I think a better idea is to make tanks that work more naturally within DND. Auras that boost allies. Reactions to protect allies. Giving temporary hit points or other small boosts. Abilities that boost the character's durability. There's a million of these in the game already, so there's plenty of inspiration to draw from.

[Trask]

The way I interpret such mechanics is that the character is just so in your face, so good at close combat, that he becomes hard to ignore. It doesn't seem any more nondiegetic than something like an opportunity attack, but I respect your 2 cents.

Another point is that while inflicted Frightened might be cleaner conceptually, it's a great deal more fiddly. Bear barbarian route is simple and easy to remember, and doesn't require any saving throws.

[GeneralVryth]

An important question for me, is does it only work on opponents actively within 5 feet of the user? Or does it effect opponents within 5 feet on initial use and they affected until the end? If it's the former it's narratively easy to imagine the Fighter harrying nearby opponents. If it's the latter it feels odd.

[Trask]

Yes I meant for it be applied only while within 5 feet of the fighter.

[Skrum]

Yes I meant for it be applied only while within 5 feet of the fighter.

Right but what if the creature it's used against then moves and attacks someone else that's 25 ft away (or more)

[Amnestic]

It's okay to have a mechanical taunt, rather than a soft 'incentive'. While I like Ancestral Barb, I think it doesn't go far enough. It could just as easily read:-


While you're raging, the first creature you hit with an attack on your turn becomes the target of the warriors, which draws its attacks. Until the start of your next turn the target is forced target you exclusively with their hostilities. It does not restrict their actions otherwise, only that you must be the target of their attention, and any area of effect features must have you at the centre.

[Catullus64]

My first opinion is that we have a Homebrew subforum for stuff like this.

My substantive opinion is that the feature is fine, probably doesn't affect gameplay too much, since it's somewhat situational compared with simply attacking more. But it's also fairly DM dependent. 'Tanking' in tabletop RPGs with a human dungeon master is always kind of a wooly business, since there's no formal mechanics to interact with that dictate who an enemy must attack. If you have a DM who often has enemies prioritize attacking melee fighters, this feature is suddenly not that useful.

[Trask]

Right but what if the creature it's used against then moves and attacks someone else that's 25 ft away (or more)

Sorry for being unclear, the effect would only apply while the attacking creature was within 5 feet of the fighter and attacker someone other than the fighter. If the creature moved 25 feet away and attacked the wizard, it wouldn't apply.


It's okay to have a mechanical taunt, rather than a soft 'incentive'. While I like Ancestral Barb, I think it doesn't go far enough. It could just as easily read:-

I'm not against it, but whenever I homebrew stuff I'm more likely to stick within the confines of prestablished mechanics (bear barb in this case)


My first opinion is that we have a Homebrew subforum for stuff like this.

My bad.


My substantive opinion is that the feature is fine, probably doesn't affect gameplay too much, since it's somewhat situational compared with simply attacking more. But it's also fairly DM dependent. 'Tanking' in tabletop RPGs with a human dungeon master is always kind of a wooly business, since there's no formal mechanics to interact with that dictate who an enemy must attack. If you have a DM who often has enemies prioritize attacking melee fighters, this feature is suddenly not that useful.

It is wooly, but it does already exist in the game via Barbarian & Compelled Duel. This is just extending the ability to fighters, the one "tank" class that gets left out of it.

[Psyren]

1) I'd make it "within the Fighter's reach" rather than "5ft" so you're not inadvertently punishing polearm users.

2) While the idea is decent, giving up Action Surge to use it is a hefty cost. I would consider tying this to Second Wind instead.

[Damon_Tor]

Who the enemies choose to attack is just the DM's part of combat. "Taunting" is and should be a roleplay element, and a DM worth his salt will focus his fire on the bragadocious fighter boasting loudly as he cuts down enemies instead of going for the hide-shoot-hide-repeat sniper rogue or the subtle-cast enchantment sorcerer in the corner. The DM knows the sorcerer and the rogue are the bigger threats, but he's playing the role of these other guys who don't have the same understanding of what's going on.

It's not a video game. Video games need "aggro" mechanics, but tabletop has a human running the antagonists for exactly this reason. And the DM is not your opponent.

[Amnestic]

Who the enemies choose to attack is just the DM's part of combat. "Taunting" is and should be a roleplay element, and a DM worth his salt will focus his fire on the bragadocious fighter boasting loudly as he cuts down enemies instead of going for the hide-shoot-hide-repeat sniper rogue or the subtle-cast enchantment sorcerer in the corner. The DM knows the sorcerer and the rogue are the bigger threats, but he's playing the role of these other guys who don't have the same understanding of what's going on.


When there are existing effects that can compel behaviours, it can absolutely be a hard mechanic? The idea that vampire charm can compel someone to protect a creature that would otherwise be their enemy, but that you can't use a similar compulsion to change a creature's target from one existing hostile to another, seems pretty silly.

'Taunted' as a condition makes as much sense as Frightened, and is far more fun to play with than something like Stunned.

[Trask]

Who the enemies choose to attack is just the DM's part of combat. "Taunting" is and should be a roleplay element, and a DM worth his salt will focus his fire on the bragadocious fighter boasting loudly as he cuts down enemies instead of going for the hide-shoot-hide-repeat sniper rogue or the subtle-cast enchantment sorcerer in the corner. The DM knows the sorcerer and the rogue are the bigger threats, but he's playing the role of these other guys who don't have the same understanding of what's going on.

It's not a video game. Video games need "aggro" mechanics, but tabletop has a human running the antagonists for exactly this reason. And the DM is not your opponent.


When there are existing effects that can compel behaviours, it can absolutely be a hard mechanic? The idea that vampire charm can compel someone to protect a creature that would otherwise be their enemy, but that you can't use a similar compulsion to change a creature's target from one existing hostile to another, seems pretty silly.

'Taunted' as a condition makes as much sense as Frightened, and is far more fun to play with than something like Stunned.

I agree with Amnestic that being "taunted" makes about much sense as being "frightened" by a non-magical source. I wouldn't make it a "hard" taunt personally, but I think "disadvantage on everyone but me" is a clean way to represent "tanking" in D&D. Because really, without it tanking just becomes "locking down" enemies and making the battlefield as static as possible. I like it because its clean, easy to remember, and easy to apply without forcing a saving throw and therefore doesn't need a high power budget or per day limitations. And, like I said, there is a precedent. I'm not giving fighters something brand new, it already existed in the game since the Player's Handbook.

I also think its a good deal more "honest" as a rule if that makes sense. If you have a feature like Unwavering Mark, if the enemy only attacks you to avoid getting smacked by your bonus action attack, that means you are tanking successfully, but it also means you don't get to use your own ability. If you aren't using your ability, that means its working. With the "taunt" rule, even if the enemy doesn't attack you, he still has disadvantage to attack your friend.


1) I'd make it "within the Fighter's reach" rather than "5ft" so you're not inadvertently punishing polearm users.

2) While the idea is decent, giving up Action Surge to use it is a hefty cost. I would consider tying this to Second Wind instead.

Maybe so.

[gooch]

I've always liked the idea of giving melee classes a way to use multi attack for opportunity attacks, to make them much more sticky. Whether or not a full minute of multiattack OAs is too powerful is another matter.
Put this on a high level fighter with Sentinel though, and you've got a super sticky tank, which is something I think pure melee should be good at.
Ignoring the fighter becomes potentially fatal, instead of being slapped with a wet lettuce leaf