D&D 5E Fighting Styles seem to be an afterthought rather than integral..

[Ristamar]

So, what do I think? I'd like them all to be bonus action or reactions to use (I'd prefer all bonus actions, actually). Active, character defining, fun stuff.

The bonuses are simple so they can always be active. There are already some feats and a lot of class features competing for the use of bonus actions and reactions. A glut of options will only be marginally useful in a limited action economy.

 

[LapBandit]

In our games, we tweaked the Protection style a little. The fighter gets to apply disadvantage AFTER the first die roll. Effectively it's a reroll power, rather than granting disadvantage on attacks. We tried playing it by the book for a while, but, it's so frustrating to add disadvantage to a roll, watch the DM roll a 3 and a 2, and then a 20 on the next attack.

So, we just changed it to apply as a reroll. Works MUCH better now. Although, since both our fighter and our paladin had Protection Style, the two of them side by side were just a bloody brick wall - basically impervious to crits (more or less) and forcing a LOT of misses.

Being able to force rerolls like that makes it better than any other style by a large margin. In fact, I find that way too powerful.

 

[Corwin]

5E feels simultaneously oversimplified and cluttered compared to AD&D.

Hoo boy, that was a good one. I LOLed. Well done.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Aha! Tony, I think you've put your finger on an issue that's been bothering me for quite some time: why 5E feels simultaneously oversimplified and cluttered compared to AD&D.

Heh. Ironically, it looks to me like it got that way by trying to be more like AD&D ("the classic game").

 

[dave2008]

Dueling 2d8 + 14, average 23: GWF 4d6 + 18, average 32, Two-Weapon Fighting: 3d6 + 15, average 25.5

All right I feel dumb, why are you doubling the weapon damage?

 

[dave2008]

A glut of options will only be marginally useful in a limited action economy.

I am a big fan of the marginally useful action economy

 

[Ristamar]

I am a big find of the marginally useful action economy

If the OP's intent is to place more emphasis on fighting styles, I don't think diluting their efficacy in the face of superior options is the intended result.

 

[dave2008]

If the OP's intent is to place more emphasis on fighting styles, I don't think diluting their efficacy in the face of superior options is the intended result.

The "emphasis" could be on more interesting instead of more mechanically beneficially. Personally I do prefer more interesting options over fewer more beneficial options. However, i was just been cheeky with the previous comment.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Heh. Ironically, it looks to me like it got that way by trying to be more like AD&D ("the classic game").

Could be. I never played the games in between, except for about eight hours of 4E, which admittedly felt even more cluttered and gimmicky.

But there does seem to be a real difference in emphasis between AD&D/OSR and 5E in how they seek originality. I see OSR DMs talking about ways to make elves or trolls new and weird, or novel kinds of traps or curses; I see 5E DMs talking about new feats and character classes and new ways to gain slightly different kinds of mechanical bonuses that play out differently at the metagame level (i.e. what players do). 5E seems to lean very heavily on what AngryDM's "8 kinds of fun" would call "[mechanical] Expression": you have fun by building a character with a distinct set of options fixed at chargen time. It's not about the adventure and what happens during the adventure; it's about the PC and what powers they use during the adventure.

Of course, it's not that AD&D/OSR doesn't have ad hoc mechanics--but those mechanics are always just a means to an end of expressing the weirdness of the weird monster/trap/curse.

E.g. "10% of the time when bitten by a Wendigo, you are infected with a curse that reduces your Intelligence 1d6 points every day; when you hit 1 Int, you turn into a Wendigo thrall and if you are the appropriate sex, the Wendigo will mate with you to produce 1d6 Wendigo whelps, with a gestation period of 1d6 weeks. Giving birth to Wendigo whelps is always fatal to the mother." In this example there's a lot of weird, ad hoc mechanics, but they aren't their own raison d'etre. Contrast with 5E's Savage Attacker or Great Weapon Fighting Style, where the mechanic is weird, but the result is utterly pedestrian: a barely-detectable increase in average damage dealt. Mechanical weirdness for its own sake.

I find that sort of thing increasingly uninteresting.

 

[Staccat0]

Protection is the only fighting style that I like. It's active. It gives a new option. It's not just a higher number. It's interesting. I thought they should have all been "bonus action" or "reaction" for something new. Archery could get "aim", great weapon could get "wind up", dueling could get "parry" (bonuses to face one opponent), two weapon lets you use larger weapons, and defense ... I don't know.

2x Str damage is too much for GWF. That's up to +5 damage, compared to Dueling's +2. GWF is fun, but you're right that it's not good enough. It is fun. Avoiding those low rolls.

Archery is too good. Ignoring cover would do what it's saying without being as problematic (or contributing to Sharp Shooter's -5/+10 too much).

So, what do I think? I'd like them all to be bonus action or reactions to use (I'd prefer all bonus actions, actually). Active, character defining, fun stuff.

This is exactly how I feel about all of that.