Weapon-specific fighting styles

[Gavin O.]

Terrible analogy.

Why?

 

[FrogReaver]

When we have less attacks per round, the monsters also have less HP, so the static +2 damage means more. For the extreme case, let's look at level 1. Instead of an Ancient Red Dragon, we'll use a Zombie, which has AC 8 and 22 HP. our longsword attack deals 9.5 (1d8+5) damage with Dueling and 7.5 without, we have +5 to hit, so we hit on a 3 (90% chance). We're doing 8.55 average damage per round with dueling, and 6.75 without, which means we'll need 2.57 rounds to kill the zombie with dueling and 3.25 rounds without. The Zombie has +3 to hit and deals 4.5 damage on a hit, which means if we had AC 14 its DPR would be 2.25, while is we had AC 15 (from Defense) its DPR would be 2.025. In other words, Dueling Style would save us 2.25 damage (from the one round the zombie isn't attacking us), where Defense Style would save us 0.9 damage.

If you deal an average of 20 damage and hit 90% of the time what is the number of rounds a 1 hp creature will last on average? 1.11 rounds

When you aren't looking at 100% chance to hit even the question of the expected average number of rounds a creature will last is a lot more complicated.

 

[Gavin O.]

I would still keep the bow and use it when the flying creatures attack or for several rounds before melee range.


*emphasis mine.

With Dueling Style, a thrown Javelin will outdamage a longbow, 1d6+2 averages to 5.5 while 1d8 averages to 4.5 (note that a thrown melee weapon still counts as melee for the purposes of dueling style)

 

[FrogReaver]

Why?

Isn't it obvious? The longsword and greataxe represent something from the real world inside the fantasy world regardless of their mechanics. A character classes name either means something or doesn't mean something in the fantasy world.

If it has some kind of meaning in the fantasy world then having identical classes with 2 different names would indicate a difference in them and thus they wouldn't be the same thing.

If a character classes name has no meaning in the fantasy world then all that defines a class in that world is the mechanics behind the class. In which case it doesn't match the longsword and greataxe example where we have a clear differentiation of them in the game world regardless of any written down mechanics around them.

One may could even chop a tree down with the battleaxe but probably would be denied doing so with the long sword.

 

[Wiseblood]

I dislike specific weapon styles. Actually let me clarify. I like crunching them and using them to come up with interesting builds and trying to figure out which is better and being pleasantly surprised when I realize one I discounted is useful for something. But while I like them for character building I dislike them in play, in character concept etc. Once you include styles and choose one then you have suddenly declared that your fighter can only ever excel at one style. I like fighters that can excel with a broader range of weapons and so I dislike weapon based styles.

Weapon styles should be included with proficiency.

Weapon styles as presented in D&D are terribly boring but that is another kettle of fish.

 

[Gavin O.]

If you deal an average of 20 damage and hit 90% of the time what is the number of rounds a 1 hp creature will last on average? 1.11 rounds

When you aren't looking at 100% chance to hit even the question of the expected average number of rounds a creature will last is a lot more complicated.

The case where a monster has less HP than you can deal in one swing is the only case where my math doesn't work. You won't always roll your average damage, so if a creature has 20 HP and you deal 1d6+7 damage per hit, your odds of killing the monster in 2 hits are higher than they would be if you only dealt 1d6+5 damage per round.

 

[Gavin O.]

In which case it doesn't match the longsword and greataxe example where we have a clear differentiation of them in the game world regardless of any written down mechanics around them.

One may could even chop a tree down with the battleaxe but probably would be denied doing so with the long sword.

Okay, but by far the most common thing that DnD characters use their weapons for is attacking with them, and as far as attacking with the weapons is concerned, there is no differentiation between the longsword and the battleaxe. Yes they're called different things, yes they look different, yes they represent different things in our world, but in combat in the world of DnD, they are identical. One thing I know about Longswords and Battleaxes from the real world is that wielding one of them feels different than wielding another, but in DnD, they feel the same to use in a way that say, daggers, don't. Because daggers have different mechanics in the game that evoke the feeling of wielding daggers.

 

[FrogReaver]

Weapon styles should be included with proficiency.

Weapon styles as presented in D&D are terribly boring but that is another kettle of fish.

Boring = Fast and sleek. But yea they aren't very interesting. But they are great for a low level ability to differentiate a fighter from other weapon using classes which I think is the real purpose.

I could get behind changing dueling into a style that works the same but instead of giving +2 damage would give an effect based off the type of weapon you are wielding.

Same for two weapon fighting style and Great Weapon fighting Style.

I'd probably keep the defensive one the same.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, but by far the most common thing that DnD characters use their weapons for is attacking with them, and as far as attacking with the weapons is concerned, there is no differentiation between the longsword and the battleaxe. Yes they're called different things, yes they look different, yes they represent different things in our world, but in combat in the world of DnD, they are identical. One thing I know about Longswords and Battleaxes from the real world is that wielding one of them feels different than wielding another, but in DnD, they feel the same to use in a way that say, daggers, don't. Because daggers have different mechanics in the game that evoke the feeling of wielding daggers.

I think you are missing how much D&D abstracts combat already. It's not worth trying to add that granularity to combat in D&D. If it's something you and your friends enjoy then have fun with it. It's not something everyone is going to enjoy. Nor is it any more sensible than how D&D already handles it because combat is meant to be an abstractions. You aren't standing around for 6 seconds. You are dodging, parrying, moving and in general fighting the whole time not just when you attack. An attack generally represents an opportunity to break through the opponents defenses. Since D&D isn't trying to model the whole combat sequence but instead abstract a good chunk of it out I'd say they decided there wasn't enough difference in most martial weapons effectiveness to warrant changing mechanics for each one.

Maybe abstractions are something you have a problem with?

 

[BookBarbarian]

When we have less attacks per round, the monsters also have less HP, so the static +2 damage means more./QUOTE]

For fighters yes, but Paladins and Rangers not so much.