D&D 5E New(?) Fighting Style: Tactical

bedir than · Jul 20, 2019

A different path may be to allow the 1st Opportunity Attack to not count as a reaction, but just be free. This would be situational and allow other reactions that the character may have.

ParanoydStyle · Jul 20, 2019

Blue said:
But by the same logic, with armor increasing AC and STR adding to bonus to hit, it's "absurd to rationalize powering through full armor on every one of them without any accuracy, and therefore it's very hard to buy that being strong will add to your attack rolls on EVERYTHING". No matter how accurate I am with a rapier that has no affect at all on my chance to attack with a longsword, and no matter how bad my aim and reflexes, as long as I throw hard enough my thrown javelin will connect.

While I have different reservations about it, STR only to hit is so unbelievable that some other ability that can credibly affect damage at least some of the time is way ahead of it.

I respectfully disagree. Or maybe I misunderstand. I'm honestly not sure which. To me it doesn't stretch credibility that a stronger character has a better chance of battering through an opponent's plate mail to deal damage. Likewise to me it doesn't stretch credibility that a faster character* has a better chance of successfully striking an unprotected spot (gorget, chain cuisse beneath the armpits, helmet slit if you want to get a bit gruesome with it) to inflict a telling blow on an opponent. Intelligence being applied to these situations doesn't make a lot of sense to me though.

* I'm not sure if I'm making a completely unnecessary argument here, but many historical weapons were designed to harm with the speed of a blow, not the force behind it (even if both were important). The best example is the katana, which I used to have proficiency with but lost: without even getting into iaijutsu it is the speed of the pull-cut that causes harm, not the force with which the blade strikes the opponent. The same is true in modern day of combat knives (when wielded as slashing weapons), straight razors, and scalpels.

Idea I forgot to mention last time I think is that I've been toying with firearms rules in two or three different D&D 5E based projects, and one idea that seems obvious to me is to have the damage of firearms modified by Wisdom modifier, since Wisdom is firmly conceptually tied to perception and eyesight/accuracy seems to me the determinant of how devastating aimed gunfire can be.

Possibly the most absurd failure of the basic D&D weapons rules is the fact that a Strength 5 wood elf has no more trouble drawing a longbow than a Strength 15 half-orc. This is preposterous. I am guessing that bringing a longbow to full draw requires more upper body strength than I ever have had or ever will have (I'm probably around Strength 8-9).

Why is true strike so bad? I don't mean "what is bad about true strike", I get that, I mean why did they make it so bad?

DND_Reborn · Jul 20, 2019

ParanoydStyle said:
Possibly the most absurd failure of the basic D&D weapons rules is the fact that a Strength 5 wood elf has no more trouble drawing a longbow than a Strength 15 half-orc. This is preposterous. I am guessing that bringing a longbow to full draw requires more upper body strength than I ever have had or ever will have (I'm probably around Strength 8-9).

As an aside, our house-rule is you must have a minimum Strength score equal to the maximum die damage of the weapon to wield it normally, otherwise your attack is with disadvantage.

In your example of a STR 5 wood elf, he would have disadvantage since the maximum die damage for the Longbow is 8.

If you want to wield a greatsword, you need a STR 12 (maximum from 2d6), or have disadvantage.

Honestly, it is a simple rule and hasn't come up in our game except once where a Monk has most of his Strength drained by wights and couldn't even use his staff except with disadvantage (his STR was 5, btw, until the battle was over and we were able to rest so he could recover).

Tony Vargas · Jul 20, 2019

A few possibilities have been floated using Bonus Actions or Reactions, to represent tactical planning or springing a tactic. There's already a lot of uses for those kinds of actions, especially reactions, in combat.

How about representing keeping a 'Tactical' overview of the battle by requiring /Concentration/? Hey, no battle-plan survives first contact with the enemy('s weapon, unless you make a CON save).

Maybe you choose a tactical plan before combat, or at the start of combat, and gain a benefit until you lose concentration? No, too complicated. Then single INT-keyed benefit - damage, perhaps? - while you retain concentration.

Heck a whole sub-class could be devoted to accumulating alternate/unlocking more potent benefits to swap out for that basic one.

DND_Reborn · Jul 20, 2019

Maybe a new fighting style isn't the solution, but I want some way to make an INT-based fighter than can (at least potentially) have enough advantages compared to STR- or DEX-based types that it is attractive as an option.

So something like a build of STR: 10, DEX: 12, CON: 12, INT: 16, WIS: 10: CHA: 12 would be fun to play, mostly as a battler, instead of as a caster. After all, such a person is basically average physically, but should still make a decent fighter even without huge bonuses from ability scores in the physical stats.

Such a character is not strong enough to wear the heavier armors, nor dexterous enough to be great in lighter armors, would have little to no attack or damage modifier, yet could easily represent your typical foot soldier (well, a very smart one, anyway...).

A fighting style or feat or something would do it, but what exactly...? A fighting styles would have to be in the same spirit as the current ones, so you can't really make it INT-based. A feat could, but then anyone could take it, but maybe that isn't a bad thing? Sigh...

Tony Vargas · Jul 21, 2019

dnd4vr said:
A fighting styles would have to be in the same spirit as the current ones, so you can't really make it INT-based. A feat could, but then anyone could take it, but maybe that isn't a bad thing? Sigh...

..it'd be an issue, because there are INT based casters & 1/3rd casters who already need a lot of INT, which otherwise does nothing for combat - suddenly they could leverage it. And, those 1/3rd casters (EK & AT) are otherwise weapon-users...
...oh, and Bladesingers...

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
..it'd be an issue, because there are INT based casters & 1/3rd casters who already need a lot of INT, which otherwise does nothing for combat - suddenly they could leverage it. And, those 1/3rd casters (EK & AT) are otherwise weapon-users...
...oh, and Bladesingers...

Because swordmages are so intrinsically superior, snicker

They simply must be built as level 17

Quartz · Jul 21, 2019

I wonder if it might be better if the Int fighter style affected the initiative order?

Fighter-only combat style:

Tactician.

1. You may add your Int instead of your Dex to your initiative roll.
2. For every round beyond the first you are fighting the same opponent or group of opponents you increase your initiative by your Proficiency Bonus to a max of 25. This extra bonus is lost if you do not interact with the opponents for 1 round.

The cumulative addition of the Proficiency Bonus represents the PC 'reading' the opponents. If multiclassing is allowed then change the increase to a plain +2. The max of 25 comes from a d20 roll of 20 with a +5 modifier.

Quartz · Jul 21, 2019

Hmm... this could be better as an Alternate Archetype Feature for the Battlemaster fighter at 3rd level as an alternative to gaining proficiency in one type of Artisan's tools. I never understood why the Battlemaster got that anyway.

Note that this is still good for fighters without a high Int as they sttill improve their initiative score.

DND_Reborn · Jul 21, 2019

Quartz said:
I wonder if it might be better if the Int fighter style affected the initiative order?

Fighter-only combat style:

Tactician.

1. You may add your Int instead of your Dex to your initiative roll.
2. For every round beyond the first you are fighting the same opponent or group of opponents you increase your initiative by your Proficiency Bonus to a max of 25. This extra bonus is lost if you do not interact with the opponents for 1 round.

The cumulative addition of the Proficiency Bonus represents the PC 'reading' the opponents. If multiclassing is allowed then change the increase to a plain +2. The max of 25 comes from a d20 roll of 20 with a +5 modifier.