D&D 5E It's not the size, it's how you use it (Versatile Weapons)

[ExploderWizard]

The reason Archery gives a +2 bonus to hit is to counteract the very common situation of firing past cover like other creatures including your allies, giving a +2 bonus to melee attacks for a fighting style seems overpowered to me.

Yeah, a +2 to hit on melee attacks makes this style so much better than the others. Perhaps a style that granted +1 to hit and damage wouldn't be too bad. Generally, a hit bonus is worth a lot more than a damage bonus of the same number.

I allow versatile weapon users to take the dueling style in my games. This gives the longsword fighter a d10+2 base damage and doesn't require monkeying around with STR bonuses. Considering a second weapon can't be wielded, and a shield cannot be used, I don't think the damage is too high for the style. With bounded accuracy, giving up shield is huge because 2 points of AC is worth quite a bit.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Just put in a bastard sword, versatile, d8/d10.
Up to you if you go 1H or 2H.
Seems a Feat is a bit much.
The Erroll Flynn thing is a bit too "I get a bonus to hit for, essentially, having the starting kit of a level 1 character with no money to buy a shield or a second weapon", for me.
The finesse-only element mitigates it a bit but I think the Op wants to wield something more substantial than an épée.
Bastard sword FTW. Skin it as a katana, a heavy cutlass, an edged rapier, whatever you like. Essentially it's a versatile sword that he's missing, not another feat or fighting style. Round is a good shape for a wheel.

 

[Ristamar]

Versatile weapons are great for "fighter/mage" builds given the spellcasting rules, particularly in regard to Somatic and Material components for arcane spellcasters. If you're not slinging spells while wielding a weapon (or if your DM is loose with casting rules), you're usually better off with a shield or a two-hander.

 

[Saeviomagy]

(and even then as a fencing rogue I realized might as well just stick to sniping with my crossbow).

While it's true this will reduce the damage you take, that's not always what is best for your party. Rogues are far from glass cannons.

As for versatile weapons, they really rely on a dm mixing it up. A versatile weapon is good for a character that needs a free hand in combat. If your dm lets you (for instance) open doors while dual wielding, versatile weapons lose their benefits

 

[AverageCitizen]

Just put in a bastard sword, versatile, d8/d10.
Up to you if you go 1H or 2H.
Seems a Feat is a bit much.
The Erroll Flynn thing is a bit too "I get a bonus to hit for, essentially, having the starting kit of a level 1 character with no money to buy a shield or a second weapon", for me.
The finesse-only element mitigates it a bit but I think the Op wants to wield something more substantial than an épée.
Bastard sword FTW. Skin it as a katana, a heavy cutlass, an edged rapier, whatever you like. Essentially it's a versatile sword that he's missing, not another feat or fighting style. Round is a good shape for a wheel.

1d8/1d10 is the damage for most versatile weapons, including longswords.

 

[AverageCitizen]

So, thinking about it, I decided that we could probably get the job done with a fighting stlye, and we could probably get both the fencer and the versatile specialist in one go. Also, ideally it would be mechanically unique and not just a re-skin with identical stats to another option. Here is my take on it:

Looking at the fighter, I think we can assume a conventional floor of 4.5 weapon damage per attack and X AC (the AC bonuses are all flat, so we don't need to be specific). Here is how the relevant fighting styles affect that baseline:

Defense: Either +3 to AC or +1 to AC and +2.5 damage depending on if you take a shield or a great weapon.
Dueling: +2 to AC and +2 to damage (because you get a shield).
Great Weapon Fighting: + 3.83 to damage (because math).

So I think this is a reasonable addition:

Single-Weapon Fighting
When you wield a single weapon without the two-handed property and no shield, you gain a +1 bonus to attacks rolls and a +1 bonus to AC.

Adding it to our chart, it looks like this.

Defense: Either +3 to AC or +1 to AC and +2.5 damage depending on if you take a shield or a great weapon.
Dueling: +2 to AC and +2 to damage.
Great Weapon Fighting: + 3.83 to damage
Single-Weapon Fighting: +1 to damage, +1 to attacks, +1 to AC.

That assumes a versatile weapon, with a rapier instead you don't get the +1 to damage, but you do get to stack your AC, attacks and damage all onto one stat which I consider an advantage. Also, it provides the only theoretical option for the champions additional fighting style at level 10 to directly stack, which is taking duelist on top of single weapon fighting and using a rapier. I'm not sure how I feel about that, I think it is ok, though. If your DM doesn't let you use one hand to cast spells while wielding a two handed weapon and he somehow, miraculously, lets you use this, it would be a buff to weapon-wielding casters.

Other than that, I think it fills both of my needs and is mechanically unique, so it fits the bill. What do you guys think?

 

[jrowland]

In the 5E mindset of the K.I.S.S. principle, perhaps allowing "versatile" weapons to either
a) give a +1 to AC (parrying) when used one handed, no shield
or
b) The standard bump in damage when two handed

Those weapons are pretty good as is, and a +1 ac is pretty awesome, so that might be too much, so perhaps include that (option a) as a benefit of duelist.

 

[AverageCitizen]

In the 5E mindset of the K.I.S.S. principle, perhaps allowing "versatile" weapons to either
a) give a +1 to AC (parrying) when used one handed, no shield
or
b) The standard bump in damage when two handed

Those weapons are pretty good as is, and a +1 ac is pretty awesome, so that might be too much, so perhaps include that (option a) as a benefit of duelist.

If you mean the Dueling fighting style, I like that idea, but it comes off a little strong.

It would make it so you could get either +2 AC (shield) +2 damage, or +1 AC and +3 damage (since you get 1d10). The problem is defense+greatsword is already just +1AC and +2.5 damage. So this would be flat-out better.

 

[Kalshane]

For my game, I bumped the damage of the versatile martial weapons one size (so a longsword wielded two-handed does 1d12) and gave 1d12 heavy weapons (like greataxes) a new quality called Deadly that maximizes the first weapon damage die on a crit.

It means for a dedicated GWFer, a greatsword is (slightly) better than a longsword, but gives a reason for that longsword-user to occasionally go two-handed. It also gives a reason to use a greataxe over a greatsword (higher average crit damage vs higher average normal damage.)

I also allow a dagger to be used as an off-hand weapon with a rapier, even though it does end up slightly better than dual shortsword.

 

[jrowland]

If you mean the Dueling fighting style, I like that idea, but it comes off a little strong.

It would make it so you could get either +2 AC (shield) +2 damage, or +1 AC and +3 damage (since you get 1d10). The problem is defense+greatsword is already just +1AC and +2.5 damage. So this would be flat-out better.

I meant with defensive duelist, up the defense by +1 with versatile weapons when used 1 handed.