ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
First let me say... thankyou... thank you for writing something with that actually outlines point and counter points. Weather we Agree or Disagree and indifferent to if we can come to some common ground, Your post is awesome, on topic, and make me think. So tired of "THIS SUCKS!" posts that have no point and no actual argument or a reply that actually has no direct reference to the comments of the posts they are replying to it in a way that shows know they actually read the post.
First, let me say without a doubt reaction as a cost is WAY better than a bonus action. my question is then is a reaction to costly compared to other fighting styles and your saying its limited use means its not.
Here is "a couple of others" you didn't list:
(Barbarians) Berserker: Retaliation, Ancestral Guardian: Spirit Shield, Storm Herald: Raging Storm
(Bard) Glamour: Mantle of Inspiration, Lore:Cutting words, Swords: Mobile Flourish, Valor:Combat inspiration, Whispers: Mantle of Whispers
(Cleric) Grave: Sentinel at Death’s Door, Light: Warding Flare, Nature: Dampen Elements, Tempest: Wrath of the Storm, War: War God’s Blessing
(Druid) Shepheard: Spirit Totem Hawk
(Fighter) Battle Master: Parry & Riposte, Cavalier: Warding Maneuver & Vigilant Defender, Purple Knight: Inspiring Surge, Samurai: Strength before Death
(Monk) ALL: Deflect Missiles & Slow Fall, Shadow: Opportunist, Drunken Master: Tipsy Sway, Sun Soul: Sun Shield
(Paladin) Redemption: Rebuke the Violent & Aura of the Guardian, Crown: Relentless Avenger and Soul of Vengeance
(Ranger) Gloom: Shadowy Dodge, Horizon: Spectral Defense, Hunter: Giant Killer/Stand Against the Tide/Uncanny Dodge, Monster Slayer: Magic-User’s Nemesis & Slayer’s Counter
(Rogue) ALL: Uncanny dodge (you mentioned), Arcane Trickster: Spell Thief, Master Mind: Misdirection, Scout: Skirmisher
(Sorcerer) Storm: Storm’s Fury, Wild:Storm’s Fury
So... I got here and stopped without grabbing the warlock and wizard which I know (am playing a warlock right now) have some more and Also, the Protection Fighting style (you mentioned) alone covers all Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins. Casters also get shield which is big one as most casters have low AC, while casters two-weapon fighting is not that common, that's also why I don't want to do anything to discourage them further. … So why did I stop?... well I have been reading these abilities while looking them up and realized their is a better argument for using reactions than the "competing for the reaction is far smaller". So I am going to argue with myself in your favor like a crazy person and see if it convinces me your right for a tangent reason.
Here is the Tangent reason. Yes there are quite a few reaction abilities competing especially when you consider opportunity attacks which are the biggest, however what are they for? They are 1. Defense, 2. Offense, 3. Tanking/Aid, 4.Control and pretty much in that order. So if your going two weapon fighting you have forgone the divisive shield for offense and while my design mediates that under a specific set of variables, the choice means in most cases defense is a willful lose and will be an excepted trade. The second is offense, and from a broad view your going to take a controllable attack over reaction controlled by the enemies actions unless its extremely powerful then your likely not taking two-weapon fighting style since pretty much all combat options are related a subclass, having a few subclass not favoring two-weapon fighting is not really an indication of bad TWF design, it more likely just a combination you will not see picked. Tanking/aid abilities are not as likely to lean to two-weapon fighting because a shield provides better defense for tanking and support abilities are usually characters who avoid max damage so both cases are not likely to use two-weapon fighting for reasons of the build not deficiencies in TWF. This removes options 1-3 which is the vast majority from mattering when considering reactions.
The number 4 crowd control is a little different and really the only sticking point here. Does Two-weapon fighting warrant an additional cost over other fighting styles and if so does that warrant the lose of crowd control abilities the biggest by far being opportunity attacks which are as useful for their ability to deter enemies from running away as they are the damage. Feats like sentinel make enemies want to target you and punish them if they don't, pole arm and great weapon master both use them solely for increased damage. You have taken me from against using reactions to on the fence because I have no doubt that players are willing to pay it I am still not sure they should have too, since other fighting styles take feats for this at greater effect, but this is the very premise of two-weapon fighting style.
So I think their is a cost of taking weapons that do less damage or lower defense. The extra attack is also a potential for more damage I know, which why I am suggesting advantage which means keeping the increase to hit of attacking twice while restricting the damage to one hit. It has the same critical chance of rolling two attacks as well until you get extra attack which is where two weapon fighting usually dies anyway. So I pretty much agree with everything you said, I just don't know that the reaction cost is the fix. I also limited the bonuses versus a single target, which will be fairly common and controllable because that prevents them from being tank builds (who would be better with shields with his in mind) and separates them from great weapon master which will do a lot more damage vs low AC high hit point opponents. It also stands out against Pole-arm master because polearm master will get two rolls to attack but also two damage rolls and works when fighting multiple enemies... So where do you see then need for the reaction cost here? What advantage does this have that warrants the extra cost? If your keeping the standard two-weapon fighting and changing it to reaction it makes more since because its better than pole arm master without it and pole arm master has the cost of a feat.
But isn't that what sets two weapon fighting apart? Its multiple smaller hits instead of one larger more powerful hit. Which then falls apart when a character gets "extra action"... so after level 5 why would you weaken your self for 3 light hits when you could do 2 powerful hits? The off set of hits and damage dice doesn't really hold up when classes start getting all the other ways to do more attacks with their main hand weapon regardless. That's why it seems like advantage demonstrates the increase to hit of multiple strikes but doesn't be come the king of damage since its a matter of feinting to get the strike. Reliability with lower damage. I added the +2 AC vs a single melee target in part because of Mearl's intent and design but also because the same feinting weapons also force a bit of defensive posture from the enemy consistently keeping on their toes to figure out where the "real" attack is coming from. This lets this fighting style stand further away from pole-arm master and extra attack and gives it a unique nature as a being really good one on one but never wanting to be in the middle of the fight. So your not going to be fighting where the sword and shield, great weapon fighters, and pole-arm masters are meeting the enemy line head on. Which doesn't just suite rogues but Rangers, Fighters, even hex blades that are using lower armor and dex to pick off enemies on the edges one at a time.
Really that's what I did too, my mistake is using the term "free action". Though Advantage vs a single melee enemy is not that unwieldy. Also, its only really about 5% my idea I just put other ideas together from a few people. My wording is surely unwieldy though as concise is against my nature... how about....
Two-weapon Fighting
"Fighting with two light weapons only one opponent in melee within 5ft, you gain +2 AC vs Melee attacks only and you make your standard attacks with advantage. When you make a hit you may choose which weapon does the damage."
I like the extra but its not really two-weapon fighting.. perhaps making its own rule is better..
One-handed Fencing
"Once per turn, if you are fighting with one light weapon and nothing in the other hand vs a single opponent in melee within 5ft you may attempt to make an additional unarmed strike before the standard attack as part of the attack action. If the unarmed strike is successful make your melee weapon attack at advantage."
They are basically the same but less wordy and appropriately separated. Better?
I think over all we are one step to the left or right of each other. We might not come to mutual agreement on the resolution but I think we a can see the other view. It seems to me that the BIGGEST issue is for sure the use of the bonus action as a cost for two-weapon fighting. My second concern is that it doesn't seem to separate itself from Pole-arm master enough or hold up to the other fighting styles in one on one comparison... unless your a rogue who just wants access to attacks all the other melee classes though if they hit on the first strike they don't care.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this statement. Yes, there are certain class abilities that make use of reactions for defense. A rogue has Uncanny Dodge, certain bard colleges can use reactions for Bardic Inspiration, those with the Protection Fighting Style have a reaction, and magic users have Counterspell and Hellish Rebuke. There may be a couple of others, but the number of options competing for the reaction is far smaller than the number of options competing for bonus actions.
First, let me say without a doubt reaction as a cost is WAY better than a bonus action. my question is then is a reaction to costly compared to other fighting styles and your saying its limited use means its not.
Here is "a couple of others" you didn't list:
(Barbarians) Berserker: Retaliation, Ancestral Guardian: Spirit Shield, Storm Herald: Raging Storm
(Bard) Glamour: Mantle of Inspiration, Lore:Cutting words, Swords: Mobile Flourish, Valor:Combat inspiration, Whispers: Mantle of Whispers
(Cleric) Grave: Sentinel at Death’s Door, Light: Warding Flare, Nature: Dampen Elements, Tempest: Wrath of the Storm, War: War God’s Blessing
(Druid) Shepheard: Spirit Totem Hawk
(Fighter) Battle Master: Parry & Riposte, Cavalier: Warding Maneuver & Vigilant Defender, Purple Knight: Inspiring Surge, Samurai: Strength before Death
(Monk) ALL: Deflect Missiles & Slow Fall, Shadow: Opportunist, Drunken Master: Tipsy Sway, Sun Soul: Sun Shield
(Paladin) Redemption: Rebuke the Violent & Aura of the Guardian, Crown: Relentless Avenger and Soul of Vengeance
(Ranger) Gloom: Shadowy Dodge, Horizon: Spectral Defense, Hunter: Giant Killer/Stand Against the Tide/Uncanny Dodge, Monster Slayer: Magic-User’s Nemesis & Slayer’s Counter
(Rogue) ALL: Uncanny dodge (you mentioned), Arcane Trickster: Spell Thief, Master Mind: Misdirection, Scout: Skirmisher
(Sorcerer) Storm: Storm’s Fury, Wild:Storm’s Fury
So... I got here and stopped without grabbing the warlock and wizard which I know (am playing a warlock right now) have some more and Also, the Protection Fighting style (you mentioned) alone covers all Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins. Casters also get shield which is big one as most casters have low AC, while casters two-weapon fighting is not that common, that's also why I don't want to do anything to discourage them further. … So why did I stop?... well I have been reading these abilities while looking them up and realized their is a better argument for using reactions than the "competing for the reaction is far smaller". So I am going to argue with myself in your favor like a crazy person and see if it convinces me your right for a tangent reason.
Here is the Tangent reason. Yes there are quite a few reaction abilities competing especially when you consider opportunity attacks which are the biggest, however what are they for? They are 1. Defense, 2. Offense, 3. Tanking/Aid, 4.Control and pretty much in that order. So if your going two weapon fighting you have forgone the divisive shield for offense and while my design mediates that under a specific set of variables, the choice means in most cases defense is a willful lose and will be an excepted trade. The second is offense, and from a broad view your going to take a controllable attack over reaction controlled by the enemies actions unless its extremely powerful then your likely not taking two-weapon fighting style since pretty much all combat options are related a subclass, having a few subclass not favoring two-weapon fighting is not really an indication of bad TWF design, it more likely just a combination you will not see picked. Tanking/aid abilities are not as likely to lean to two-weapon fighting because a shield provides better defense for tanking and support abilities are usually characters who avoid max damage so both cases are not likely to use two-weapon fighting for reasons of the build not deficiencies in TWF. This removes options 1-3 which is the vast majority from mattering when considering reactions.
The number 4 crowd control is a little different and really the only sticking point here. Does Two-weapon fighting warrant an additional cost over other fighting styles and if so does that warrant the lose of crowd control abilities the biggest by far being opportunity attacks which are as useful for their ability to deter enemies from running away as they are the damage. Feats like sentinel make enemies want to target you and punish them if they don't, pole arm and great weapon master both use them solely for increased damage. You have taken me from against using reactions to on the fence because I have no doubt that players are willing to pay it I am still not sure they should have too, since other fighting styles take feats for this at greater effect, but this is the very premise of two-weapon fighting style.
And I do think there needs to be some kind of action investment for TWF. Rolling it into the attack action seems too light, since you are doing something additional. If you allow it for free, then I could see an argument for just letting someone wielding a one-handed weapon getting an extra attack. In my opinion, there needs to be some kind of investment to make the additional attack. However, I also find the bonus action seems too costly. I feel like the reaction is a good middle ground. Especially since reactions can already be used for Opportunity Attacks, demonstrating a precedent for them to be used offensively.
So I think their is a cost of taking weapons that do less damage or lower defense. The extra attack is also a potential for more damage I know, which why I am suggesting advantage which means keeping the increase to hit of attacking twice while restricting the damage to one hit. It has the same critical chance of rolling two attacks as well until you get extra attack which is where two weapon fighting usually dies anyway. So I pretty much agree with everything you said, I just don't know that the reaction cost is the fix. I also limited the bonuses versus a single target, which will be fairly common and controllable because that prevents them from being tank builds (who would be better with shields with his in mind) and separates them from great weapon master which will do a lot more damage vs low AC high hit point opponents. It also stands out against Pole-arm master because polearm master will get two rolls to attack but also two damage rolls and works when fighting multiple enemies... So where do you see then need for the reaction cost here? What advantage does this have that warrants the extra cost? If your keeping the standard two-weapon fighting and changing it to reaction it makes more since because its better than pole arm master without it and pole arm master has the cost of a feat.
Additionally, I think you might be confounding the fighting style with what is already freely available to everyone. My goal with this change is not to encourage fighters to take the Two Weapon Fighting Style. You are correct that no other fighting style requires an additional action investment, but no other way of wielding weapons also allows or calls for an additional attack over what one might normally be entitled to.
But isn't that what sets two weapon fighting apart? Its multiple smaller hits instead of one larger more powerful hit. Which then falls apart when a character gets "extra action"... so after level 5 why would you weaken your self for 3 light hits when you could do 2 powerful hits? The off set of hits and damage dice doesn't really hold up when classes start getting all the other ways to do more attacks with their main hand weapon regardless. That's why it seems like advantage demonstrates the increase to hit of multiple strikes but doesn't be come the king of damage since its a matter of feinting to get the strike. Reliability with lower damage. I added the +2 AC vs a single melee target in part because of Mearl's intent and design but also because the same feinting weapons also force a bit of defensive posture from the enemy consistently keeping on their toes to figure out where the "real" attack is coming from. This lets this fighting style stand further away from pole-arm master and extra attack and gives it a unique nature as a being really good one on one but never wanting to be in the middle of the fight. So your not going to be fighting where the sword and shield, great weapon fighters, and pole-arm masters are meeting the enemy line head on. Which doesn't just suite rogues but Rangers, Fighters, even hex blades that are using lower armor and dex to pick off enemies on the edges one at a time.
As for your proposed change, I suppose it could work. However, I find it too unwieldy and complicated, and makes use of free actions, which to my knowledge are not found in 5e. Everything is either clearly defined in terms of its action type, or is considered a part of one of those action types.
Really that's what I did too, my mistake is using the term "free action". Though Advantage vs a single melee enemy is not that unwieldy. Also, its only really about 5% my idea I just put other ideas together from a few people. My wording is surely unwieldy though as concise is against my nature... how about....
Two-weapon Fighting
"Fighting with two light weapons only one opponent in melee within 5ft, you gain +2 AC vs Melee attacks only and you make your standard attacks with advantage. When you make a hit you may choose which weapon does the damage."
I like the extra but its not really two-weapon fighting.. perhaps making its own rule is better..
One-handed Fencing
"Once per turn, if you are fighting with one light weapon and nothing in the other hand vs a single opponent in melee within 5ft you may attempt to make an additional unarmed strike before the standard attack as part of the attack action. If the unarmed strike is successful make your melee weapon attack at advantage."
They are basically the same but less wordy and appropriately separated. Better?
I think over all we are one step to the left or right of each other. We might not come to mutual agreement on the resolution but I think we a can see the other view. It seems to me that the BIGGEST issue is for sure the use of the bonus action as a cost for two-weapon fighting. My second concern is that it doesn't seem to separate itself from Pole-arm master enough or hold up to the other fighting styles in one on one comparison... unless your a rogue who just wants access to attacks all the other melee classes though if they hit on the first strike they don't care.