D&D 5E (2014) Passive or Active Fighting Styles?

With the recent threads on fighting styles, it got me thinking... If all the fighting styles could be either active or passive, which way would you prefer?

Now, an additional option is for passive then active. This means each style has a passive benefit, but also an additional active benefit if you decide to pay the cost for it.

Examples:

Defensive, +1 AC bonus without spending any type of action and constantly available. This is "passive" because there is no action cost.

Protection, grants disadvantage on opponent's attack against ally, but at the cost of your reaction. So, this is "active" because there is a cost.

Of course, there is a gray area as well with something like TWF style. The benefit to your second weapon used is passive, but deciding to employ TWF does cost your bonus action--which makes it active. So, in order to benefit from the style, you really have to use your bonus action.

A Passive to Active adaptation would be something like:

Archery
You gain a +2 bonus to your attack roll when you make a ranged weapon attack with a ranged or thrown weapon. If you have the Extra Attack feature and you are making a ranged weapon attack, you can use your bonus action to gain an additional attack.

EDIT: Here is the first draft of some updated/revised fighting styles. I tried to keep features relatively unique and there is something for bonus actions and reactions for each style. I realize some are probably OP (in general or by personal preference), but please comment on any of them and thanks!

Passive.
Things are much much easier to remember use if you use them all of the time.

Which is similar to the reason why I prefer the Brute to the Champion.

I chose "Other" - I want both options available to choose from.

Really depends on what the player wants, and if there are already lots of "active" options already built into the class that can lead to more complexity. (ex. Battle Master vs Champion players may want different choices)

I think passivity is basically their design focus. I'm all for active abilities for Fighter types but Battlemaster maneuvers is where they belong.

Active abilities work best when they can't be done at-will. The problems with feats show that up clearly.

Don Durito said:

The problems with feats show that up clearly.

Click to expand...

Would you expand on this? Maybe offer an example so I can more clearly understand your point? Thanks!

It’s nice having both options. I tend to prefer passive benefits over passive ones, because they’re easier to remember. But passive to active is the best of both worlds. If I had to pick just one option, that would be it.

Passive abilities make you better at what you want to do. Active abilities give you options, which are only situationally beneficial, and don't actually make you better at the base action.

The hybrid design gives all the benefit of the passive design, but also adds complexity, with little to recommend it.

dnd4vr said:

Would you expand on this? Maybe offer an example so I can more clearly understand your point? Thanks!

Click to expand...

The problems with Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are the biggest example. If something is at will it's hard to balance. They try to balance it with a drawback (-5), but this only works so long as you can't mitigate the drawback. But the issue of whether they are OP or not is too my mind only part of the issue.

The problem is when you can create a clear and optimal strategy to follow. I think Shield Master is almost as bad in some ways. Being able to push people around or knock them prone is cool. As long as you aren't succeeding all the time it's ok, attempting every round is fine. If you're playing a barbarian who's managed to pick up Expertise in Athletics from somewhere and is raging than they're going down every single round. This gets boring. It's boring for the GM, and in my experience it often becomes boring for the player after a while as well because it's a solved problem.

4E had similar problems with some optimised builds using feats. An optimised 4E character was more boring to play than a normal 4E character. And of course 3E has its' trip builds and the like - and power attack was an issue then also.

13th Age clearly recognises this. There is almost no way to reliably do a maneuver every round in 13th Age. Flexible attacks are divisive but they do solve this problem.

5E seems to recognise this everywhere other than with feats.

Some day I'm going to get around to writing up my new fighting style RPG system. It's focus is dilemma-based combat.

The conceit is that your character each round doesn't just take an action that might harm an opponent. You also pose a dilemma, one that shifts the tactical calculation of your foe.

A simple example:

Actions and Poises - On your turn you can move your speed and make two actions. Making an attack is an action, though you can only attack once with any given weapon per turn. Raising a shield to gain an AC bonus is an action. You can also spend an action to adopt one of the following poises, which lasts until the end of your next turn.

Assess - Choose a creature you can see. During your next turn, that creature cannot use reactions in response to things you do.

Bind - One time during this poise, when a creature makes a melee attack against you or someone within your melee reach, you can downgrade their attack one step (from a crit > hit > miss > fumble).

Commit - Choose a target and a weapon you're wielding. On your next turn, the first attack you make with that weapon against that foe is upgraded one step (from a fumble > miss > hit > crit). That attack cannot be affected by bind.

Defend - One time during this poise, you can make an opportunity attack when an enemy that is within your reach moves out of your reach.

Engage - Choose a target. When that creature moves, you can move up to 10 feet to intercept it. Additionally, one time during this poise, you can make an opportunity attack when that creature attacks someone other than you.

---

The idea here is that you telegraph what you're going to do, but your opponent has a turn to maybe mess with your plan.

Another example:

Advanced Combat - Martial characters can get access to some number of special techniques. You have a certain amount of ~special combat terminology points~, and each use of one of these techniques costs a point.

Drive - When you attack, you choose an open spot within 10 feet of the target. Before you make your attack roll, the target can choose to move to that spot. If they do, you can move 10 feet to follow them. If they don't, you can upgrade your attack.

Interpose - When someone attacks you, before they make the attack roll you choose another creature that's adjacent to you and use their body as a shield. The attacker downgrades the attack, and if it is a fumble, it deals damage to the creature you're using as a body shield.

Withdraw - When someone attacks you in melee, before they make the attack roll, you move 10 feet as a reaction. Your attacker can choose to follow 10 feet. If they don't, downgrade their attack.

---

These are options intended to encourage movement across the battlefield and discourage focusing fire on one target.

So yeah, I like active fighting styles.

Don Durito said:

The problems with Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are the biggest example. If something is at will it's hard to balance. They try to balance it with a drawback (-5), but this only works so long as you can't mitigate the drawback. But the issue of whether they are OP or not is too my mind only part of the issue.

The problem is when you can create a clear and optimal strategy to follow. I think Shield Master is almost as bad in some ways. Being able to push people around or knock them prone is cool. As long as you aren't succeeding all the time it's ok, attempting every round is fine. If you're playing a barbarian who's managed to pick up Expertise in Athletics from somewhere and is raging than they're going down every single round. This gets boring. It's boring for the GM, and in my experience it often becomes boring for the player after a while as well because it's a solved problem.

4E had similar problems with some optimised builds using feats. An optimised 4E character was more boring to play than a normal 4E character. And of course 3E has its' trip builds and the like - and power attack was an issue then also.

13th Age clearly recognises this. There is almost no way to reliably do a maneuver every round in 13th Age. Flexible attacks are divisive but they do solve this problem.

5E seems to recognise this everywhere other than with feats.

Click to expand...

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I agree. We had a character with Shield Master as you describe and he was knocking gorgons prone with impunity--at level 5 or 6 IIRC (it was almost a year ago...). Due to the rule that you can attempt to shove a creature up to one size larger without penalty, it was a sad sight. We later had to house-rule four-legged creatures had advantage against two-legged to try to balance it out.

Now, imagine fighter/rogue with expertise in Athletics and Shield Master. By level 6 they could use their attack, bonus action shove, extra attack with advantage--gaining sneak attack. Make that character also with the assassin subclass and it is much worse during the first round when assassinate kicks in.