More Dynamic Fighting Styles

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. I like the notion of fighting styles in 5E for martial characters, but the only styles I really like are TWFing and Protection. I like these because they expand your options in a way, though TWFing less so.

I'd rather each Fighting Style give you a bonus action ability. This would limit the mad dash to get a bonus action ability, and limit the potency of picking up a second Fighting Style. These should be thematic to the style of fighting, and don't have to be the same styles we have now. Here's some off the cuff ideas:

Great Weapon Fighting: while wielding a versatile or two-handed melee weapon in two hands, after you take the attack action to attack a creature, you can use a bonus action to attack an additional creature. This extra attack does not benefit from ability bonus to damage. (Great weapons are able to leverage mighty, sweeping blows)

Duelist: while wielding a weapon in one hand with no other weapon in your other hand (shields are okay), you can spend a bonus action to focus your attention on a single opponent. That opponent suffers disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn. (A dualist is skilled at fighting a single opponent)

Protection: while wielding a shield, you can spend a bonus action to protect an ally adjacent to you. All attacks made against that ally are made with Disadvantage while they remain adjacent with you until the start of your next turn.

Etc., and likely unbalanced. Yes, lots of other parts of the system would need to be addressed, but I think these would be more dynamic and defining than a static +2 to hit or damage.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quickleaf]

Definitely an interesting idea. I like how it makes weapon choice a bit more meaningful for fighters, paladins, and rangers.

Great Weapon warriors cleave through swaths of enemies. Duelist warriors are hard to hit in one-on-one. I like those better than the current ones.

On the downside...

There are already feats granting bonus action attacks that these "dynamic" fighting styles would interfere with.

Also, these are serious upgrades in power, so Two Weapon Fighting and Archery would need a commensurate boost...

And Duelist seems to step on the toes of the Defense fighting style...

 

[Saeviomagy]

And Duelist seems to step on the toes of the Defense fighting style...

It's quite different though - duelist only works on a single opponent, requires a bonus action and is more powerful, while defense is a flat +1 ac all the time.

I really like these. I think that fighters were really lacking in a use for their bonus action, and in general were defensively weak. Paladins and rangers are losing a tad because they already have things that use bonus actions... but I think that's an interesting tactical decision to be making.

Also having a use for your bonus action makes pole-arm mastery weaker.

 

[Xeviat]

Also having a use for your bonus action makes pole-arm mastery weaker.

That's probably one of my favorite things about it, making other choices harder. I'm not 100% married to these ideas, though. And, like I said, it will require changing other things (like the cleave feat).

Archery could be an aim ability (don't move, bonus action, gain advantage to attack). Another ranged style could be Quick Shot (reduce damage, but make extra ranged attacks, to reward using simple ranged weapons instead of martial).

I'd have to change defensive entirely. I'm okay with Duelist eating defensive and Duelist not being offensive. GWF and TWF are the offense styles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hillsy7]

I think that fighters were really lacking in a use for their bonus action

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. So if i wield 2 weapons, I use my bonus action. If I go sword and board, I can bonus action shove. If I go EK, I can bonus action to cast and stab (War Magic).

So the only person missing a built in bonus action is a 2-handed warrior and a bowman, and even then CE, PAM and GWM covers that (and Fighters get additional feats because that's what they do - so they should be burning feats on stuff like this). And that's before you even consider a couple of the BM manouevres cost a bonus action.

If you are a fighter, you'll almost always have an option for your bonus action.

 

[TwoSix]

Ok, some low level fighting style math, to try to get an idea of how much a bonus action should be adding.

No fighting styles, ignoring hit rate for now. Assuming best weapon for the style, and a 16 in the main stat.

Offensive Strength is 2d6+3, or 10 average damage. Action only. (greatsword or maul)
Offensive Dex is 1d6+3 + 1d6, or 10 average damage. Action plus bonus action. (dual short swords)
Defensive Strength is 1d8+3, or 7.5 average damage. Action only, +2 AC for shield. (longsword/battleaxe/warhammer + shield)
Defensive Dex is 1d8+3, or 7.5 average damage. Action only, +2 AC for shield or ranged (rapier + shield, or longbow)

So, interestingly, offensive builds all average 10, and defensive builds all average 7.5. An offensive Dex build is required to use their bonus action right off the bat to match a Str build, which actually feels OK to me, since Dex has more ranged options and is generally a stronger stat. I would say a broad question is, should fighting styles that give bonus actions continue to benefit offensively oriented Strength builds equally to offensive Dex builds? The TWF style, as currently written, makes Dex and Strength equivalent (since they can both only use 1d6 weapons).

TWF (current) Str or Dex: 1d6+3 + 1d6+3 = 13 average damage. Action + bonus action. (dual shortswords)

So adding in the fighting style adds 3 average damage, at the cost of a bonus action for Strength users, but not for Dex users. The Dex user gains 5.5 damage for the cost of his bonus action after taking the fighting style.

Going by that, I think we can say that it's OK if a fighting style gives different bonus to Dex and Str users, but the benefit of any fighting style bonus action should be between 3 and 5.5 damage at first level.

 

[Guest 6801718]

I like that they capture the feel of the styles. I do think they are a bit overpowered though. Keep in mind, this is a level 1 ability for fighters (level 2 for other martial classes that get them). At level 1, you aren't the juggernaut of battle, mowing down scores of enemies. It's meant to be more of a starting point to guide where you character goes as they develop.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. So if i wield 2 weapons, I use my bonus action. If I go sword and board, I can bonus action shove. If I go EK, I can bonus action to cast and stab (War Magic).

Sword and board requires a feat, so isn't a fighter ability as such. I'd like to see one of these styles give something more interesting for twf as well, but it would have to be a "when you use your bonus action to make a twf attack...".

EK's war magic has a bunch of problems that make it typically a poor choice for your action... so most of the time you'd be using this instead.

So the only person missing a built in bonus action is a 2-handed warrior and a bowman, and even then CE, PAM and GWM covers that (and Fighters get additional feats because that's what they do - so they should be burning feats on stuff like this). And that's before you even consider a couple of the BM manouevres cost a bonus action.

Yep, and a lack of a non-feat use for your bonus action is what makes PAM and CE far too good.

I would argue that fighters are more than adequate in combat while massively lacking in out-of-combat contributions, so if anything they're probably better off than most classes taking non-combat abilities with their feats.

If you are a fighter, you'll almost always have an option for your bonus action.

... if you accept being forced to take specific feats based on your fighting style.

 

[Hillsy7]

Sword and board requires a feat, so isn't a fighter ability as such. I'd like to see one of these styles give something more interesting for twf as well, but it would have to be a "when you use your bonus action to make a twf attack...".

EK's war magic has a bunch of problems that make it typically a poor choice for your action... so most of the time you'd be using this instead.

Yep, and a lack of a non-feat use for your bonus action is what makes PAM and CE far too good.

Ooops - forgot about SM.....and whether or not EK is a "Poor" choice, it's still an option. You could argue that any use of Ki other than "Flurry of Blows" is a poor use of a bonus action (not that I agree), but the option is still there.


OK - there looks like there's 3 different points we're discussing here, so lets split them out.

1) Does a Fighter lack off the shelf Bonus Actions?
Firstly we must take into account other classes. “Lack” is not an objective term when looking at a specified ruleset. I found a list here of all Bonus actions here (though it misses Shield Master)……

So as you can immediately see, compared to many other classes the Fighter is comparable if not better in their BA options. The Ranger has zero until level 14 (dependant on sublass). The Cleric has None dependant on Domain, neither does a Land Druid. Wizards…..Ok you get my point. So clearly the Fighter is not unique, and therefore providing them with a constant use early Bonus Action ability would make them the exception.

Ok, so let’s say now you consider spells/bardic inspiration/Ki and other limited use resources to count as bonus action options. So in the interest of equivalence that puts all full casters basically in one pot: Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid. In the other we have half-casters, Monks, Rangers, Paladins, and Warlocks. So in the final Pot we have Rogues, Fighters and Barbarians.

Now, not all fighters are created equal. An EK is a half-caster, and a Battle Master has a limited resource like a Monk/Bard, so both of those move into pot 2. That means the only non-spell, non-resource classes left are Rogue, Barbarian and the Champion Fighter. All 3 can use a bonus action to extra attack (TWF), but a frenzy Barbarian loses that limitation, albeit at a hefty cost. The Rogue has cunning action. Therefore that leaves us with a problem – if we give a Bonus action to one specific subclass of Fighter, what about the barbarian? Also the Champion fighter gets a lot of passive bonuses where other classes have to burn BAs to get their equivalents – Plus it’s almost by design there to be the easy to use, minimum crunch class. Move & Hit Things, nothing else.

So there we go – I would argue that if you are lamenting the lack of bonus actions for the Champion Fighter alone, you must consider the Totem Barbarian too (and they have probably fewer options – no action surge). If you then include limited resource classes (spells, Ki, SD, Frenzy), then you are looking at more than half the classes, at which point having a full casting list of potential Bonus Action options puts you in the minority, not the reverse. And remember, you can easily pick a spell list with no bonus action spells, meaning you have less options than a Champion Fighter (cos Action Surge).

Therefore, the conclusion I draw is that you either “Fix” the Champion Fighter and Totem Barbarian specifically (thus potentially screwing one of the key design features of one of them), otherwise on an equivalent level, a fighter has much the same bonus action options as half the other classes, which would all need "Fixing"

2) Should a Fighting Style provide Bonus Action economy?
Action Economy is directly baked into a couple of classes – mostly the bard, rogue and monk. Thankfully, none of those use fighting styles. Of the three classes that do, only the Champion Fighter would definitely see no action economy issue – All Rangers, Paladins and the EK would have to tailor their spell lists to avoid it, and the BM would have to choose appropriate manoeuvres. “Fine!” you may say, “Casters have had it far too good for too long! Boost Melee Power!” Ok, but that then leaves the issue of the other melee races, and the fact you aren’t giving them a boost. I have yet to see someone argue that the Monk, Rogue, Barbarian are well overpowered compared to their fighting style using brethren. Quite the opposite in fact.

Again, if you bring Fighting Style into the equation, you are ignoring other melee characters, and once again the poor barbarian gets nothing. I can only conclude then that fighting styles really isn’t the best place to add to the action economy – especially as now only a single subclass is affected (Champ Fight)

3) Is taking a feat for a bonus action unfair for a Fighter?
In short – I don’t know. What I do know though, is that if you look at the design decisions made for the Fighter, it appears like that was WotC intention. The Fighter gets more feats, and some feats make their Fighting Styles better than the basic Ranger and Paladin (ergo, best at fighting that way) – the only conclusion I can draw is that was intentional. Especially when the feats that add Bonus Actions are all melee based and tie into how a Fighter “Fights”. Cruicially though, this only makes them ‘better’ than a basic Paladin or Ranger, and the BA add-ons still have to compete in the action economy of the EK and BM Fighters.

Again, this feels intentional and part of the Fighter “Balance”, as much as any class is balanced compared to another in anyone’s opinion. While I personally think this is good design, people have differing opinions on how “design” should work, so I accept there’s a decent amount of argument room here.

Now, having said all that, there’s a decent argument to be made for “Options” for a Bonus Action. However, most other classes will also have limited “Options” after their initial choices have been made – and none of these represent an increase in power that was not there already. A Monk has Ki, a Battlemaster has some manoeuvres, and a Cleric has whatever spells he has that use a bonus action. Once it’s all said and done, you’re likely only going to be using the same few things all the time. So “Options” should really be separated from “power” when developing them……

 

[Saeviomagy]

[MENTION=6689191]Hillsy7[/MENTION] - that way madness lies. Holding back from changes merely because of other classes is just a ticket to never changing anything. As for balance? I don't actually think these changes have much of a balance impact. They're reducing raw damage and adding specialized benefits, while reducing the relative power of some of the best build options (ie - those that are handing out persistent benefits for bonus actions) at higher levels, simply because you're no longer trading "nothing" for "something".

As you pointed out, rangers, paladins and battlemasters all have limited resources to utilize with bonus actions. As is polearm master, shield mastery and crossbow expert rank extremely highly for all three despite that, simply because they're not likely to be always using their bonus action. So... less effective than the champion fighter, but only marginally.

But mostly I like these because they're much more interesting than the static bonuses they replace. Heck, with the way they are written you could stand to remove the weapon requirements from them, which is to me always a good thing.