D&D 5E Combat styles and multi-classing

FrogReaver · Jun 26, 2019

Dausuul said:
It's effectively a -1 penalty to AC for anyone multiclassing two martial classes. So, you're nerfing martial multiclass builds. Do you think that they need it?

Rogues, Barbarians and Monks none get a fighting style. It's only if you are multiclassing fighter, paladin or ranger. I don't think any of those classes will miss the -1 AC (or +1.3 damage if you are a Great weapon user)

DND_Reborn · Jun 26, 2019

Quartz said:
Okay, thanks. So suppose that Fighting Styles were not cumulative - that is, unless you are a high-level Champion Fighter you can only ever have one Fighting Style - how would that affect multiclassing and the game?

Even if you can't take the same style twice, they are a big reason for taking a couple levels of ranger or paladin or single level of fighter. I would certainly keep them if someone multiclassed and got the feature.

There's no reason really to limit them as written. Either they are offensive and exclusive (you can't utilize duelist and great-weapon or twf) or one is offensive and the other defensive, it which case they are complementary possibly (such as defensive and twf or protection and duelist). Only the two defensive work in unison, but one helps the PC and the other allows the PC to help others.

Dausuul said:
It's effectively a -1 penalty to AC for anyone multiclassing two martial classes. So, you're nerfing martial multiclass builds. Do you think that they need it?

Exactly. Most martials need more, not less, compared to the spellcasters, et al.

FrogReaver said:
None

or to be more exact so arguments don’t ensue. The effect would be so minimal that it’s effect on multiclassing would be so minimal that it might as well be non existent.

Maybe 1 out of 1 million players would multiclass differently if this were the case

FrogReaver said:
Rogues, Barbarians and Monks none get a fighting style. It's only if you are multiclassing fighter, paladin or ranger. I don't think any of those classes will miss the -1 AC (or +1.3 damage if you are a Great weapon user)

Guess I am the one in a million LOL! It would make certain multiclassing options less attractive for certain. And I think any one would miss a +1 bonus to AC if you took it away, for whatever reason. Or if you took away a bonus to their damage.

Considering how useful the fighting styles are, I wouldn't limit them further.

FrogReaver · Jun 26, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Even if you can't take the same style twice, they are a big reason for taking a couple levels of ranger or paladin or single level of fighter. I would certainly keep them if someone multiclassed and got the feature.

There's no reason really to limit them as written. Either they are offensive and exclusive (you can't utilize duelist and great-weapon or twf) or one is offensive and the other defensive, it which case they are complementary possibly (such as defensive and twf or protection and duelist). Only the two defensive work in unison, but one helps the PC and the other allows the PC to help others.

Exactly. Most martials need more, not less, compared to the spellcasters, et al.

Guess I am the one in a million LOL! It would make certain multiclassing options less attractive for certain. And I think any one would miss a +1 bonus to AC if you took it away, for whatever reason. Or if you took away a bonus to their damage.

Considering how useful the fighting styles are, I wouldn't limit them further.

If a class with a fighting style mutliclasses with fighter the payoff is for action surge and possibly a subclass feature
If a class with a fighting style multiclasses with paladin, the payoff is divine smite and spellcasting
If a class with a fighting style multiclasses with ranger, the payoff is hunter's mark and the subclass level 3 ability

+1 AC is such a small part of the reason to multiclass amongst those classes to begin with IMO. The payoff for the features listed above is just so large. IMO

My preference as well is don't limit it. But the impact of removing it is sufficiently small that it won't really matter one way or the other. IMO

DND_Reborn · Jun 26, 2019

FrogReaver said:
If a class with a fighting style mutliclasses with fighter the payoff is for action surge and possibly a subclass feature
If a class with a fighting style multiclasses with paladin, the payoff is divine smite and spellcasting
If a class with a fighting style multiclasses with ranger, the payoff is hunter's mark and the subclass level 3 ability

+1 AC is such a small part of the reason to multiclass amongst those classes to begin with IMO. The payoff for the features listed above is just so large. IMO

My preference as well is don't limit it. But the impact of removing it is sufficiently small that it won't really matter one way or the other. IMO

Of course there are other pay offs and significant ones, but that doesn't mean the fighting styles, which are unlimited in uses (such as +1 AC, +2 damage, etc.) and apply all the time, aren't just as important or more so depending on your point of view.

We have a Fighter/Barbarian in our group and the +2 dueling style bonus helps him much more than his occasional use of action surge or second wind.

But certainly individuals will value different features differently depending on the character build, usefulness, etc. I just don't think they are as small a feature as you do. At least both of our preferences would be to not limit them.

FrogReaver · Jun 26, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Of course there are other pay offs and significant ones, but that doesn't mean the fighting styles, which are unlimited in uses (such as +1 AC, +2 damage, etc.) and apply all the time, aren't just as important or more so depending on your point of view.

We have a Fighter/Barbarian in our group and the +2 dueling style bonus helps him much more than his occasional use of action surge or second wind.

But certainly individuals will value different features differently depending on the character build, usefulness, etc. I just don't think they are as small a feature as you do. At least both of our preferences would be to not limit them.

Proposed change doesn’t impact barbarian fighter

why even bring him up

DND_Reborn · Jun 26, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Proposed change doesn’t impact barbarian fighter

why even bring him up

Sigh... because he is gaining +2 damage with every melee attack he makes and the player loves that feature. The case would be the same if the character was a Fighter/Paladin. Taking Defensive as a fighter and Dueling as a Paladin, that character would certainly miss the +2 to damage all the time if you weren't allowed to take more than one fighting style.

The point is they are more valuable that you give them credit for IMO and why I thought they shouldn't be restricted. You seem to believe them inconsequential compared to the other features as were I argue they can certainly be more important over the long term. Of course, to each their own.

BluejayJunior · Jun 26, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Sigh... because he is gaining +2 damage with every melee attack he makes and the player loves that feature. The case would be the same if the character was a Fighter/Paladin. Taking Defensive as a fighter and Dueling as a Paladin, that character would certainly miss the +2 to damage all the time if you weren't allowed to take more than one fighting style.

The point is they are more valuable that you give them credit for IMO and why I thought they shouldn't be restricted. You seem to believe them inconsequential compared to the other features as were I argue they can certainly be more important over the long term. Of course, to each their own.

I don't think he's arguing that the features are inconsequential. I think he's saying that they are not the reason that someone is choosing to multiclass in the first place. If a fighter wants to become a paladin, it's very unlikely that they are choosing to do it for the extra fighting style. It's more likely other class features or the theme that is driving there decision. So limiting the fighting styles most likely wouldn't change a lot of players' minds about their decision to multiclass.

Quartz · Jun 26, 2019

BluejayJunior said:
If a fighter wants to become a paladin, it's very unlikely that they are choosing to do it for the extra fighting style.

The reverse, however, does hold: a Paladin gets a lot for one or two levels of fighter. Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge are all very good. Compare a Paladin 12 / Ftr 2 that has the TWF Fighting Style with a Paladin 14.

FrogReaver · Jun 26, 2019

Quartz said:
The reverse, however, does hold: a Paladin gets a lot for one or two levels of fighter. Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge are all very good. Compare a Paladin 12 / Ftr 2 that has the TWF Fighting Style with a Paladin 14.

My paladins use their bonus action to much to take much advantage of TWF.

Dausuul · Jun 27, 2019

Quartz said:
The reverse, however, does hold: a Paladin gets a lot for one or two levels of fighter. Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge are all very good. Compare a Paladin 12 / Ftr 2 that has the TWF Fighting Style with a Paladin 14.

Sure, it looks nice at 14th level. But let's look at the whole level range.

The multiclasser brings +1 AC, Action Surge, and the ability to get TWF which isn't among the style options for paladins. The last is notable at 4th level because TWF is busted at low level, and at levels 13+ because it synergizes nicely with Improved Divine Smite. The multiclasser also gets Second Wind, but this will rarely see use above low levels since it is competing for bonus actions with TWF and it only ever heals 1d10+2.

What does the straight paladin get to compensate?

At 4th level: Channel Divinity and an ASI.
At 5th level: An ASI, Extra Attack, and 2nd-level spells.
At 6th level: Extra Attack, 2nd-level spells, and Aura of Protection.
At 7th level: Aura of Protection, and that aura gets a major boost like "immune to charm" or "resistance to spell damage."
At 8th level: Boosted Aura of Protection and an ASI.
At 9th level: An ASI and 3rd-level spells.
At 10th level: 3rd-level spells and another aura boost, granting immunity to fear.
At 11th level: The immunity to fear boost and 1d8 bonus damage with each attack.
At 12th level: 1d8 bonus damage with each attack and an ASI.
At 13th level: An ASI and 4th-level spells.
At 14th level: 4th-level spells and the ability to remove hostile magic.
At 15th level: The ability to remove hostile magic, and a super-powerful defensive ability (e.g., regenerate ~10 hp/round whenever you're at half hit points or less, or permanent disadvantage to hit you for most of the high-level monsters in the game).
At 16th level: The super-powerful defensive ability and an ASI.
At 17th level: An ASI and 5th-level spells.
At 18th level: 5th-level spells and a 30-foot aura.
At 19th level: A 30-foot aura and an ASI.
At 20th level: An ASI and 1/day god mode.

At levels 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 19, the straight paladin is better. Extra Attack, Improved Divine Smite, and Aura Improvement are killer features for the paladin that trump everything fighter 2 brings to the table.
At levels 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17, the multiclasser is better.
At the other levels, it's debatable.

All in all, it lines up pretty well. And note also that much of the multiclasser's advantage at 13/14/17 depends on exploiting the benefits of TWF with Improved Divine Smite. If feats are in play, the straight paladin could pick up Polearm Master for a bonus action attack, and most of that advantage would disappear.