|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 6:17AM
#1
|
|
|
One of my players asked me during our session "can my character (Cleric of Moradin) use Defender on himself?" If not, why not? Is Defender not quite unbalanced? If he faces one monster, the cleric can simple block the cave passage and dodge, giving him AC 20. The monster would have to roll twice every time to try to hit the cleric because of Defender, which would result in a player doing nothing but dodging to ensure that the other players can take down creatures with ranged attacks. If he can’t use Defender on himself, he can simple stand behind the fighter who dodges and thus has AC 19, still forcing the attacker to do two attacks and thus blocking the way while the other players take down the monster. However, if there are lots of monsters, like a dozen goblins, then Defender is practically useless, since it requires that you target a goblin before it attacks, and if that goblin misses then the ability was wasted. We haven’t found a solution to this yet though and will keep testing it hoping to find a creative suggestion.
You can read more about our D&D Next playtest feedback on my blog.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 6:28AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Short answer: DM call.
Long answer: We have no definitions for "ally", "enemy", or "creature"; specifically we are not told whether the Cleric counts as a "creature within 5 feet" of himself. Strictest RAW, yes, he does, and therefore can grant himself the bonus, if and only if you choose to interpret only the wording under "Benefit" as rules text. If you choose to also interpret the wording under "Defender" as rules text, it then becomes clear that the bonus applies only to the Cleric's allies, and not to the Cleric himself.
The intended use of the ability is clearly that he cannot apply this bonus to himself, but the wording of "Benefit" doesn't actually say this.
This is precisely the reason why more mechanically-precise wording in rulebooks is a good idea. Muddy, colloquial language only leaves room for argument.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 7:23AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I'd rule that The Defender has to block an ally, just to limit the power and to enhance his role in the party. He or she already has a higher AC than the other PCs (most likely), and if he or she wanted to defend himself or herself, he could execute a Dodge and gain +4 to his own AC. If he could Defend himself, I feel there would be too much benefit that could be stacked up.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 8:15AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2009
|
You can only use the power once per round. See reactions definition.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 8:31AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2011
|
As a defender, the idea is to give the enemies an incentive to attack you instead of your allies so I think it's fair to say you can't use it on yourself. My player asked the same thing (though he tries to bend rules so I don't put much stock in that!) and that was my call.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 9:21AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
This is precisely the reason why more mechanically-precise wording in rulebooks is a good idea. Muddy, colloquial language only leaves room for argument.
Or, alternatively, you could use common sense. Clearly 'Defender' is not meant to apply to the character himself.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 10:46AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
What? It clearly can't be used on yourself. Just read the description again. "interpose your shield between your allies and their attackers."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 11:17AM
#8
|
|
|
What? It clearly can't be used on yourself. Just read the description again. "interpose your shield between your allies and their attackers."
To be fair, that's more or less the flavor text from what I see, not the actual reading of the benefit of the feat, which simply says "when an attack is made against a creature within 5 feet of you, you can give the attacker disadvantage on the attack as a reaction."
I agree that it SHOULDN'T be able to be applied to yourself to keep with the spirit of the theme and feat, but as written, it doesn’t really make that clear.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 1:12PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
Well this is certainly interesting. Supposing it really is meant to work that way, what exactly is the worse thing that could happen? Forcing a disadvantage on an attack once per turn sounds pretty strong to me, but not at all game-changing or mandatory.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 6:01PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
It very clearly is NOT intended to work on the player himself. And I wouldn't personally want to encourage that sort of rules twisting in the game.
If you really want to go down that road - go ahead. But you go alone, imho.
Carl
|
|
|
