D&D 5E Protection fighting style: How many attacks?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

In the Yoon-Suin campaign I'm running, our paladin has taken the "protection" fighting style and has been doing a decent job at shielding others from harm. Today however the party fought a monster with multiple attacks.

So when a character with this fighting style gives disadvantage to a foe attacking an ally, is it for a single attack roll, or the entire attack action (in this case, two distinct attack rolls). My reading is that it's only a single roll, but confirmation would be nice.

cheers,

 

[marcelvdpol]

Yup, it only affects ONE attack roll no matter how many attacks are being made. Since it also costs your reaction you can only use it once until the start of your next turn.

 

[CapnZapp]

You only have a single reaction.

This means you can only ever react once (per turn). For instance, shielding someone, or to make an opportunity attack.

For instance, no matter how good you are, you can only prevent one goblin from running past you. If three goblins run past you to reach the party wizard, two of them will succeed automatically.

This is just the way things are in 5E. There are few or no defensive abilities that doesn't eat your bonus action or reaction, and you never get more than one of each of those.

It does mean you should consider a defensive choice (such as the Protection fighting style) carefully. There simply is no way to become "all defensive" the way you can become "all offensive".

For instance, you might think the Protection benefit is powerful. But since it robs you of your opportunity attack for that round, you are paying a heavy price. Already before you consider the subject of your post, the fact it only applies to a single incoming attack (and a fighter can easily be attacked half a dozen times in a round).

You might not think this is fair (after all, offensive abilities are often triggered on successful attacks, and a high-level fighter can have four or even more of those), but it all boils down to a simple fact:

Offensive abilities make combats go faster, defensive abilities make combats go slower. 5E is heavily tilted towards many short and fast fights rather than the reverse.

 

[Ancalagon]

It seems a bit... underwhelming... doesn't it?

 

[mellored]

It seems a bit... underwhelming... doesn't it?

Yes.

Feel free to houserule it.
Perhaps something like: As a reaction, you can give an adjacent ally +4 AC until the end of the turn.

 

[famousringo]

It seems a bit... underwhelming... doesn't it?

As with so many other things: That depends.

Protection is situational (needs to attack nearby ally), costs a reaction, and applies about a -5 penalty to a single attack.

Defensive style is also situational (needs to attack you), doesn't cost a reaction, and applies a -1 penalty to any number of attacks.

Defensive certainly requires less attention, but which one is better depends on how your team fights, how the DM tends to attack the team, and whether you really have something better to do with your reactions or not. If the DM obligingly focuses on the fighter already, the fighter's allies like to use mobility/range tactics rather than snuggle up to the tin can, and the fighter's an EK with sweet reaction abjurations, it's probably pretty weak. If you're a champion with a rogue that stays glued to your side and the DM likes to spread the pain around, well, -5 to one attack rather than -1 to a couple attacks might be worth spending a reaction.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It seems a bit... underwhelming... doesn't it?

Yes.

My houserule is to let the player impose disadvantage retroactively on an attack which hits, kind of like the Shield spell or Defensive Duelist. My players are happy with that change and it's still not overpowered.

Defensive certainly requires less attention, but which one is better depends on how your team fights, how the DM tends to attack the team, and whether you really have something better to do with your reactions or not. If the DM obligingly focuses on the fighter already, the fighter's allies like to use mobility/range tactics rather than snuggle up to the tin can, and the fighter's an EK with sweet reaction abjurations, it's probably pretty weak. If you're a champion with a rogue that stays glued to your side and the DM likes to spread the pain around, well, -5 to one attack rather than -1 to a couple attacks might be worth spending a reaction.

It also matters whether you have any other ways of imposing disadvantage. E.g. a fighter who likes to grapple/prone enemies for advantage also imposes disadvantage on the enemy's attacks, so cannot benefit from Protection style (against that enemy) but can benefit from Defense. In fact, static bonuses a la Defense become more important when the enemy has disadvantage, since the relative impact grows (probability curve slope is steeper near the ends).

 

[WarpedAcorn]

It seems a bit... underwhelming... doesn't it?

I took this Fighting Style for my character early on and it was great. I was able to save my group from a lot of hits (including a crit or two). But the Style has since lost its luster when enemies get multiple attacks. I still use it, and I look at it like I am probably preventing damage (sorta like healing right), but it sucks when you've got squishy teammates and you can't be more helpful. Were I to do it over, I doubt I would ever take the Protection style. Defense or Dueling seem much better options that would see much more frequent use.

 

[Kalshane]

I've house-ruled Protection to apply to all attacks against that particular ally until the start of your next turn for my games.

I've also seen a house rule that combined Defensive and Protection into the same style. (Which is kind of necessary if you're allowing the Mariner style from UA, because otherwise the latter is clearly better for anyone that doesn't intend to wear heavy armor.)