Single-weapon fighting, on the other hand, should be a bit more like unarmed fighting: if it's "balanced" with everything else by default, it's too powerful. Only specific classes and/or specific builds should be able to wield a single rapier with as much effectiveness as a barbarian wielding a greataxe. So I'm okay with the "duelist" path requiring specific maneuvers and/or feats to be fully effective.
I'm with you on a decent bit of that there (specific builds should be able to wield a single rapier with the effectiveness of a barbarian wielding a greataxe) but in total, I think we diverge as I'm not ok with feat taxes in order to do it.
1- I don't want to cede the authority of gameplay to a process simulationist agenda that will ultimately result in narrowing the scope of martial builds to an optimal/viable few (see 2e's dual wielding katana ginsus)...over a dynamic, diverse narrative agenda that accounts for a wide swath of genres. Not interested in that at all. I want to see the Huns, the Macedonians, the Hoplites (out of phalanx formation), the Roman Legions, Achilles, Zorro, etc, etc represented in this game.
2- I don't believe that that process simulationist agenda actually bears out the truth of martial combat. I really, really, really don't want to get into the morphological disadvantages of the great weapon and its narrow applications but suffice to say that only two cultures used the weapon and only in an exceedingly narrow band (14th to 16th century). All other cultures' infantry used one-handed weapons, polearms or variations of formational fighting (spear hedges and shield walls, etc). The largest step-changes in infantry technology was not weaponry, but steel and plate armor.
3- Regardless, I want a wide, wide swath of fighting styles equally viable. That means you can't start a race, working off the same $ budget while down 1/4 horsepower. You spend some of your budget to get that 1/4 horsepower back and the guy next to you has stiffened his suspension and grip and now kills you in the corners. I want these three guys:
Originally posted by WotC 4e
Sly Flourish
You use a distracting flourish with your off hand to land a solid blow.
At-Will
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier + Charisma modifier damage.
Riposte Strike
With a calculated strike, you leave your foe vulnerable to an adroit riposte if it dares to attack you.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. If the target attacks you before the start of your next turn and it is within reach, you can make a Strength vs. AC attack against it as an immediate interrupt. On a hit, the target takes 1[W] + Strength modifier damage
Grappling Strike
You hew your foe with a simple attack and then grab it with your empty hand to keep it from escaping.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee touch
Requirement: You must have a hand free.
Target:One creature
Attack:Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you grab the target. The grab ends automatically at the end of your next turn.
to be just as viable as these 3 guys
Originally posted by WotC 4e
Resolute Shield
As you slash into your foe, you pull your shield into a defensive position between the two of you, guaranteeing that it absorbs at least some of your enemy’s attack.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be using a shield.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you gain resist equal to your Constitution modifier against the target’s attacks until the end of your next turn.
Dual Strike
You lash out quickly and follow up faster, delivering two small wounds.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Primary Target: One creature
Primary Attack: Strength vs. AC (main weapon)
Hit: 1[W] damage.
Effect: Make a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: One creature other than the primary target
Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC (off-hand weapon)
Hit: 1[W] damage.
Devastating Strike
You strike with awesome power, more concerned with offensive strength than defensive posturing.
At-Will Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a melee weapon in two hands.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + 1d8 + Strength modifier damage.
Effect: Until the start of your next turn, any attacker gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls against you. If you are raging, attackers do not gain this bonus.
(And remember, you still get the side benefit of having a free hand to do stuff with, like swinging from chandeliers or casting spells.) Ideally, I'd like to see it have a small handful of specific maneuvers (maybe 2-3) and one or two feats at most.
This is easily enough achieved in an AEDU system with a rich action economy. However, 5e possesses no such rich action economy. As is, things like swinging from chandeliers that actually provide legitimate modes of attack that are worth an Action (and not just practices in horrible adjudication of percentages and bad risk assessment, eg 3 rolls to accomplish one effect because that properly simulates all the step...and provides you...ooooh 15 % chance of success) such as:
Originally posted by WotC 4e
Acrobat's Blade Trick
You flip into a spinning acrobatic display of flashing blades. Then the display transforms into a deadly attack.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 1
Prerequisite: You must be trained in Acrobatics.
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: Each enemy in the burst you can see
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage
Effect: After the attack, you can shift a number of squares equal to the number of enemies you hit with this attack. During the shift, you can move through squares occupied by enemies you hit with this attack.
or your free hand having actual mechanical impact (such as in the 3 attacks above) are not in the mix of 5e. There is no p42 for limited damage expressions or balanced adjudication of action (not 3 checks for one mundane act with little to no chance at success). What's more, there is no actual hard-coded mechanical legitimacy to that claim. In the current iteration (sans tactical module), its just DM fiat (and one DM may not be as on board as the next) as mechanical resolution. One of the reasons for 4e's huge success with my group was legitimizing/making viable the play of a swashbuckler, flashing his blade, tumbling through enemies and cutting them down. Personally, I'm not interested in the DM fiat and without that hard-coded, built-in viability of those PC builds, I am certain that 2 of my PCs (therefore my group, as it is 3) will have no interest in this game.
