New Fighting Style: Swift Striker

[Quartz]

My second sentence answers your question, "why?" My second sentence was my entire argument.

Well, I'm sorry but I'm suffering a complete comprehension failure. Can you make your argument simpler?

To answer your other question: Your scenario with Sharpshooter looks a little problematic (and rather reinforces zardnaar's position that the feat is broken),

Sharpshooter being broken or not is something for another thread.

and if it concerns Hawk Diesel, I think a decent solution would be to reword Swift Strike to give an extra melee attack,

Or restrict the style to melee attacks only. I still prefer the use of the bonus action.

only . . . which removes the sling from the feat, though. That's a downside.

A sling isn't classed as a light weapon, so would be excluded anyway under my rewording.

It's just occurred to me that the a Close Quarters Shooting style in the UA article about Underdark characters that could make this style totally OP for ranged attacks because it negates the Disadvantage imposed by having an enemy within 5 feet. Sure you need a way of having both styles and the feat, but where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[Enkhidu]

Why not just simplify it and increase the damage die for each of the named weapons by one step?

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Why? It's the mechanism that the TWF style and the Shield Master and Polearm Master feats use. In fact, it's the standard mechanism for doing something extra. I've thought further and this could be abused with Sharpshooter. Are you comfortable with a first level character doing 3d4+12+30 HP damage in a round? (Assuming an 18 stat.) That's one attack with the weapon, the second attack thanks to the style, and a third from a Bonus Action or Reaction from somewhere, each with the stat and Sharpshooter damage bonuses. Compare this with a bow and the Archery style and the Sharpshooter feat. The light weapon with this style wins hands down.

Just because something can be abused in specific builds does not, in my opinion, disqualify a mechanic or make it without merit. If the only problem is with Sharp Shooter (which I have already homebrewed to reduce its impact), then I am not worried about any abuse potential. Especially since feats (while often assumed to be core) are optional aspects of the game.

Why not just simplify it and increase the damage die for each of the named weapons by one step?

1) That doesn't simplify the mechanic so much as make it boring.

2) Why would I use a 1d6 dagger when I could just reflavor a shortsword as a dagger? The reason for the fighting style is not to increase the damage of each dagger strike, but to reflect that daggers and their kin tend to allow for much faster strikes. Increasing the damage does not reflect that as much as increasing the number of attacks.

For those who prefer using the bonus action, it is a valid way to write the fighting style. However, I fundamentally disagree. I believe the way I have written the mechanic to function makes it unique and allows for more creative builds. Additionally, if requiring the bonus action, then it significantly weakens the feat to the point that it is not worth considering. For those wanting a shield, Dueling is the clear and obvious choice. For those want to dual wield, Two Weapon Fighting is the clear winner. If it required a bonus action, my proposed fighting style would get obscured by those options because it doesn't increase interest in wielding sub-optimal weapons, nor would it put the mechanic on par with other potential options.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, I'm sorry but I'm suffering a complete comprehension failure. Can you make your argument simpler?

Does this help:

I think it's playtest-ready as written in the OP. Any balance issues that crop up probably come from interactions with feats or features that are themselves problematic, and these balance issues can be dealt with during the playtest.

Until playtesting shows its necessary, I think the fighting style should not require a bonus action so that it can be tested with 2 weapon fighting, etc.. Let's see how it works this way first.

 

[bedir than]

As someone who has enjoyed playing dart and knife masters in 1e/2e I like the concept of this. I also happen to enjoy sling users. I probably play way too many halflings too.

This fighting style is one that I would lean towards, because I enjoy the concept of the small weapons expert who can come close to being as effective as the brutes.

 

[Quartz]

I think it's playtest-ready as written in the OP. Any balance issues that crop up probably come from interactions with feats or features that are themselves problematic, and these balance issues can be dealt with during the playtest.

Yes, I see. The thing is that I'm looking for how this can be abused. And it can be easily abused. I happened to pick on Sharpshooter as the obvious example. The combination of this with the Duellist fighting style is another example. As is the combination with TWF. And then there's Action Surge. I'm sure there are others. Any extra attack has to be a Bonus Action.

But as written, even for melee this style is OP on its own. Take a level 4 PC with an 18 stat. The dagger user gets a base of 2d4+8 or 10-16. A heavy weapon user gets 1-12+4 or 5-16. You could apply Duellist style on top for another +4 damage making 14-22 or TWF for another d4+4 or 15-24. Combine all three somehow for 21-30. And the daggers can be thrown. Apply GWM (to be fair to the heavy weapon wielder) and Sharpshooter and the heavy weapon user gets 15-26 versus the dagger user's 30-36. Why bother with a big weapon? And the dagger wielder can have a shield.

Now, make the extra attack a Bonus Action and it's still very good, but it falls in line with the other styles and feats and the heavy weapon wielder can maybe get an extra attack as their Bonus Action, doing 10-32 or 30-52 with GWM. I'll note that the Polearm Master feat gives an extra attack with a d4 as a Bonus Action. And that's a feat.

I think it's clear that any extra attack has to be a Bonus Action.

 

[CTurbo]

I like it, but in some cases it's really strong.

Shillelagh comes to mind with the club getting an extra 1d8+Wis attack on a character that's going to have a high Wis.

A Gloom Stalker would get 3(or 4 with offhand) attacks at level 3 on their first turn since they already get a free extra attack. 4 or 5 attacks at level 5.

I would argue that this is too strong when combined with TWF but it's almost even worse when combined with Dueling since the +2 could stack on each attack. I know it's not game breaking but you know people will exploit it.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Yes, I see. The thing is that I'm looking for how this can be abused. And it can be easily abused. I happened to pick on Sharpshooter as the obvious example. The combination of this with the Duellist fighting style is another example. As is the combination with TWF. And then there's Action Surge. I'm sure there are others. Any extra attack has to be a Bonus Action.

But as written, even for melee this style is OP on its own. Take a level 4 PC with an 18 stat. The dagger user gets a base of 2d4+8 or 10-16. A heavy weapon user gets 1-12+4 or 5-16. You could apply Duellist style on top for another +4 damage making 14-22 or TWF for another d4+4 or 15-24. Combine all three somehow for 21-30. And the daggers can be thrown. Apply GWM (to be fair to the heavy weapon wielder) and Sharpshooter and the heavy weapon user gets 15-26 versus the dagger user's 30-36. Why bother with a big weapon? And the dagger wielder can have a shield.

Now, make the extra attack a Bonus Action and it's still very good, but it falls in line with the other styles and feats and the heavy weapon wielder can maybe get an extra attack as their Bonus Action, doing 10-32 or 30-52 with GWM. I'll note that the Polearm Master feat gives an extra attack with a d4 as a Bonus Action. And that's a feat.

I think it's clear that any extra attack has to be a Bonus Action.

I take several issues with your argument.

1) This assumes that multiclassing (an optional rule) is allowed. Otherwise, the only way to get multiple fighting styles is with the Champion. I have no problem with a level 10 Champion being able to take advantage of this, since most other fighting styles have little to no synergy. They mainly only provide more options, but require the Champion to frequently change their weapons of choice or tactics to benefit. The exceptions to this being the Defense fighting style or Protection. One of these is pretty boring, the other is interesting. Creating more options that synergize is not terrible for a level 10 character.

2) When multiclassing is introduced, it immediately increases the complexity of the game and allows a number of combinations that excel at other things. A DM that allows should already be aware of this and be prepared as to how this will affect balance. And when I say balance, I specifically mean how each player's character balances against one another in terms of sharing the spotlight and feeling able to reasonably contribute to the party's success.

However, this increased complexity is not necessarily a bad thing. While a player may become more focused in certain skills or areas of the game through multiclassing, it also comes with the cost of delaying their ASI, and may limit what they can do when they are not trying to stab people (or however they might use this fighting style). Combat is not the whole of D&D. A fighter dipping for another fighting style delays their Extra Attack. A paladin dipping for another fighting style loses out on spell progression, as well as delaying their extra attack. Every option that comes out of dipping has a cost and multiclassing has a cost. It is not like they are getting access to the fighting styles for free.

Also, I disagree that Swift Striker would be equal to the other fighting styles if it required a bonus action. I also think it is interesting that while you examine the possibilities on how my version could be considered broken, you do no such analysis to support that it would still be worth taking if it required a bonus action to use. Why would anyone take it when Dueling or TWF is available and allow you to use weapons that deal greater damage?

 

[Horwath]

Nice idea.

I would put it like this.

Swift striker: when you only wield one one-handed light weapon and have a free off-hand you can make one extra attack with your attack action.

 

[Quartz]

1) This assumes that multiclassing (an optional rule) is allowed.

As I said, I'm looking for ways to abuse this.

I also think it is interesting that while you examine the possibilities on how my version could be considered broken, you do no such analysis to support that it would still be worth taking if it required a bonus action to use. Why would anyone take it when Dueling or TWF is available and allow you to use weapons that deal greater damage?

Did you miss the penultimate paragraph?

Now, make the extra attack a Bonus Action and it's still very good, but it falls in line with the other styles and feats and the heavy weapon wielder can maybe get an extra attack as their Bonus Action, doing 10-32 or 30-52 with GWM. I'll note that the Polearm Master feat gives an extra attack with a d4 as a Bonus Action. And that's a feat.

The damage numbers for the dagger-wielder stay the same, so there's no point repeating them.