Fighting Style: Protection, is it worth?

[stoutstien]

It has saved 2 members of the game I’m in several times over sonid say its good

how do you know that you saved them? you dont know if the attack was even going to hit before you use it?

[LudicSavant]

First, no one specified sentinel, so suddenly bringing it up while snidely commenting that it wasn't accounted for is just silly. Second, the claim is completely wrong. The 'convert to dust' ability gives a 60' move, which can simply detour to go AROUND a character with sentinel.

Both of these are straw man arguments.

First of all, I didn't say anyone specified sentinel, least of all you. I commented on the fact that my example would not be accounting for various tanking abilities that could counteract the mummy's ability (with Sentinel being an example of one such ability), and would simply assume that the mummy succeeds for the sake of simplicity.

Second, my position is that if you are engaged in melee with a Mummy Lord, Sentinel would be able to interrupt the movement of their Whirlwind of Sand. I don't think that was unclear to anyone. And that claim is completely accurate.

Finally, I have taken time out of my day to attempt to answer the questions you raised, in the interest of trying to be helpful to you, and am now being insulted and called "snide" for it. I would be appreciative if we could have a respectful conversation with each other. Thank you.

If sentinel character *snip*

My argument stipulated only that the Mummy Lord uses their teleport ability to successfully bypass the tank. No other steps are required for the point to be made (e.g. that the optimal target is not necessarily the one with the lowest AC, and that a character with a higher AC does not need to actually force an enemy's choice in order to be targeted).

A good example of a target that's clearly worth this is someone who appears to be the only wizard or cleric in the party, as they're likely to be the only ones able to cast remove curse. If the mummy lord can take down that one character, then the party has no way to cure the curse his hits have inflicted, and even if they 'win' in the short term the mummy's curse will lead them to join the Mummy Lord in death within a few days. Or if there's only one person using fire attacks, cutting their doubled damage out is likely worth two attacks on a high AC character.

Yes. Of course, the character with Remove Curse or fire attacks could just as easily be the tank as anyone else (especially since we've been focusing on Paladins for much of the thread, who can remove curse).

Why would a caster that doesn't have a strong melee attack misty step into melee with someone? If a caster who doesn't want to melee someone is using spells to teleport into melee range, then the DM is just playing him incredibly stupidly.

I said nothing whatsoever about Misty Stepping into melee with someone. In fact, I had the exact opposite in mind: Misty Stepping out of melee.

Flying enemies played intelligently will attack targets of their choice instead of flying straight to the tank and putting themselves in a 'precarious position'.

I said nothing whatsoever about enemies flying to the tank, either.

Again, I had the exact opposite in mind: The tank would engage the enemies, rather than the other way around.

I'm not sure why you're writing that in response to me, I never claimed that a character with a lower AC is necessarily a better target

And, again, it doesn't actually force the enemy to attack the high AC character over a low AC one.

I just don't see how you consistently force the opponents to concentrate AC attacks on high AC characters

The point being made is that you do not have to "actually force" an enemy to attack a high AC character. It is sufficient for there to be tactical costs that offset the benefits of attacking a lower AC character.

Perhaps this will make my position clearer to you:

I have repeatedly said that the manner by which you tank in D&D 5e, as in most human vs human games with tanking roles, isn't via a World of Warcraft style hijacking of the enemy and forcing them to attack you, let alone only your armor class. So I don't know why you're talking about that or asking for me to post links to how to do that.

Doesn't matter whether it's Reinhardt in Overwatch, Asana in Atlas Reactor, Warriors in Guild Wars PvP, or Nautilus in League of Legends. These characters are all tanks, and they're all good at it, and not a single one of them actually forces enemy targeting

[CorporateSlave]

how do you know that you saved them? you dont know if the attack was even going to hit before you use it?

Conceivably, the DM could just be rolling one d20 twice for disadvantage, and if the first roll came up 20, then the reroll 5, you could certainly say the disadvantage "saved" the PC from the hit.

[stoutstien]

Conceivably, the DM could just be rolling one d20 twice for disadvantage, and if the first roll came up 20, then the reroll 5, you could certainly say the disadvantage "saved" the PC from the hit.

Fair point.

[mephnick]

It's very thematic for a group willing to RP their characters in combat instead of going for the optimal decision every time. I had one Paladin use it to great effect to protect a more frail party member he had sworn to protect. It was a great bond between the characters and really livened up combat.

Unfortunately, once the grid comes out characters seem to vanish and be replaced with stat sheets and pawns.

[Angelalex242]

I see no reason to use it when I'm using Sentinel anyway.

I get but one reaction, I'd rather use it reducing an enemy's movement to 0 for attacking anyone that isn't me. Or trying to run away from me.

[opaopajr]

It's very thematic for a group willing to RP their characters in combat instead of going for the optimal decision every time. I had one Paladin use it to great effect to protect a more frail party member he had sworn to protect. It was a great bond between the characters and really livened up combat.

Unfortunately, once the grid comes out characters seem to vanish and be replaced with stat sheets and pawns.

It is a tragedy of our times.

I am fascinated how no one contemplates about alternate combinations. A squishy caster concentrating on a helpful spell (Bane?), a Fighter with Protection and Javelins traveling as a linked pair. Attack & defense, at the same time, while roleplaying a social relationship. It's possible, because 5e wants all editions to play at the same table.

[stoutstien]

It is a tragedy of our times.

I am fascinated how no one contemplates about alternate combinations. A squishy caster concentrating on a helpful spell (Bane?), a Fighter with Protection and Javelins traveling as a linked pair. Attack & defense, at the same time, while roleplaying a social relationship. It's possible, because 5e wants all editions to play at the same table.

In my view protection is even more gamey than any of the other fighting styles. The 5-foot range really hammers down grid positioning.
Does give an interesting idea. what if we allowed up to half your movement speed as part of the same reaction too protective an ally?

[Cynthaer]

It's very thematic for a group willing to RP their characters in combat instead of going for the optimal decision every time. I had one Paladin use it to great effect to protect a more frail party member he had sworn to protect. It was a great bond between the characters and really livened up combat.

Unfortunately, once the grid comes out characters seem to vanish and be replaced with stat sheets and pawns.

Similarly, I have a paladin who (for personal reasons) really wants to be, and to be seen as, a heroic protector.

It may well be the case that that Defense or Dueling are mechanically superior fighting styles over the long term with her party's composition, but that doesn't really matter, because neither of those let her heroically block an attack that was headed for someone else.

In the end, that's all there is to it for me. Whether Protection is a weaker or more situational fighting style, the fact remains that no other style is better at doing the specific thing that Protection actually does.

[OverLordOcelot]

First of all, I didn't say anyone specified sentinel, least of all you. I commented on the fact that my example would not be accounting for various tanking abilities that could counteract the mummy's ability (with Sentinel being an example of one such ability), and would simply assume that the mummy succeeds for the sake of simplicity.

You didn't directly state that, no. But you snidely responded with the incorrect assertion that you repeated here with the clear implication that I was overlooking the fact that (supposedly) Sentinel would counteract the mummy lord's ability to pick targets. But sentinel doesn't do that, as I demonstrated and you refused to acknowledge.

Finally, I have taken time out of my day to attempt to answer the questions you raised, in the interest of trying to be helpful to you, and am now being insulted and called "snide" for it. I would be appreciative if we could have a respectful conversation with each other. Thank you.

If you want to have a respectful conversation, you'll need to stop with snide, derisive comments, accusing me of making strawman arguments when I refute things that you've said, and making strawman arguments like claiming I hold a position that I have explicitly and clearly stated I do not hold. As far as I can tell, you did not attempt to answer any question I actually raised, but instead came up with a position that I don't agree with, and continue to insist that it's my position even when I've explicitly and clearly stated that I don't agree with it.

My argument stipulated only that the Mummy Lord uses their teleport ability to successfully bypass the tank. No other steps are required for the point to be made (e.g. that the optimal target is not necessarily the one with the lowest AC, and that a character with a higher AC does not need to actually force an enemy's choice in order to be targeted).

Here we go again: At no point did I assert that 'the optimal target is necessarily the one with the lowest AC' or that 'a character with a higher AC needs to actually force an enemy's choice in order to be targeted'. I pointed out in the last post that I asserted neither of these things, but you keep acting like I did. I didn't. Simply didn't.

Perhaps this will make my position clearer to you:

In that quote it appears that you completely agree with my point, which makes your weird and factually incorrect arguments against me all the harder to make sense of.

[opaopajr]

In my view protection is even more gamey than any of the other fighting styles. The 5-foot range really hammers down grid positioning.
Does give an interesting idea. what if we allowed up to half your movement speed as part of the same reaction too protective an ally?

Yes and no about being too gamey (meaning needing a grid to finction with the mechanics). I can see Theater of the Mind with some coordinated conversation. Depending on initiative the duo talks out who goes where, when, to be followed up by the other. That way the GM can let the table TotM happen as it will only be the minions between the duo's initiative when they split up to worry about.

That said, your idea sounds like fun. It does give free movement, which can be a hard to balance feature against exploitation. But it might rock some tables!

I may leave it as is because I sort of love people using the Ready action to "program" their Reaction. Something about the coordination, deciding which turn to Dodge and which turn to Ready movement to follow your protector (or protected,) feels very cinematic to me. There's a meaningful choice tension there that I love.

It also helps when encounters are not all to the death or all enemies ran like Spec Op Hit Squads. That's the GM's responsibility of stakes nuance.

[Skylivedk]

Yes and no about being too gamey (meaning needing a grid to finction with the mechanics). I can see Theater of the Mind with some coordinated conversation. Depending on initiative the duo talks out who goes where, when, to be followed up by the other. That way the GM can let the table TotM happen as it will only be the minions between the duo's initiative when they split up to worry about.

That said, your idea sounds like fun. It does give free movement, which can be a hard to balance feature against exploitation. But it might rock some tables!

I may leave it as is because I sort of love people using the Ready action to "program" their Reaction. Something about the coordination, deciding which turn to Dodge and which turn to Ready movement to follow your protector (or protected,) feels very cinematic to me. There's a meaningful choice tension there that I love.

It also helps when encounters are not all to the death or all enemies ran like Spec Op Hit Squads. That's the GM's responsibility of stakes nuance.

10 ft movement or something like that, I'd probably test it for the bodyguard feel.

But... I need to understand: you like it when players use their action to prepare Protection?

If I understood that correctly, it sounds plain awful and also not by the book. I don't want to straw man you though.

[opaopajr]

No, no, no. I mean for whoever is to be protected making a meaningful choice between Dodge (etc.) and Ready:"Keep up with protector's movement." You could do some complex triggers with that, as long as they did not give alternate functions afterward (basically a complex "if" with a single and clear "then,").

e.g. Squishy Cleric casted Bane (or other good conc. spell) previously. This round said Cleric takes Move to a drawbridge switch, Interacts to turn switch on, finishes move next to drawbridge, takes Ready action to program its reaction. Trigger is: "if my protecting fighter reaches my [directional plane] and goes across the bridge.." new Reaction: "then I will Move (technically 'Dash') to be next to my protecting fighter as they across the bridge."

Protection Fighter does their thing, then Moves to cross drawbridge, enough so as to trigger the Ready Reaction. Squishy Cleric takes Reaction to Move with Protecting Fighter as far as Dash Speed allows, ideally crossing drawbridge. Perhaps the Cleric & Fighter ends up next to other side's drawbridge switch and the Fighter then Interacts with switch to draw it back up.

Complex but currently all legal without rules changes. Cool things like that are way fun tactically and feel strangely absent in modern playstyle. There's this awesome coordination capacity in 5e that I feel is being left behind in this chase for 'DPS builds'.

[LudicSavant]

You didn't directly state that, no.

Indeed, I did not state such a thing. Nor was I seeking to imply it. You are reading things into my statements other than the positions I actually hold. Or, in other words, making a straw man argument. Several of them, in fact.

Note that saying you're making a straw man argument does not imply that you are doing so intentionally or anything. It is just pointing out that I feel my position is not being accurately represented in your posts.

As far as I can tell, you did not attempt to answer any question I actually raised, but instead came up with a position that I don't agree with, and continue to insist that it's my position even when I've explicitly and clearly stated that I don't agree with it.

The great irony is that this is precisely what you are doing to me. I have clarified my position, and why the "implications" you are reading into my text are not, in fact, the positions I hold.

I talk about casters Misty Stepping out of melee, you tell me that I'm really saying they're Misty Stepping into melee.
I talk about tanks moving into melee range of flying creatures to put them into a precarious position, you tell me that I'm really saying that the flying creatures are the ones doing the engaging instead.
I say that Sentinel need not be taken into account, you say that I am deriding you for not taking Sentinel into account.
I say that Sentinel can interrupt the movement of the Whirlwind of Sand ability, you say that I am claiming that it can stop entirely different actions.

Clearly a great deal is being lost in translation here.

For example, when I say "I'm going to put this flying creature into a precarious position in melee" the kind of scenario I have in mind is that my Paladin is going to ride up there on their spell-sharing mount and put them in that position. Yet you apparently translate it to "The flying creature is going to purposely move into melee range of the tank," which is pretty much the complete opposite.

As far as I can tell, you did not attempt to answer any question I actually raised

The question you raised, was, quote: "I just don't see how you consistently force the opponents to concentrate AC attacks on high AC characters." And more generally calling into question Skylived's assumptions.

My answer to which is "You do not need to, and I believe that Skylived's position is supported by the existence of this alternative option to forcing enemy targeting." Incidentally, this is also why things like Protection and Defense were mentioned; because they're relevant to Skylived's position and the larger discussion involved.

You also seem to be operating under the misapprehension that my post was solely addressing you. I quoted your post so that I could build on the examples you had laid out for enemy strategies, in order to address a variety of premises that had been bandied about by a variety of people throughout this thread.

In that quote it appears that you completely agree with my point

Then it's very strange that you're disagreeing with my other quote which makes the very same point.

[Skylivedk]

No, no, no. I mean for whoever is to be protected making a meaningful choice between Dodge (etc.) and Ready:"Keep up with protector's movement." You could do some complex triggers with that, as long as they did not give alternate functions afterward (basically a complex "if" with a single and clear "then,").

e.g. Squishy Cleric casted Bane (or other good conc. spell) previously. This round said Cleric takes Move to a drawbridge switch, Interacts to turn switch on, finishes move next to drawbridge, takes Ready action to program its reaction. Trigger is: "if my protecting fighter reaches my [directional plane] and goes across the bridge.." new Reaction: "then I will Move (technically 'Dash') to be next to my protecting fighter as they across the bridge."

Protection Fighter does their thing, then Moves to cross drawbridge, enough so as to trigger the Ready Reaction. Squishy Cleric takes Reaction to Move with Protecting Fighter as far as Dash Speed allows, ideally crossing drawbridge. Perhaps the Cleric & Fighter ends up next to other side's drawbridge switch and the Fighter then Interacts with switch to draw it back up.

Complex but currently all legal without rules changes. Cool things like that are way fun tactically and feel strangely absent in modern playstyle. There's this awesome coordination capacity in 5e that I feel is being left behind in this chase for 'DPS builds'.

It's cool and cinematic, but wouldn't both, fighter and cleric, of them be better off of the cleric just took the Dodge action? Then the fighter could protect someone else and the cleric would impose disadvantage on all hits rather than one.

In other words: in a lot of situations Protection faces way more coordination issues (especially due to the nature of turn based combat) than expected leading to it being less used than the player picking it had hoped for. It's a fairly complex feature to get to work in comparison to its competition

[LudicSavant]

It's cool and cinematic, but wouldn't both, fighter and cleric, of them be better off of the cleric just took the Dodge action? Then the fighter could protect someone else and the cleric would impose disadvantage on all hits rather than one.

In other words: in a lot of situations Protection faces way more coordination issues (especially due to the nature of turn based combat) than expected leading to it being less used than the player picking it had hoped for. It's a fairly complex feature to get to work in comparison to its competition

If I'm understanding opaopajr's post correctly, the benefit of readying a dash would be that you get to move twice during the turn, whereas using Dodge would mean you only move once.

[opaopajr]

If I'm understanding opaopajr's post correctly, the benefit of readying a dash would be that you get to move twice during the turn, whereas using Dodge would mean you only move once.

Yes, and a bit more. It ends up with both PCs still paired up while still allowing them to change the 'battle' context. They have different turns in the round, yet can still end up spatially tethered by next round. It's just an example, but the drawbridge (and its switches) stands for tactical location opportunities.

So yeah, one can presume the example has "more allies" to protect in an assumed fight to the death. But that's drawing out an example beyond its use. I could similarly say it is a situation of oncoming endless hordes, a drawbridge, and just you two, with Bane as insurance... but that's an exchange elaborating context for a mere example of principle.