New Fighting Style: Swift Striker

[Hawk Diesel]

So I was realizing that there is really little reason for most player characters to wield the weaker weapons. Obviously this makes sense, since DPR is king. But I was thinking of how to increase the liklihood of players wanting to use these weapons while also making the concept on more equal footing with other weapon choices. That lead me to creating the following fighting style:

Swift Striker
You can make one additional attack whenever you take the Attack action. You gain this benefit while wielding only the following weapons: Club, Dagger, Dart, Light Hammer, Sickle, Sling, or Whip.

 

[Mistwell]

So at first level you could make three attacks with two daggers, two regular attacks and one bonus attack, with the first two attacks carrying your dex (or strength) bonus to damage as well.

Seems OK. Might help out my old Dagger Thrower build that didn't work out once some rulings were made.

 

[Staccat0]

I’m about to run a homebrew hack system where everytime you roll a “1” on your damage die you can do a “stunt” (ex: knock a foe back, disarm them, change spots with or get behind them, knock them prone” which I like as a way of making weapons feel more like tools.

Tying your idea to the “1” on the damage die might be interesting. No weapon list to ever remember and a fighter dual wielding daggers (25% chance to get an extra attack) could potentially do insane combos. Would be time consuming though.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The way it's written, you can have a dual weilder with a sword and dagger, making an attack with each (RAW now), and an additional attack with the sword. Which I don't think is your intent

"technically I'm wielding a dagger with my off hand, so I meet the criteria"

 

[TwoSix]

Let's see, 1st level fighter:

Greatsword + GWF: 2d6+3, reroll 1s and 2s. 11.3 average damage.
Longsword + Dueling: 1d8+5. 9.5 average damage. One hand free, so probably +2 AC.
2 Daggers + Swift Striker. 2d4+6, 11 average damage. One hand free, so probably +2 AC.

Better than Longsword/Dueling from 1-4th, but falls behind slightly once Extra Attack enters the picture. Still, the extra attack helps out if any on-hit effect is involved, and is a little better if the fighting style is from a Fighter dip for a Rogue.

Overall, pretty balanced, I like it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So I was realizing that there is really little reason for most player characters to wield the weaker weapons. Obviously this makes sense, since DPR is king. But I was thinking of how to increase the liklihood of players wanting to use these weapons while also making the concept on more equal footing with other weapon choices. That lead me to creating the following fighting style:

Swift Striker
You can make one additional attack whenever you take the Attack action. You only gain this benefit while wielding the following weapons: Club, Dagger, Dart, Light Hammer, Sickle, Sling, or Whip.

I can tell I'm a grognard, because everything triggers a memory from the TSR era. So, back in the day, when we weren't dodging dinosaurs (just kidding, this was 2e, it was smilodons), the incongruous King of DPR (though we didn't call it that, yet) was the Cuisinart of Doom, the double-specialized dual-wielder (or archer, or...well, I'll get to it), the only things you could dual wield (TWF) back then were daggers & hand-axes... maybe throwing hammers, shortswords or a light mace depending on who you talked to. One particularly silly variation on this was the double-specialized-dart-thrower (using really big heavy darts, to get his %STR bonus)... because the key point of failure that enabled this exploit was attacks/round. Get a big enough bonus (double-specialized +3; 18/00 STR +6) to damage, and it didn't matter much whether your weapon was d4 (1-4/1-3, to be period about it) or d10 (1-10/3-18), compared to how many attacks you got to apply that big fat bonus too. So giving up the 5.5 average damage of a greatsword Two-Handed Sword attacking /once/ per round, for 2 average damage (+ huge bonuses), to throw 5 darts/round, totally worth it.

5e has already headed us back in that direction, with Extra Attack, but it's being cautious about letting it snowball, so Action Surge is 1/hour, and TWF is a bonus action...

... which is the long-winded-old-man-on-the-porch way of saying "might wanna make that extra attack a bonus action."

 

[TwoSix]

The way it's written, you can have a dual weilder with a sword and dagger, making an attack with each (RAW now), and an additional attack with the sword. Which I don't think is your intent

"technically I'm wielding a dagger with my off hand, so I meet the criteria"

True, it should probably say "wielding only the following weapons".

 

[abirdcall]

Let's see, 1st level fighter:

Greatsword + GWF: 2d6+3, reroll 1s and 2s. 11.3 average damage.
Longsword + Dueling: 1d8+5. 9.5 average damage. One hand free, so probably +2 AC.
2 Daggers + Swift Striker. 2d4+6, 11 average damage. One hand free, so probably +2 AC.

Better than Longsword/Dueling from 1-4th, but falls behind slightly once Extra Attack enters the picture. Still, the extra attack helps out if any on-hit effect is involved, and is a little better if the fighting style is from a Fighter dip for a Rogue.

Overall, pretty balanced, I like it.

Longsword + Dagger - 1d8+3, 1d8+3, 1d4 = 17.5 dmg

I think you need to reword it if you don't want them wielding other weapons as well.

 

[TwoSix]

Longsword + Dagger - 1d8+3, 1d8+3, 1d4 = 17.5 dmg

I think you need to reword it if you don't want them wielding other weapons as well.

Sure. I'm critiquing the math behind the intent, that's all, since I think the intent was pretty obvious and a pretty easy fix with a slight wording change.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I’m about to run a homebrew hack system where everytime you roll a “1” on your damage die you can do a “stunt” (ex: knock a foe back, disarm them, change spots with or get behind them, knock them prone” which I like as a way of making weapons feel more like tools.

Tying your idea to the “1” on the damage die might be interesting. No weapon list to ever remember and a fighter dual wielding daggers (25% chance to get an extra attack) could potentially do insane combos. Would be time consuming though.

That is an interesting idea. I like strategic actions outside of "I hit the monster again with my sword until it does." But I don't see it being enough of a draw to players, since in my experience at my table they prefer more simplicity, damage, and attacks.

The way it's written, you can have a dual weilder with a sword and dagger, making an attack with each (RAW now), and an additional attack with the sword. Which I don't think is your intent

"technically I'm wielding a dagger with my off hand, so I meet the criteria"

The feat says that it only works while wielding the specified weapons. A sword and dagger wielder could not benefit, because while they are wielding a dagger, they are not only wielding a dagger. So you are correct, that is not the intent or the spirit of the fighting style. If you have a suggestion to improve the wording I would appreciate it.

Let's see, 1st level fighter:

Greatsword + GWF: 2d6+3, reroll 1s and 2s. 11.3 average damage.
Longsword + Dueling: 1d8+5. 9.5 average damage. One hand free, so probably +2 AC.
2 Daggers + Swift Striker. 2d4+6, 11 average damage. One hand free, so probably +2 AC.

Better than Longsword/Dueling from 1-4th, but falls behind slightly once Extra Attack enters the picture. Still, the extra attack helps out if any on-hit effect is involved, and is a little better if the fighting style is from a Fighter dip for a Rogue.

Overall, pretty balanced, I like it.

Thanks! And yea, free hand does allow for a shield, or could dual wield for another attack but without the strength/dex mod to damage. Would that change your calculation if you account for that possibility?

I can tell I'm a grognard, because everything triggers a memory from the TSR era. So, back in the day, when we weren't dodging dinosaurs (just kidding, this was 2e, it was smilodons), the incongruous King of DPR (though we didn't call it that, yet) was the Cuisinart of Doom, the double-specialized dual-wielder (or archer, or...well, I'll get to it), the only things you could dual wield (TWF) back then were daggers & hand-axes... maybe throwing hammers, shortswords or a light mace depending on who you talked to. One particularly silly variation on this was the double-specialized-dart-thrower (using really big heavy darts, to get his %STR bonus)... because the key point of failure that enabled this exploit was attacks/round. Get a big enough bonus (double-specialized +3; 18/00 STR +6) to damage, and it didn't matter much whether your weapon was d4 (1-4/1-3, to be period about it) or d10 (1-10/3-18), compared to how many attacks you got to apply that big fat bonus too. So giving up the 5.5 average damage of a greatsword attacking /once/ per round, for 2 average damage (+ huge bonuses), to throw 5 darts/round, totally worth it.

5e has already headed us back in that direction, with Extra Attack, but it's being cautious about letting it snowball, so Action Surge is 1/hour, and TWF is a bonus action...

... which is the long-winded-old-man-on-the-porch way of saying "might wanna make that extra attack a bonus action."

But if I did that, why would you choose this over TWF?

True, it should probably say "wielding only the following weapons".

I guess changing the position of the word "only" clairifes the intent? I've adjusted. Hope it clears things up.