D&D 5E (2024) Greater Fighting Styles

[W'rkncacnter]

I am sympathetic to the cause of bringing Strength back, but I don’t think the way to do that is by pretending that Con is Strength…

IMO, a very elegant fix would be to say that all physical attacks have their damage bonus affected by Strength. Any ability that swaps the stat for att/dmg now does so only for attacks. You can be precise or cunning or deceiving about how you hit (Dex, Int, Cha, respectively) but you can’t fake Strength. Touching is not hurting. You need to be strong to hurt your enemy. As for the damage of ranged weapons:

• Thrown weapons remain Strength based.
• Ammunition weapons need to be fitted to a specific Strength (mighty composite bows, but also slings, even crossbows can be made harder to crank).

At the very least, any martial character should get 10 Strength to avoid having a negative on damage, but they would benefit from bumping that to 12 or 14 even if their main stat is Dex or another.

That change alone is sufficient, IMO.

ignoring that's basically how 3.5 and earlier used to work, fitting crossbows to strength doesn't really make sense because when draw lengths start getting heavy for crossbows you use tools to draw it back (e.g. goat's foot levers or windlasses).

 

[Minigiant]

in what way would it differ enough to not be expressible as an advancement of two weapon fighting, and what character idea would you be serving by doing so?

Because humaniods money have 2 arms so they are capped at fighting at fighting with 2 weapons with arm like movement.

Technically, you can't even fight with 2 weapons equally with both hands for most people. Most people have a dominant hand and a weaker less coordinated offhand.

The character this is for is my cousin's fighter who has 2 magic shord swords and magic dagger. He had the dagger attached to his right boot.

I ruled he cant get a 2nd attack with the foot dagger and instead must use a special technique that has him attack with all three weapons at once.

Then there is this moron:

"No, you cant wield 3 Longswords."
"No, Dragonborn and Tiefling tails cant grip a longsword"
"Take a feat for it then. But all of them gotta be light weapons."
"Take a feat for the giant's club too"
"No. A skeleton doesnt have reach"
"Will you two stop picking up (censored) and hitting the monsters with it just because its magic! You have plently of magic weapons."
"Fine. Swap your Fighting Style when you level up and I'll let you do."

And here's the threads birth

 

[Silam]

ignoring that's basically how 3.5 and earlier used to work,

If you’ve been paying attention to the Fixing GWF thread, you’ll notice that most participants are clamoring for replacing 5e Fighting Styles with 3e Weapon Specialization that gives a flat +2 damage. They may not realize what they’re asking for is the way they want in 3e, but it is nonetheless what they’re asking. Nothing wrong with going back to our roots.

fitting crossbows to strength doesn't really make sense because when draw lengths start getting heavy for crossbows you use tools to draw it back (e.g. goat's foot levers or windlasses).

I think it would be fine to give the option of recharging a strong crossbow slower if you don’t have the Strength. Whereas other high Strength string/ammo weapons would not have that option: can’t pull ‘em can’t shoot ‘em.

 

[Corinnguard]

"No, Dragonborn and Tiefling tails cant grip a longsword"

While you are right about them not being to grip a longsword with their tails, a DM could always grant them the ability to either trip someone with their tails or to do a tail slap.

Edit: Just came across this a moment ago. Kobold Tail Attachments – d20PFSRD. While it's for PF1, I could see them being put to use in 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

I am sympathetic to the cause of bringing Strength back, but I don’t think the way to do that is by pretending that Con is Strength…

IMO, a very elegant fix would be to say that all physical attacks have their damage bonus affected by Strength. Any ability that swaps the stat for att/dmg now does so only for attacks. You can be precise or cunning or deceiving about how you hit (Dex, Int, Cha, respectively) but you can’t fake Strength. Touching is not hurting. You need to be strong to hurt your enemy. As for the damage of ranged weapons:

• Thrown weapons remain Strength based.
• Ammunition weapons need to be fitted to a specific Strength (mighty composite bows, but also slings, even crossbows can be made harder to crank).

At the very least, any martial character should get 10 Strength to avoid having a negative on damage, but they would benefit from bumping that to 12 or 14 even if their main stat is Dex or another.

That change alone is sufficient, IMO.

I too liked that idea in the past and would have loved to go farther, having magic attack rolls still rely on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.


Strength would be the only abilty score where it has many attacks that use it for its attack rolls, damage rolls, and DCs.

Monks would be even more special because theyd be one of the few classes who can attack and add Dex to attack, damage, and DC.

 

[Minigiant]

While you are right about them not being to grip a longsword with their tails, a DM could always grant them the ability to either trip someone with their tails or to do a tail slap.

Unarmed strike as one of their normal attacks, Sure.

Not as an extra attack because its a third weapon.

A 2nd bonus attack requires a Feat.

 

[Corinnguard]

Unarmed strike as one of their normal attacks, Sure.

Not as an extra attack because its a third weapon.

A 2nd bonus attack requires a Feat.

They could be used if they are a Fighter using Action Surge. They could also forego using their off-hand and use their tail during the bonus action.

 

[Minigiant]

They could be used if they are a Fighter using Action Surge. They could also forego using their off-hand and use their tail during the bonus action.

Sure.

The point is the "third limbs attack" would be replacing one of your man hand's attacks or your off hand's attack.

My compromise was that if you wanted to attack with main, off, and third, you only roll once and use that roll for all attacks. 3 hits, 3 cries, or 3 misses. All or nothing style.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Because humaniods money have 2 arms so they are capped at fighting at fighting with 2 weapons with arm like movement.

Technically, you can't even fight with 2 weapons equally with both hands for most people. Most people have a dominant hand and a weaker less coordinated offhand.

...doesn't...doesn't that just defeat your point, though? if two-weapon fighting already introduces an unequal result with the off-hand, what does it matter if the third weapon would also have an unequal result?

The character this is for is my cousin's fighter who has 2 magic shord swords and magic dagger. He had the dagger attached to his right boot.

I ruled he cant get a 2nd attack with the foot dagger and instead must use a special technique that has him attack with all three weapons at once.

that seems incredibly arbitrary and even less logical then just granting another attack, but also just...could also be an extension of two-weapon fighting?

Then there is this moron:


View attachment 438630

this moron is the face of three weapon fighting, to be perfectly frank with you.

"No, you cant wield 3 Longswords."
"No, Dragonborn and Tiefling tails cant grip a longsword"
"Take a feat for it then. But all of them gotta be light weapons."
"Take a feat for the giant's club too"
"No. A skeleton doesnt have reach"
"Will you two stop picking up (censored) and hitting the monsters with it just because its magic! You have plently of magic weapons."
"Fine. Swap your Fighting Style when you level up and I'll let you do."

And here's the threads birth

...what?

If you’ve been paying attention to the Fixing GWF thread,

i have not.

you’ll notice that most participants are clamoring for replacing 5e Fighting Styles with 3e Weapon Specialization that gives a flat +2 damage. They may not realize what they’re asking for is the way they want in 3e, but it is nonetheless what they’re asking. Nothing wrong with going back to our roots.

i...wasn't making a value judgement either way. that's partly why i skipped over it.

I think it would be fine to give the option of recharging a strong crossbow slower if you don’t have the Strength. Whereas other high Strength string/ammo weapons would not have that option: can’t pull ‘em can’t shoot ‘em.

a "strong crossbow" is going to have a draw weight in the multiple hundreds of pounds. i'm talking 450 pounds on the LOW end for medieval HUNTING crossbows, from what i can find. unless you want crossbows to be like a 20+ strength weapon (or you want mithril crossbows that can replicate modern compound crossbows), there's no real way to give them a strength requirement and actually have it make any sense.

 

[Minigiant]

doesn't...doesn't that just defeat your point, though? if two-weapon fighting already introduces an unequal result with the off-hand, what does it matter if the third weapon would also have an unequal result?

I thought the answer was obvious.

A 2nd extra attack as a fighting style is unbalanced using TWF as the example.

this moron is the face of three weapon fighting, to be perfectly frank with you.

I know.

But thats the point. Zoro doesnt swing the mouth sword in his normal attack routine. Its using it special attacks.

.what?

My players fancy wierd weapon set ups.

One is using a Large size weapon.
The other has a magic dagger bolted to his boot.
A third one Truestrikes via their spellbook.