Some stuff I would do to fix 5e

[Witty Username]

Because "martial features" are generally encapsulated (in regards to baseline DPR/defenses) in "give them Extra Attack and a damage booster that sort of brings them to 3 basic attacks per turn equivalent DPR, then give them medium/heavy armor proficiency and call it a day". Anything beyond that is highly optional and differs highly class-by-class. Therefore, Bladesinger Wizard with Bladesong up is entirely capable of fulfilling a martial's role, AND their "extra by class goodies" are 9th level spellcasting plus the rest of the Wizard class features.

Martial "basic features" are severely undervalued in 5e class building. Not that they're all that great and exciting, but getting access to Extra Attack and good armor proficiency (AC, really, regardless of how you get there) should not be nearly as easy.

Bladesinger doesn't gain a lot of the secondary support though, like say great weapon master or what have you. Hand crossbow + sharpshooter works in a kinda tortured way (I personally doubt it is intended but here we are), since that is two feats and some other stuff like actually working out the hand crossbow proficiency.

and the light armor limitation and split stats between dex and int do create some significant constraints, even with bladesong.

this puts bladesinger behind more or less every martial, sans the spells, and if one is castings spells instead of attacking, being a bit martial doesn't actually help much.

I am open to the idea that the Tasha's version didn't need to be, although the long rest mechanics on bladesong I think make it more reasonable as it is harder to spam so it isn't like it is straight better.

But I think that should be paired with an acknowledgement that there are significant gaps in martial design. From a general lack of features past the first chuck of levels, to straight up bad ideas like brutal critical.

Like given optimized builds for monk are not infrequently, throw out all the class features and pick up a gun, I feel is a poor reflection on the state of how these things are designed.

[LibraryOgre]

1) Dex no longer adds to damage. With nothing.

[Witty Username]

Hm, that would make Two-weapon fighting style for strength characters only, I actually like that as it would make rogue Two-weapon fighting more clearly working as intended.

[Sindeloke]

It puts rogues behind by 5-10 damage at higher levels, though. That wouldn't be a big deal for a fighter or pally, but rogues are on the lower end of martial damage already, so nerfs are pretty rough on them. Something like an extra 1d6 sneak attack damage per tier might be called for.

[Amechra]

Like given optimized builds for monk are not infrequently, throw out all the class features and pick up a gun, I feel is a poor reflection on the state of how these things are designed.

To be fair, those builds are still using Monk features... just not the three features that buff/require unarmed strikes. You still get full use out of the Monk's defensive toolkit, which is actually stronger if you don't have to close into melee.

The Monk (and to a lesser extent the Barbarian) run into a problem where D&D's designers consistently, across editions overestimate how useful it is to have "weapons" and "armor" that can be easily concealed and can't be taken away from you. That's cool and useful in some genres, sure (spy and detective stuff loves that kind of thing, for example), but in other contexts... that's basically flavortext?

[Psyren]

To be fair, those builds are still using Monk features... just not the three features that buff/require unarmed strikes. You still get full use out of the Monk's defensive toolkit, which is actually stronger if you don't have to close into melee.

The Monk (and to a lesser extent the Barbarian) run into a problem where D&D's designers consistently, across editions overestimate how useful it is to have "weapons" and "armor" that can be easily concealed and can't be taken away from you. That's cool and useful in some genres, sure (spy and detective stuff loves that kind of thing, for example), but in other contexts... that's basically flavortext?

And even when not having a weapon is valuable, they also proceed to make other martial and gish classes that can function without a weapon too but also do more stuff. Soulknife Rogue, Beast Barbarian, Armorer Artificer, any Warlock with Blade Pact...

[Witty Username]

It puts rogues behind by 5-10 damage at higher levels, though. That wouldn't be a big deal for a fighter or pally, but rogues are on the lower end of martial damage already, so nerfs are pretty rough on them. Something like an extra 1d6 sneak attack damage per tier might be called for.

Only sorta,
Rogue would be losing about 3-5 damage yes, but that is a pretty small part of its damage still
Meanwhile everyone else ranged loses that damage 2 to 3 times depending on the specifics
Like say and 11th level fighter is loosing the same damage 3 times over on its attack line.

So ranged generally becomes less damage overall, and more similar across builds.

Melee becomes more prononced, but melee has its own issues already.

[Dr.Samurai]

Like given optimized builds for monk are not infrequently, throw out all the class features and pick up a gun, I feel is a poor reflection on the state of how these things are designed.

I see what you're saying but honestly I think this is more a reflection of what "optimization" is, which is often a slave to math. They need to be able to demonstrate that this is "better" than that, so they focus on those things that are easily quantifiable.

It's not obvious to me that the most optimized monk is one that uses a gun. But if "optimized" means "deals the most damage", then sure, I could be wrong.

[Skrum]

It's not obvious to me that the most optimized monk is one that uses a gun. But if "optimized" means "deals the most damage", then sure, I could be wrong.

Doesn't monk kinda struggle with melee though? Like their flavor is face puncher, literally, but the abilities they get are mechanically speaking a lot more suited to ranged combat. They

- move fast
- can disengage easily
- have multiple defensive features against ranged threats
- are dex-based

I get that they're sold as a melee class, but they're much better suited to range. The gunk is funny and it feels wonky because "a monk with a gun!!!" but from simply looking at monk features, they should be more thought of as a ranged class. Abilities like Stunning Strike should be more thought of as Ah, you finally caught up to me...big mistake!! than a reason to brawl on the front line.

[Dr.Samurai]

Doesn't monk kinda struggle with melee though?

In what way? I don't think they are very resilient, and they don't deal a ton of damage. But I don't think they are meant to stand and fight unless there is support.

Like their flavor is face puncher, literally, but the abilities they get are mechanically speaking a lot more suited to ranged combat. They

- move fast
- can disengage easily
- have multiple defensive features against ranged threats
- are dex-based

This doesn't mean to me that they are better suited to range though. With the exception maybe of being Dex based, but they are Dex based because of their armor class. They specifically can use Dex with their melee unarmed strikes.

I get that they're sold as a melee class, but they're much better suited to range. The gunk is funny and it feels wonky because "a monk with a gun!!!" but from simply looking at monk features, they should be more thought of as a ranged class. Abilities like Stunning Strike should be more thought of as Ah, you finally caught up to me...big mistake!! than a reason to brawl on the front line.

But if you put a gun in most of the monks' hands, they can't use their cool features. So I don't see how they're better suited for it. Like the monk at our table would never be pushing enemies or knocking them prone if he was a ranged attack.

[Witty Username]

I see what you're saying but honestly I think this is more a reflection of what "optimization" is, which is often a slave to math. They need to be able to demonstrate that this is "better" than that, so they focus on those things that are easily quantifiable.

I know what you mean, at least in melee vs ranged builds it tends to not shake out that way though.

As Armecha pointed out, there is a bit of hyperbole on my part. You lose out on marial arts, flurry of blows, stunning strike and ki-empowered strike. And things like open hand and such will not have as much gains.

Defensively you still have the mobility, AC, deflect missles etc.

Generally speaking you are losing a bit of damage going gunk (at least in comparison to other classes), but what you gain is the full use of that mobility, and things like deflect missles work better as defense features at range. Which enables strategies not normally available to a melee monk.

And before anyone jumps on me, I am aware that the melee features aren't actually lost, just less emphasized. Since it is a Dex build with incentives to maintain wisdom still, the actual melee capacity isnt all that different from a monk more dedicated to melee, allowing for switching off.

A note to have here is I am still one of those people that is camp, monk is the weakest class. But that this build exists does pose some larger concerns for me. And that be Sharpshooter, which is most of how this build works on the damage end. And alot of ranged builds on the optimization end tend to be Sharpshooter and coast. Sharpshooter paladin is a thing even (athough with more downsides). That tells me either Sharpshooter is cracked or everything else is undertuned.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd say two things:

1. Yes, Sharpshooter is borked. Every "optimized" everything is some crossbow user or longbow user or shortbow user or gun user. YAWN. Hey I want to play a really good fighter, what should I play? Oh you know, that common fantasy trope, that hero that everyone wants to be... the hand crossbow user lol. I can't roll my eyes hard enough.

2. I would characterize the monk you're describing as fine, but not particularly optimized for my standards, because he is only contributing damage from afar. For my party, as an example, we have a moon druid and my fighter, and the monk mixing it up in melee helps tremendously as he can control enemy positioning with his Empty Hand techniques, knock them Prone so we get Advantage, and also take the occasional hit or two, which is very nice. This is all before he even stuns, and his flurries can help clean up enemies that I've savaged with Great Weapon Master . And as I mentioned elsewhere, if anyone is trying to get away to sound an alarm or get back up, he can chase them down and stop them. I can knock enemies prone as well, and grab n drag or shove them to get them off allies, my power attacks synergize with his open hand techniques and Stuns, whereas if I knock an enemy prone first it benefits his flurry of blows. I use my Runes to help him dodge crits and/or make saving throws.

Our fourth and final party member is a sharpshooter ranger, and his damage is very much appreciated. But in combat... he does little else. He very rarely takes damage. We forgot he had Mutliattack Defense because it didn't trigger until a year into the campaign. This is a lone wolf solo character that is "optimized" because he's an untouchable damage dealer but... meh. I find these characters to be kind of selfish, and this is what lends to the meme of "everyone should play ranged characters" because obviously taking damage is bad, so you should just be stealthing/ambushing/attacking from ranged all the time. He can set up his own Advantage with Nature's Veil or Zephyr's Strike, gets bonus damage against anyone we've already hurt or with Hunter's Mark, but he's never setting up other party members for anything. He's just that neat little one-man show 5e is obsessed with, and I find it boring. And actually, so does the ranger lol. He's been complaining recently that the (1D&D) monk can do so many things on his turn, and all he gets to do is shoot arrows.

Anyways, that's my mini-rant. We should be able to optimize for any type of character, instead of calling any character that fights from distance and uses sharpshooter "optimized".

[Witty Username]

Our fourth and final party member is a sharpshooter ranger, and his damage is very much appreciated. But in combat... he does little else. He very rarely takes damage. We forgot he had Mutliattack Defense because it didn't trigger until a year into the campaign. This is a lone wolf solo character that is "optimized" because he's an untouchable damage dealer but... meh. I find these characters to be kind of selfish, and this is what lends to the meme of "everyone should play ranged characters" because obviously taking damage is bad, so you should just be stealthing/ambushing/attacking from ranged all the time. He can set up his own Advantage with Nature's Veil or Zephyr's Strike, gets bonus damage against anyone we've already hurt or with Hunter's Mark, but he's never setting up other party members for anything. He's just that neat little one-man show 5e is obsessed with, and I find it boring. And actually, so does the ranger lol. He's been complaining recently that the (1D&D) monk can do so many things on his turn, and all he gets to do is shoot arrows.

They should look into spells like spike growth, summon beast, healing spirit*, plant growth, etc.

Ranger has a lot of cool spells that can go on a sharpshooter build and have a support role. I have build on my laptop by happenstance that was a similar idea (game died in session 0, much to my dismay).
But it was a ranger/life cleric, essentially focused on healing spells as well as ranged damage. A level in life cleric and goodberry/healing spirit can get you there, if you need a quick fix. Lore wise you could even have it as the character becoming disillusioned with wiping people out in favor of saving people.


*Assuming your healing spirit hasn't been obliterated from the timeline, yes, still mad

[Psyren]

Doesn't monk kinda struggle with melee though? Like their flavor is face puncher, literally, but the abilities they get are mechanically speaking a lot more suited to ranged combat. They

- move fast
- can disengage easily
- have multiple defensive features against ranged threats
- are dex-based

I get that they're sold as a melee class, but they're much better suited to range.

This doesn't mean to me that they are better suited to range though. With the exception maybe of being Dex based, but they are Dex based because of their armor class. They specifically can use Dex with their melee unarmed strikes.

It's not so much that they're suited for range per se, so much as melee is dangerous for them due to their low AC, HP, and lack of Con saves until 14.

The 5.5 monk meanwhile, since they can Dodge-tank at low levels until their ability to deflect melee attacks comes online as well as being able to kite and reposition for free, is MUCH harder to take down.

Our fourth and final party member is a sharpshooter ranger, and his damage is very much appreciated. But in combat... he does little else. He very rarely takes damage. We forgot he had Mutliattack Defense because it didn't trigger until a year into the campaign. This is a lone wolf solo character that is "optimized" because he's an untouchable damage dealer but... meh. I find these characters to be kind of selfish, and this is what lends to the meme of "everyone should play ranged characters" because obviously taking damage is bad, so you should just be stealthing/ambushing/attacking from ranged all the time. He can set up his own Advantage with Nature's Veil or Zephyr's Strike, gets bonus damage against anyone we've already hurt or with Hunter's Mark, but he's never setting up other party members for anything. He's just that neat little one-man show 5e is obsessed with, and I find it boring. And actually, so does the ranger lol. He's been complaining recently that the (1D&D) monk can do so many things on his turn, and all he gets to do is shoot arrows.

Anyways, that's my mini-rant. We should be able to optimize for any type of character, instead of calling any character that fights from distance and uses sharpshooter "optimized".

I'm with Witty on this one - "all my Ranger does is shoot arrows" feels like a skill issue tbh. Rangers can melee/switch-hit, they can buff and debuff and control and summon and heal, and all that's just the combat pillar; they're way more capable than monks in the other two. It's also before the toys they'll be getting later this year like Weapon Mastery.

[Dr.Samurai]

Been trying to reply to this all day lol.

They should look into spells like spike growth, summon beast, healing spirit*, plant growth, etc.

Ranger has a lot of cool spells that can go on a sharpshooter build and have a support role.

Yeah, we've tried. The player played a wizard in our previous game, and I think there's some sort of hangup going to a half caster. He says things like "You guys keep thinking I'm a spellcaster but I'm really not".

In his defense, we've benefited from the occasional Spike Growth and Pass Without Trace. But he's very much a lone wolf character and build.

But it was a ranger/life cleric, essentially focused on healing spells as well as ranged damage. A level in life cleric and goodberry/healing spirit can get you there, if you need a quick fix. Lore wise you could even have it as the character becoming disillusioned with wiping people out in favor of saving people.


*Assuming your healing spirit hasn't been obliterated from the timeline, yes, still mad

I mean... we all know that Life Cleric doesn't actually work with Goodberry though so... another example of the online opinion on what's "optimized" not mattering too much. It's its own thing; optimization is whatever we all agree to, as I've said.

Anyways, our ranger is more of a table issue in that he definitely has resources he can be making more use of. The kensei "optimized" gun monk is a better example, as those features will be used on Sharpen the Blade or Focused Aim. And that's your optimization... Kensei's Shot --> Attack --> Hit --> Sharpen the Blade or Kensei's Shot --> Attack --> Miss --> Focused Aim. Rinse and repeat. Stay away from melee. Ta-da! "Optimization".

Truthfully though, this I think is more about my own expectations and preferences. The idea that being optimized means "keeping away from enemies and used ranged attacks" simply warps the game way too much for my tastes. It also puts tension between traditional characters (you know, fighters that aren't using hand crossbows, ancestral barbarians without longbows, monks without guns) and the "optimized" characters, and the slider is all the way on the Mechanics side of the Mechanics/Narrative spectrum. Our monk engaging in melee and impacting the battle there not only with damage but with enemy movement control, Stuns, and taking hits, is a much greater contribution to the team than the gunk three miles back firing a musket and doing little else. The spreadsheets like the musket guy, but I like the one that is adapting to the battle and covering more than HP damage. Like... we're all doing HP damage. I'm a power attacker with GWM and I can also Shove/Prone/Grapple and use my Rune features as well.

[Skrum]

Truthfully though, this I think is more about my own expectations and preferences. The idea that being optimized means "keeping away from enemies and used ranged attacks" simply warps the game way too much for my tastes.

I def agree with this.

Obviously, the most optimized - highest chance of success, least chance of dying/failure - is to be cautious, avoid fights, and when the party has to fight, stack the odds as much as possible. Surprise attacks, use total lockdown tactics, etc. My own personal playstyle, I generally don't like it when someone does something "clever" like that. I want to fight the fight! I want to smash all the stats blocks together, with each creature and player bringing their best stuff. Bypassing a fight with a social roll is the worst lol.

To me, optimization is a relative term: what am I trying to optimize for. 99 times out of 100, I'm not building a character that optimizes for "greatest chance of success/least chance of death/failure."

But that's just me, making choices I know will lead to more fun, within the context of the table I play at. But in a forum where people are giving general advice, it makes lot of sense if optimization = best chance of success, least chance of death/failure. There's no context to consider those other factors, like what's going to be fun at the table in question.

[Dr.Samurai]

I def agree with this.

Obviously, the most optimized - highest chance of success, least chance of dying/failure - is to be cautious, avoid fights, and when the party has to fight, stack the odds as much as possible. Surprise attacks, use total lockdown tactics, etc. My own personal playstyle, I generally don't like it when someone does something "clever" like that. I want to fight the fight! I want to smash all the stats blocks together, with each creature and player bringing their best stuff. Bypassing a fight with a social roll is the worst lol.

To me, optimization is a relative term: what am I trying to optimize for. 99 times out of 100, I'm not building a character that optimizes for "greatest chance of success/least chance of death/failure."

Generally, I'm in alignment with all of this. And to be clear, we exercise caution and do stack things in our favor, but there isn't a prime directive of "avoid melee combat". Not even close. And I would hate to play in a game like that.

Like... if monsters are dash distance away, I'll suggest we fall back and make some ranged attacks while they close in, and get 1 or 2 turns of attacks in. Makes sense to me. But I'll NEVER be like "okay, how can we just avoid engaging with 90% of the combat rules in the game?"

But that's just me, making choices I know will lead to more fun, within the context of the table I play at. But in a forum where people are giving general advice, it makes lot of sense if optimization = best chance of success, least chance of death/failure. There's no context to consider those other factors, like what's going to be fun at the table in question.

Here though... I think I disagree. Because it's not obvious to me that Gunk=best chance of success/least chance of failure. Because the party and the DM are such a huge part of the game.

I can tell you what would happen if the guys I play with insisted on something like this... my character would die, all the time. Because one person in melee range while everyone else is a shadow ninja galaxy brain one-man sniper army doesn't work. It's too much pressure on the one guy not cowering tactically evading in the shadows. It becomes a foregone conclusion that melee is too dangerous and to be avoided at all costs because there's literally no one else up there supporting you. Combat gets reduced to "aim and click" because "Dead" is the best condition you can impose.

And that's fair enough. But for every approach to the game to be beholden to this type of thinking is tired at this point. Yeah, killing stuff as quickly as possible is good. Staying alive is good. I don't want to ignore all the other parts of the game to maximize those two things as much as possible though. I think your approach to "optimization" is much better.

[Skrum]

is a shadow ninja galaxy brain one-man sniper army

This absolutely killed me lol

I think your approach to "optimization" is much better.

Word. Melee brawlers for life.

I recently made the very painful decision to reduce my barb/rogue's str by 2 so I could pick up resilient: wis. Also gonna pick up a Stone of Good Luck as soon as I possibly can. As much as I want to brawl, failing every wisdom save and getting locked for turns at a time sucks really bad. Can't brawl if I'm literally shaking in fear. I hate this game.

I don't often make optimization decisions like this - sacrificing something I want to be really good at in order to shore up a hole. Usually, I'll just play my one trick pony and RP the downside. But there's no way to roleplay falling for every charm and fear effect. It's just an embarrassing level of incompetence for a what should be a seasoned warrior.

[Psyren]

Bypassing a fight with a social roll is the worst lol.

You're in luck, monk is the least likely class in the game to do that

To me, optimization is a relative term: what am I trying to optimize for. 99 times out of 100, I'm not building a character that optimizes for "greatest chance of success/least chance of death/failure."

But that's just me, making choices I know will lead to more fun, within the context of the table I play at. But in a forum where people are giving general advice, it makes lot of sense if optimization = best chance of success, least chance of death/failure. There's no context to consider those other factors, like what's going to be fun at the table in question.

I'm fine with this.

Generally, I'm in alignment with all of this. And to be clear, we exercise caution and do stack things in our favor, but there isn't a prime directive of "avoid melee combat". Not even close. And I would hate to play in a game like that.

Like... if monsters are dash distance away, I'll suggest we fall back and make some ranged attacks while they close in, and get 1 or 2 turns of attacks in. Makes sense to me. But I'll NEVER be like "okay, how can we just avoid engaging with 90% of the combat rules in the game?"

I agree with this too - but this is exactly why I adore the new monk. Right at level 1 you can run into melee and do your best Landlord/Henpecked Hou Impression and be even tankier than a paladin or fighter in Chain Mail and a shield (not that a level 1 paladin could even afford that.) Dodge-tanking at level 1 just feels awesome to me, it fits with the monk's fantasy so well. And later on, when you want to be attacking rather than dodging, you can either pick Mercy for the autopoison or Shadow for the, well, shadows and keep your tankiness intact without needing to focus on Dodging at all, showing off your mastery of your chosen rechniques all the more.

[Witty Username]

I can tell you what would happen if the guys I play with insisted on something like this... my character would die, all the time. Because one person in melee range while everyone else is a shadow ninja galaxy brain one-man sniper army doesn't work. It's too much pressure on the one guy not cowering tactically evading in the shadows. It becomes a foregone conclusion that melee is too dangerous and to be avoided at all costs because there's literally no one else up there supporting you. Combat gets reduced to "aim and click" because "Dead" is the best condition you can impose.

I think I am actually with you on this one, most optimization makes some assumptions of what the rest of the party is doing. And presence is undervalued, presense as how much you can deny going at the party by being an active target.

TM I think brought up most of this with the gunk awhile back, dealing damage but that is all your doing.

I am more thinking the values are a bit screwy with melee vs ranged, safety should have more of a cost to it or melee should have gains for the greater risk.

Rogue I think is actually in a healthy spot with this to a degree, ranged is safe but it will cost a bit of consistency or damage while melee is riskier but has more points to be spicy with the damage because of how two-weapon fighting, blade cantrips, and opportunity attacks work.

But that is getting back to combat math, which probably isn't of much interest in this conversation.

[Skrum]

melee should have gains for the greater risk.

I think a nice place to start would be to give characters that often find themselves in melee a few extra tools to, yah know, support being in melee. A defensive reaction would do *wonders,* for instance. Martial classes not being able to parry or use their weapon for defense has bugged me since 3e.

Rogue I think is actually in a healthy spot with this to a degree, ranged is safe but it will cost a bit of consistency or damage while melee is riskier but has more points to be spicy with the damage because of how two-weapon fighting, blade cantrips, and opportunity attacks work.

Good example of what I'm talking about - rogue is not given the support to melee, at least not into t2 and beyond. Uncanny Dodge only goes so far. Swashbucklers in particular should get some kind of Agile ability (like Kensai). Maybe a bonus action Dodge.

[Blatant Beast]

A Bonus Action Dodge ability, that has no resource cost beyond the action type used to trigger it, would be too powerful, in my opinion.

A game that I played in had a homebrewed Greater Haste potion that added Dodge to the list of actions allowed via the spell.

My T3 Fighter drank one and boarded and took a Vampirate Spelljammer vessel by themselves. While Vampirates are not, particularly hard, there was a massive bunch of them.

The AC boost from Dodge, while still being able to use one’s Action, was overwhelming, especially when the quality of one’s foe is directly tied to their quantity….the yard trash couldn’t connect with their attacks.

Dodge is a Rogue Killer, generally….Disadvantage means no Sneak Attack.

[Skrum]

A Bonus Action Dodge ability, that has no resource cost beyond the action type used to trigger it, would be too powerful, in my opinion.

A game that I played in had a homebrewed Greater Haste potion that added Dodge to the list of actions allowed via the spell.

My T3 Fighter drank one and boarded and took a Vampirate Spelljammer vessel by themselves. While Vampirates are not, particularly hard, there was a massive bunch of them.

The AC boost from Dodge, while still being able to use one’s Action, was overwhelming, especially when the quality of one’s foe is directly tied to their quantity….the yard trash couldn’t connect with their attacks.

Dodge is a Rogue Killer, generally….Disadvantage means no Sneak Attack.

On a rogue though? Adding it to haste, yeah, that's incredibly powerful because it's very easy to stack on someone that already has 24 AC. But if swashbucklers got Cunning Defense at level 9 and can Dodge as a bonus action, I don't see that as the same thing at all.

[Psyren]

I think a nice place to start would be to give characters that often find themselves in melee a few extra tools to, yah know, support being in melee. A defensive reaction would do *wonders,* for instance. Martial classes not being able to parry or use their weapon for defense has bugged me since 3e.

Martials do have such tools, they're just not all reactions (though NuMonk's will be.) I suspect listing them wouldn't align much with how your high-difficulty table perceives them though.

Good example of what I'm talking about - rogue is not given the support to melee, at least not into t2 and beyond. Uncanny Dodge only goes so far. Swashbucklers in particular should get some kind of Agile ability (like Kensai). Maybe a bonus action Dodge.

Rogue isn't really meant to stand around in melee though. 13th-level Swashbucklers might be able to, once they get Parrying Stance - but even that is just +3 AC on average, i.e. barely better than a shield. Arcane Tricksters fare better with Mirror Image/Blur and the like.

[Dalinar]

My experience with Swashbuckler was the 3-5 campaign where (for comedy and RP reasons) I decided to optimize for high initiative at the expense of everything else. I sure did go first the majority of the time, but man, Swashbuckler does not have a lot of ways to leverage that aside from moderate Sneak Attack damage. I mean, yeah, I could've taken something more impactful than Alert at 4, but what does that even look like aside from Sharpshooter? And if you're going that route you might as well be a Gloom Stalker instead, getting a whole lot more attacks to leverage the -5/+10 so you can be even better at deleting stuff before it takes a turn. You could maybe try to get some spells, but then you run into the same issue relative to War Magic Wizard or Twilight Cleric, which both also come prepackaged with initiative bonuses and have better ways to take control of an encounter than maybe just killing one mook if your single attack hits.

The whole point of having a high initiative, I learned, is so that you can start off the encounter with some strong ability that immediately swings it into your favor. Swashbuckler just isn't all that well suited to doing that.

So I'm maybe not against giving it a really strong defensive feature, though certainly not at level 3 for multiclass balance reasons. And bonus action dodge is very strong.

[Theodoxus]

My experience with Swashbuckler was the 3-5 campaign where (for comedy and RP reasons) I decided to optimize for high initiative at the expense of everything else. I sure did go first the majority of the time, but man, Swashbuckler does not have a lot of ways to leverage that aside from moderate Sneak Attack damage. I mean, yeah, I could've taken something more impactful than Alert at 4, but what does that even look like aside from Sharpshooter? And if you're going that route you might as well be a Gloom Stalker instead, getting a whole lot more attacks to leverage the -5/+10 so you can be even better at deleting stuff before it takes a turn. You could maybe try to get some spells, but then you run into the same issue relative to War Magic Wizard or Twilight Cleric, which both also come prepackaged with initiative bonuses and have better ways to take control of an encounter than maybe just killing one mook if your single attack hits.

The whole point of having a high initiative, I learned, is so that you can start off the encounter with some strong ability that immediately swings it into your favor. Swashbuckler just isn't all that well suited to doing that.

So I'm maybe not against giving it a really strong defensive feature, though certainly not at level 3 for multiclass balance reasons. And bonus action dodge is very strong.

Quoted for truth. One of the first characters I played in a campaign was a rogue that I was playing when SCAG came out and the DM allowed me to rebuild my 2nd level halfling to take advantage of the Cha boon. At 4th, I took Alert and was generally getting Initiatives in the upper teens, low 20s, and going first... and then finding I had to wait until Round 2 to take advantage of that fact more often than not, as very rarely were there single targets to run in and sneak... and even when there were, I was quickly swarmed and knocked out... Fortunately, the game crapped out before I made more mistakes with that character... Stacking initiative on a rogue... not wise, one might even call it a trap.

[Skrum]

Martials do have such tools, they're just not all reactions (though NuMonk's will be.)

Yes and no. Some classes are better than others. Rune knight, very good. Barb, limited but it's there. Cavalier? Battle Master? Monk? Ranger? Less so.

Rogue isn't really meant to stand around in melee though. 13th-level Swashbucklers might be able to, once they get Parrying Stance - but even that is just +3 AC on average, i.e. barely better than a shield. Arcane Tricksters fare better with Mirror Image/Blur and the like.

Swashbuckler is supposed to be the melee rogue though. A duelist. And they're given some tools, just not enough. Yes they can go full hit and run (against things they're faster than), but that isn't really duelling, that's skirmishing. Some extra tools that give them bonuses in melee, especially in one v one fights, that would be nice.

Level 3: Focus Defense: at the beginning of your turn, you may pick an opponent to focus your attention on. You gain a bonus to your AC equal to your proficiency bonus against that opponent (but not more than the number of levels in rogue). This lasts as long as you can see them. You may switch the target of this ability at the beginning of your turn

Level 9: Cunning Defense: as a bonus action, all attacks from the target of your Focus Defense ability has disadvantage on all attacks against you, and you have advantage on any Dex saves you make against spells or abilities from that opponent. This last until the beginning of your next turn

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean... we all know that Life Cleric doesn't actually work with Goodberry though so...

Yes it does. Says so in the SA compendium.

A Bonus Action Dodge ability, that has no resource cost beyond the action type used to trigger it, would be too powerful, in my opinion.

Bonus action parry would be less OP.

[Dalinar]

Quoted for truth. One of the first characters I played in a campaign was a rogue that I was playing when SCAG came out and the DM allowed me to rebuild my 2nd level halfling to take advantage of the Cha boon. At 4th, I took Alert and was generally getting Initiatives in the upper teens, low 20s, and going first... and then finding I had to wait until Round 2 to take advantage of that fact more often than not, as very rarely were there single targets to run in and sneak... and even when there were, I was quickly swarmed and knocked out... Fortunately, the game crapped out before I made more mistakes with that character... Stacking initiative on a rogue... not wise, one might even call it a trap.

Well, at least Steady Aim exists now and helps with that. But then you're playing a ranged Swashbuckler and that just feels weird.

[Psyren]

Swashbuckler is supposed to be the melee rogue though. A duelist. And they're given some tools, just not enough. Yes they can go full hit and run (against things they're faster than), but that isn't really duelling, that's skirmishing. Some extra tools that give them bonuses in melee, especially in one v one fights, that would be nice.

*snip*

Honestly, all I think they need would be shield proficiency and either Dueling or Defense fighting style. Then again, a simple Fighter dip would get them both too.