D&D 5E New "Fighting Style": Versatile

[Ancalagon]

One thing I will point out - and I'm not sure if it came out in my first "here is my real life experience" post - is that in real life, the bastard sword and long sword are *awesome* weapon. Personally, I seemed to do best as a shield and board fighter, but that was in part because of our training. However the few who were well trained with a long sword did extremely well.

Now when you go and use a "real" 2-handed sword, the big claymore like damage dealer... sure you can deliver massive hits and you have great reach, but you lost a lot of speed and control. It's not an obvious choice (in fact, unless you have the training *and* the strength stick to the long-sword!). However, in D&D a long sword used 2 handed is *strictly worse* than a great sword used two handed. That is why a good Versatile Style would be nice.

I thought I had it with +1 to hid and +1 to AC but now I'm not so sure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now when you go and use a "real" 2-handed sword, the big claymore like damage dealer... sure you can deliver massive hits and you have great reach, but you lost a lot of speed and control. It's not an obvious choice (in fact, unless you have the training *and* the strength stick to the long-sword!).

So, when you say 'loss of speed and control,' does that mean that your attacks are easier to avoid? That you swing less often? That you can't parry with the weapon as well?

The first and second would imply lower attack bonus (though D&D has Extra Attack, swinging many times is assumed, it's just folded into one attack roll), the last is something D&D doesn't model at all.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

To my mind, the point of using a Versatile weapon is . . . versatility. It shouldn't be conditional upon whether you have anything in your off-hand when using it one-handed for example. I'd probably suggest a straight +1 to hit or damage that can be applied however the wielder chooses.

Or something like:
Versatile
When you are wielding a Versatile weapon you may choose to deal Slashing, Piercing or Bludgeoning damage with it.

(Representing striking with the haft or pommel, stabbing or using the spike on the back as a pick, etc.) (I have houserules that make something similar baseline: I'm not sure if its actually as powerful as a style should be, or mostly just flavour.)

So, when you say 'loss of speed and control,' does that mean that your attacks are easier to avoid? That you swing less often? That you can't parry with the weapon as well?

The first and second would imply lower attack bonus (though D&D has Extra Attack, swinging many times is assumed, it's just folded into one attack roll), the last is something D&D doesn't model at all.

Its not really anything that translates into an easy D&D combat modifier. Swings are slower and need to be larger, and changes in direction are harder, slower, and more likely to overshoot. The weapon is also slower to maneuver when trying to parry, yes.
However, its generally compensated for by the extra reach and (in D&D combat) penetration from the heavier blade.

Its like the difference between using a versatile sword 1-handed and a one-handed sword: The larger sword will be slower, heavier etc, but D&D doesn't go into that sort of distinctions.

 

[Salamandyr]

Personally, I'd like the duelist +2 to damage to work with versatile weapons with used in either one hand or two hands.

I could see longsword wielded in two hands as offering a +1 to AC (longsword instructions stress the point that the sword is both weapon and shield. However, that's still strictly inferior to longsword (or rapier) and shield with Duelist.

1d8+2 & +2 AC (Duellist) vs 1d10 & +1 AC (Versatile)

Allowing duelist to work makes a longsword as good as, if not actually superior to great weapons- 1d10+2 vs 2d6 or 1d12 reroll 1's and 2's on the first roll.

There just doesn't seem to be enough room between weapon&shield and great weapon to create a viable two handed versatile style that doesn't eat one or the other.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To my mind, the point of using a Versatile weapon is . . . versatility.

We're on the same page.

It shouldn't be conditional upon whether you have anything in your off-hand when using it one-handed for example. I'd probably suggest a straight +1 to hit or damage that can be applied however the wielder chooses.

Hit bonuses are generally higher-valued than damage bonuses.

Or something like:
Versatile
When you are wielding a Versatile weapon you may choose to deal Slashing, Piercing or Bludgeoning damage with it.
(Representing striking with the haft or pommel, stabbing or using the spike on the back as a pick, etc.) (I have houserules that make something similar baseline: I'm not sure if its actually as powerful as a style should be, or mostly just flavour.)

I like that, sounds very cool for a sword. Slashing with a warhammer might be odd, though, and it might not be up to snuff compared to other styles...

Its not really anything that translates into an easy D&D combat modifier. Swings are slower and need to be larger, and changes in direction are harder, slower, and more likely to overshoot. The weapon is also slower to maneuver when trying to parry, yes.
However, its generally compensated for by the extra reach and (in D&D combat) penetration from the heavier blade.

Its like the difference between using a versatile sword 1-handed and a one-handed sword: The larger sword will be slower, heavier etc, but D&D doesn't go into that sort of distinctions.

This probably isn't a helpful insight, since it wouldn't be particularly desirable, but it sounds like the difference between using a versatile sword one handed vs two-handed is similar to the difference between using a regular weapon and a light weapon. Used two-handed, the versatile weapon is quicker and more agile than when used one handed. That would imply finesse when used two-handed, which would make swapping between one- and two- handed use even more unsatisfactory, since it's rare that your STR and DEX change in the middle of combat... ;(

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Hit bonuses are generally higher-valued than damage bonuses.

Yep. I would have suggested a +1 to hit, damage or AC, but AC is far too good to be comparable to even to-hit numbers. Increasing the damage to +2 would just conflict with the duellist style as well. Giving a +2 to damage when using the weapon 2-handed might be balanced, but I'm not sure what a fitting bonus for using it 1-handed would be.

I like that, sounds very cool for a sword. Slashing with a warhammer might be odd, though, and it might not be up to snuff compared to other styles...

I allow it as baseline, but as you say, based on the construction of the weapon, sometimes with reduced die size though.

This probably isn't a helpful insight, since it wouldn't be particularly desirable, but it sounds like the difference between using a versatile sword one handed vs two-handed is similar to the difference between using a regular weapon and a light weapon. Used two-handed, the versatile weapon is quicker and more agile than when used one handed. That would imply finesse when used two-handed, which would make swapping between one- and two- handed use even more unsatisfactory, since it's rare that your STR and DEX change in the middle of combat... ;(

Thing is, "quicker and more agile" doesn't mean "Strength is irrelevant". The entire reason that a versatile weapon is quicker and more agile in two hands is because the additional leverage makes a better strength multiplier.

Reasons I would use a versatile weapon one-handed compared to in two hands:
I want to use a shield for better defence - particularly against multiple people or missiles.
I want more reach - if my opponent is using a slightly shorter weapon, or using two-hands, or in a line-fight.

Reasons I would use a versatile weapon in two hands compared to one hand:
I need to hit something much harder.
I'm fighting a larger or heavier weapon or stronger opponent, don't have a shield, and so need the extra bracing when parrying.
I need the extra speed, control and force to either get around my opponent's guard, get through her armour, or both.

- Most of these are much more situational and based on specifics such as the weapon or armour your opponent has. They don't translate well into D&D combat mechanics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep. I would have suggested a +1 to hit, damage or AC, but AC is far too good to be comparable to even to-hit numbers. Increasing the damage to +2 would just conflict with the duellist style as well. Giving a +2 to damage when using the weapon 2-handed might be balanced, but I'm not sure what a fitting bonus for using it 1-handed would be.

You do have the free hand to use a shield, grab, or whatever.

Thing is, "quicker and more agile" doesn't mean "Strength is irrelevant". The entire reason that a versatile weapon is quicker and more agile in two hands is because the additional leverage makes a better strength multiplier.

Sure, but D&D has an all-or-nothing model for now, with STR being the default, and finesse letting you use DEX, instead. In reality, I assume, both strength and agility (among other things) matter. Games have gone there in the past, IIRC, the in RuneQuest, for instance, STR, DEX, & INT all added to your attack % with melee weapons, as did two other stats, Size, and Power (your mystical connectedness to the universe). Most of them only added a little if they were very high, with STR and DEX being the more significant. With bounded accuracy, obviously, that would be madness. I've toyed with the idea of some feature or weapon quality letting the wielder add both STR & DEX (or two other specific stats), up to a maximum of +5, which would encourage less Single-attribute specialization in classes like the fighter. It would, though, make it easy to get a +4 or +5 to hit out of the standard array at low level, and so decrease the optimization impact of ASIs (and bonus ASIs are one of the fighter's 'things') unless feats are in play, then it'd have the opposite effect, making taking a feat at 4th while starting with a max stat bonus to attacks more doable.

Reasons I would use a versatile weapon one-handed compared to in two hands:
I want to use a shield for better defence - particularly against multiple people or missiles.
I want more reach - if my opponent is using a slightly shorter weapon, or using two-hands, or in a line-fight.

Obviously the shield helps with defense. A reach advantage is both offensive & defensive, isn't it?

Reasons I would use a versatile weapon in two hands compared to one hand:
I need to hit something much harder.
I'm fighting a larger or heavier weapon or stronger opponent, don't have a shield, and so need the extra bracing when parrying.
I need the extra speed, control and force to either get around my opponent's guard, get through her armour, or both.

Again, both offense & defense, though clearly more on offense.

- Most of these are much more situational and based on specifics such as the weapon or armour your opponent has. They don't translate well into D&D combat mechanics.

Of course. D&D is very abstract that way.

Maybe +1 AC when used one-handed, and +1 to hit when used two-handed would cover it? I'd like something more interesting than flat bonuses, myself, but that'd model what you describe in a preponderance of the evidence kind of way, and it's a clear choice, that synergizes with the option of a shield one-handed, and the larger damage die 2-handed. Defense style already gives a +1 AC, so there's a stacking danger, there, and +1 AC is a big deal since AC currently scales only with DEX and gear. It might be desireable to phrase it in a way that doesn't stack with Defense style (then again, the only ones who get two styles that I recall are Champions, and it's not like they're in danger of dominating the game as it is).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You do have the free hand to use a shield, grab, or whatever.

Sure, but D&D has an all-or-nothing model for now, with STR being the default, and finesse letting you use DEX, instead. In reality, I assume, both strength and agility (among other things) matter. Games have gone there in the past, IIRC, the in RuneQuest, for instance, STR, DEX, & INT all added to your attack % with melee weapons, as did two other stats, Size, and Power (your mystical connectedness to the universe). Most of them only added a little if they were very high, with STR and DEX being the more significant. With bounded accuracy, obviously, that would be madness. I've toyed with the idea of some feature or weapon quality letting the wielder add both STR & DEX (or two other specific stats), up to a maximum of +5, which would encourage less Single-attribute specialization in classes like the fighter. It would, though, make it easy to get a +4 or +5 to hit out of the standard array at low level, and so decrease the optimization impact of ASIs (and bonus ASIs are one of the fighter's 'things') unless feats are in play, then it'd have the opposite effect, making taking a feat at 4th while starting with a max stat bonus to attacks more doable.

Yep, but its a strength multiplier: its still directly dependent upon the force you can exert. Your balance and reflexes are going to help, but mostly in defence: avoiding mistepping and reacting to an opponent's attacks.

I can see adding another stat such as Dex, perhaps only for damage while 2-handing a versatile weapon as being fairly balanced with standard array, and even point buy, but the outlier insanely lucky numbers whilst rolling stats will cause more issues.
I actually considered using Str mod x 1.5 for damage while 2-handing a versatile weapon as a style bonus, but that would end up making them better than actual 2-handed weapons.

Obviously the shield helps with defense. A reach advantage is both offensive & defensive, isn't it?

Yep. A two-handed grip on a weapon has considerably less reach than a one-handed grip on the same weapon. This can be important in a line fight or similar, or when fighting unarmoured, but in general if you don't have something better to do with your off-hand (like use a shield or other weapon) you are better putting both hands on the weapon.

Maybe +1 AC when used one-handed, and +1 to hit when used two-handed would cover it? I'd like something more interesting than flat bonuses, myself, but that'd model what you describe in a preponderance of the evidence kind of way, and it's a clear choice, that synergizes with the option of a shield one-handed, and the larger damage die 2-handed. Defense style already gives a +1 AC, so there's a stacking danger, there, and +1 AC is a big deal since AC currently scales only with DEX and gear. It might be desireable to phrase it in a way that doesn't stack with Defense style (then again, the only ones who get two styles that I recall are Champions, and it's not like they're in danger of dominating the game as it is).

Hmmm. I'm wondering about: When using a Versatile weapon in one hand, you deal the versatile two-handed damage listed. When using a versatile weapon in both hands, you deal the versatile damage listed for one hand, plus d4.
This gives a damage bonus for both grips, and also represents the one-handed grip being wilder and more erratic while the two-handed grip is more controlled; not only dealing more damage, but more reliable damage. Either way, the damage gain won't outdo the more specialised styles at their own game.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I like it, but i wonder how other people would react. 1d8+1d4 would make a 7 expected damage output, while a 1d12 THF would yield a 7.33? I can see the great ax fans having issues with this.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I like it, but i wonder how other people would react. 1d8+1d4 would make a 7 expected damage output, while a 1d12 THF would yield a 7.33? I can see the great ax fans having issues with this.

True, but its still less damage, and it doesn't synergise as well with feats and class abilities associated with greataxes.