D&D 5E Fighting Style for Melee Knife/Dagger Use

[Salthorae]

thrown weapons

Or use the Thrown Weapon fighting style from the new UA

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

An off-the-wall suggestion: steal an idea from Dungeon World and make damage class-dependant, not weapon-dependent.

For example, you could say that all fighters do 1d6 with one-handed weapons. A player could choose a small dagger or a hand axe or a great big scary sword, and be equally as effective in combat. The choice of weapon becomes cosmetic.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

True. But you know what's even more deadly? Someone with a bigger weapon.

Situational, and in most situations the one with a greatsword would be deadlier than one with a dagger, but if the combatants with a dagger is grappling the combatant with a greatsword and they're both equally armoured, the one with the dagger has the advantage. Assuming they were both unarmoured and the dagger wielder is in the middle of doing a "Prison Yard Rush" attack, the greatsword wielder who doesn't switch to unarmed or try to escape, might be able to get off a few pommel strikes while being grappled and stabbed repeatedly.

But the rules generally wouldn't cover things such as that.

It does cover some modern ideas of knives when used with stealth, if the character is a Rogue with sneak attack. It might cover some Martial Arts concepts if the character is a Monk, because Monks can use their Martial Arts damage value in place of the daggers damage value when attacking with a dagger. The concept of the fighting style with the dagger as a melee weapon, is for Fighters (and Rangers and possibly Paladins) to have something that keeps up with Rogues and Monks who use daggers.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Eh. Just let the PC find/inherit a +1 or +2 dagger to match the average damage of a d6 or d8 weapon. Much simpler than fiddling with rules, IMO.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh well, I've been doing it wrong. But I disagree about Sharpshooter: that Sage Advice refers to a ranged attack. Sharpshooter explicitly says a 'ranged weapon attack', not 'attack with a ranged weapon'. Throwing a dagger is a weapon attack, carried out at range.. So Sharpshooter applies.

Edit: Think of it as ranged (weapon attack) vs (ranged weapon) attack.

A ranged attack with a thrown weapon is a ranged weapon attack, which means it does benefit from the first two bullet points of Sharpshooter (attack at long range without disadvantage and ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover). It is not, however, an attack with a ranged weapon, so it does not benefit from the third bullet point (-5 to hit, +10 damage), which is specifically worded “when you make an attack with a ranged weapon.”

I very much doubt there would be any balance issue caused by allowing -5/+10 with thrown weapons, but it isn’t possible by strict RAW.

 

[Fenris-77]

So if we're worried enough about daggers to bump their damage into longsword range, are we also as interested in improving the amount of damage that longsword does in the hands of an expert? I only ask because while I share the discontent with d4 damage as a primary weapon choice, I also am not really interested in a damage model where there's no difference between a dagger and a longsword. That seems ... wacky, at least for the crunch level of D&D.

I would probably, given the choice, find ways to buff dagger use that aren't specifically aimed at bumping overall damage, or at least maybe not to d8 range (2d4, whatever). As far as actual damage goes, the d4 Dagger/d6 Short sword/d8 long sword progression is about right (in the model in question anyway). Other than making flavor builds more competitive as far as DPR goes, is there a reason why we think a dagger should do the same damage as a longsword? I mean, other than reducing the ridiculous number of rapiers on DEX-based character sheets, which is a worthy goal.

 

[NotAYakk]

So if we're worried enough about daggers to bump their damage into longsword range, are we also as interested in improving the amount of damage that longsword does in the hands of an expert? I only ask because while I share the discontent with d4 damage as a primary weapon choice, I also am not really interested in a damage model where there's no difference between a dagger and a longsword. That seems ... wacky, at least for the crunch level of D&D.

A duelist fighting style bumps the LS to 1d8+2 (basically 1d12).

In the hands of a more deadly person, the dagger matches the longsword. With equal training, the longsword wins.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Extra damage when grappling is probably what I'd do for a general rule to improve daggers: probably just double damage dice. Outside of being used while wrestling someone in armour, they weren't generally used in preference to a larger weapon in general melee situations.

I might also houserule that the disadvantage to ranged attacks whilst in melee does not apply to Thrown weapons. (It seems that loading and shooting a bow, crossbow, or sling while someone is actively swinging at you would be more problematic than letting fly with a dagger or handaxe in the same situation..

The benefits of daggers to me are their ubiquity and versatility.
That even in civilised areas which would frown on carrying swords or similar around, daggers can generally be carried (or concealed). Most characters can carry at least one around without running into encumbrance.
Furthermore, particularly as a Rogue, their extra properties such as thrown often make them worth using over a shortsword or even longsword sometimes.

 

[Fenris-77]

Just that one style though, so that's maybe not the right standard for comparison? That same style already buffs the dagger to d4+2 as well, so the comparison within characters with that style works just fine. I'm not poo-pooing the thread idea here either btw, just wondering if flavor and increased range of weapon use can't be accomplished in ways other than damage buffs.

I thought the offhand rule suggested up stream was pretty cool, for example. I'd also be fine with initiative bonuses for light weapons, rather than damage bonuses. It matches the reality of the weapon, and gives people an increased number of things to think about when selecting weapons, which seems to be at least part of the project here.

I guess what I'm not really for is increasing the damage of the dagger for non-fighting style characters to the point where that the damage equals the damage of a much larger weapon. There's some possible middle ground where, just as an example, a damage boost idea we come up with here stacks with fighting styles. IDK, just spit-balling here.

 

[NotAYakk]

Just that one style though, so that's maybe not the right standard for comparison? That same style already buffs the dagger to d4+2 as well, so the comparison within characters with that style works just fine. I'm not poo-pooing the thread idea here either btw, just wondering if flavor and increased range of weapon use can't be accomplished in ways other than damage buffs.

Sure; the Dagger style makes your Daggers deal 5.0 damage. The general one-weapon style makes them do 4.5. The general one-weapon style makes longswords deal 6.5.

Now, there remains a problem where a Dagger + One Weapon style combines to 7.0 damage.

Knife Fighting
When wielding only 1 or 2 Daggers and no Shields, you get a +1 bonus to-hit with Daggers. Whenever you deal damage with a Dagger and the die rolls its maximium value, you can reroll the damage die and add the new roll to the result. You may always draw Daggers as part of an attack. As a bonus action you may attack an adjacent prone foe or a foe you have grappled with advantage.

This gives you some throwing, an ability to force advantage by grappling then stabbing, a bonus attack against prone foes (if you have an ally with shield master, for example), and a slight damage boost that is fun.

The exploding feature makes 1d4s deal 3 1/3 on average. But I worded it to work with bonus damage dice (like smite, superiority or sneak attack). 1d4 deal +1/3x (or +0.83), 1d6s deal +1/5x (or +0.7), 1d8s deal +1/7x (+0.64), etc; so the effect isn't ridiculously large.