New Fighting Style: Swift Striker

[Hawk Diesel]

As I said, I'm looking for ways to abuse this.

While the ability to abuse a mechanic should be a consideration, for me balance is less about abuse and more about how the mechanic compares to others of its kind. No designer can consider every possible combination that could lead to abuse, and we already know of many abusable mechanics in just the core RAW mechanics.

Did you miss the penultimate paragraph? The damage numbers for the dagger-wielder stay the same, so there's no point repeating them.

First of all: https://youtu.be/mLj7xLtO6Rw?t=2m50s

Second, no I did not miss what you wrote, and no they would not stay the same. The "penultimate" paragraph gives examples of how other abilities grant bonus action attacks. But those other abilities also provide additional benefits that boost damage. GWM gives you a potential bonus attack that will also potentially deal a +10 bonus to damage. Polearm Master grants the bonus action with d4 damage, but also gives you at least one extra 1d12 attack against melee enemies that get within your reach. These are not equivalent, and need to be accounted and included in any assessment or claim that GWM or Polearm Master (Once again, feats that are an optional rule) would be equivalent to the Swift Striker fighting style.

Lets do a quick look at how Swift Striker compares with Dueling and Two Weapon fighting. We will assume a fighter at level 1 with 16 in their main attack state (using standard array), level 5 with an 18 in their main stat, and level 11 with a 20 in their main stat. We will look at Swift Fighting using a shield and using an additional dagger. No assumption of feat or multiclassing.

Level 1
Dueling (Longsword) - (1d8 + 5) = (4.5 + 5) = 9.5 damage with +2 AC
Swift Fighting (Dagger and Shield) - (1d4 + 3) + (1d4 + 3) = (2.5 +3) + (2.5 + 3) = 11 damage with +2 AC
TWF (Longsword and Shortsword) - (1d8 + 3) + (1d6 + 3) = (4.5 + 3) + (3.5 + 3) = 14 damage
Swift Fighting (2 Daggers) - (1d4 + 3) + (1d4 + 3) + (1d4) = (2.5 + 3) + (2.5 + 3) + (2.5) = 13.5 damage

So at level 1 Swift Fighting with a shield out damages the Dueling style. With a shield it deals less damage than TWF, and is on par with it using two daggers.

Level 5
Dueling (Longsword) - (1d8 + 6) + (1d8 + 6) = (4.5 + 6) + (4.5 + 6) = 21 damage with +2 AC
Swift Fighting (Dagger and Shield) - (1d4 + 4) + (1d4 + 4) + (1d4 + 4) = 2.5 + 4 + 2.5 + 4 + 2.5 + 4 = 19.5 damage with +2 AC
TWF (Longsword and Shortsword) - (1d8 + 4) + (1d8 + 4) + (1d6 + 4) = (4.5 + 4) + (4.5 + 4) + (3.5 + 4) = 24.5 damage
Swift Fighting (2 Daggers) - (1d4 + 4) + (1d4 + 4) + (1d4 +4) + (1d4) = (2.5 + 4) + (2.5 + 4) + (2.5 + 4) + (2.5) = 22 damage

Here, Dueling pulls ahead in damage with similar AC. TWF is the leader in DPR. Swift Striker with a shield deals less than TWF, and so does Swift Striker with a second dagger, though the gap is closer.

Level 11
Dueling (Longsword) - (1d8 + 7) + (1d8 + 7) + (1d8 + 7) = (4.5+7) + (4.5 + 7) + (4.5 + 7) = 34.5 damage with +2 AC
Swift Fighting (Dagger and Shield) - (1d4 + 5) + (1d4 + 5) + (1d4 + 5) + (1d4 + 5) = (2.5 + 5) + (2.5 + 5) + (2.5 + 5) + (2.5 + 5) = 30 damage with +2 AC
TWF (Longsword and Shortsword) - (1d8 + 5) + (1d8 + 5) + (1d8 + 5) + (1d6 + 5) = (4.5 + 5) + (4.5 + 5) + (4.5 + 5) + (3.5 + 5) = 37 damage
Swift Fighting (2 Daggers) - (1d4 + 5) + (1d4 + 5) + (1d4 +5) + (1d4 +5) + (1d4) = (2.5 + 5) + (2.5 + 5) + (2.5 + 5) + (2.5 + 5) + (2.5) = 32.5 damage

By the time a fighter gets 3 attacks, TWF becomes the clear winner in terms of DPR. Dueling is a close second. Either way Swift Striker is played (with a second weapon or with a shield), Dueling and TWF beat it out for damage potential.

To me, this seems fine, since the lesser damage is made up for in terms of flexibility and the potential to include some short range attacks into the mix.

If we begin to assume the use of feats or multiclassing, then yes things get murkier in terms of abuse potential. But the same can be said of many things. For example, it is not uncommon for people to already dip fighter for Action Surge, dip rogue for Cunning Action and small sneak attack, and paladin/sorcerer to dip warlock. Many combinations can be problematic. But I do not think they necessarily break the game.

When considering whether a mechanic is balanced, it is important to consider the potential for abuse. But I think it is more important to consider it first among it's peers. People don't consider how spells can be used with Action Surge, they consider them among other spells. Metamagic is not considered in combination with Arcane Traditions, but in comparison to other metamagic. Thus, the more important consideration is how Swift Striker measures up to other fighting styles.

Does Swift Striker impact how one might play a Paladin? Sure, they will get more chances to use Divine Smite. But you will also have this build competing with those Paladins that love the Polearm Master / Sentinel to increase DPR and control the battlefield.

Will this impact how people would play a ranger? Sure! They will get more damage off of Hunter's Mark and have some synergy with Hunter abilities. But this also assumes that the Ranger is going to want to use spells or take Hunter's Mark. And also, guess what! Both Paladins and Rangers are already limited on the kinds of fighting styles available to them. Only the fighter gets all options. If you are worried about how those classes might use Swift Striker or if it is appropriate to those classes, then you can limit Swift Striker to the fighter. This would force them to dip for levels in fighter. And if your player was already prone to considering dipping fighter, they would probably have already done it for Action Surge. This puts your players at least one, if not two levels behind the others in getting their ASIs, and will also prohibit them from reaching their capstone abilities (if anyone ever actually makes it to level 20).

Dipping always comes with a cost, and it already creates problems because so many of the really good class abilities are front loaded into their design. Abuse is already possible with a number of mechanics. And while I see potential for abuse with Swift Striker (I'm shocked no one has mentioned a monk dipping fighter for this fighting style!), I do not see it being any more abusable than other combinations that have already been discovered.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm gonna argue against making the extra attack a bonus action.

I like that after taking this style, I'd still have a meaningful choice between using a shield or a second dagger.

The same argument could be made (and, I think, has been) for removing the bonus action requirement from TWFing, itself, and, indeed, for removing the mechanic, entirely...

...my thought is that it would be consistent with the rest of the 5e action-economy design to require it.

That doesn't simplify the mechanic so much as make it boring.

It /is/ a fighter mechanic, afterall.

2) Why would I use a 1d6 dagger when I could just reflavor a shortsword as a dagger?

Because you can't throw a shortsword?

Though, I did play a 3.5 'knife fighter' once who re-skinned a shortsword as a very long dagger (a cinquedea), and darts as throwing knives, early in his build - that, is, until he got actual weapon specialization: dagger, then it was all daggers re-skinned as a shortsword & throwing knives.

I think it's clear that any extra attack has to be a Bonus Action.

I agree: 5e's been pretty consistent that way, so far. And additional attacks in D&D have always been potentially problematic.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

The same argument could be made (and, I think, has been) for removing the bonus action requirement from TWFing, itself, and, indeed, for removing the mechanic, entirely...

...my thought is that it would be consistent with the rest of the 5e action-economy design to require it.

I recognize this and believe it is a valid point. Making it a bonus action would follow with the precedent that has already been set for 5e. And while I do value and try to stay within 5e precedent to guide my homebrew content, there are certain ideas and game mechanics that I think are worth breaking with game precedent. It's not something I would do lightly, but considering the limited weapon selection for this fighting style and having done a comparison of the Swift Striker Fighting style up through level 11, I don't think that it breaks the game.

It /is/ a fighter mechanic, afterall.

Yea, but so is Action Surge, and that is arguably one of the coolest, most exciting, and cinematic powers in the game outside of actual magic and spells. I don't believe the fighter must be boring.

Because you can't throw a shortsword?

True, but you can always carry darts or other thrown items and skin them as daggers. Sure, you'd have to differentiate "throwing daggers" and "striking daggers," but still the point is not to increase the damage of daggers, slings, and what have you, but rather to lean into their lightness and quickness to create a mechanic that is representative of that.

5e's been pretty consistent that way [with extra attacks being bonus actions], so far. And additional attacks in D&D have always been potentially problematic.

I agree. But there have already been instances where WotC has demonstrated willingness to push the boundaries of existing design with their Unearthed Arcana series, and as new material for 5e continues to be created, we are more likely to see exceptions to these precedents. These will be unlikely to be flippant design decisions, but rather ones that are well considered in terms of their impact on the game and comparing them to similar abilities.

Such mechanics are unlikely to be able to account for every combination of classes, feats, spells, or what have you. And while I agree that D&D has a few Sacred Cows, bonus action attacks is not one of them. In fact, we have already seen some of the lead designers hating bonus actions and lamenting on their inclusion into 5e. While I disagree with the sentiment, it does demonstrate that even within the 5e design team there is disagreement with what aspects of design need to be consistent and where they can be expanded.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yea, but so is Action Surge, and that is arguably one of the coolest, most exciting, and cinematic powers in the game outside of actual magic and spells. I don't believe the fighter must be boring.

Outside of almost everything else, then? ;P
That the fighter must being 'boring' (actually, simple/consistently-performing) is one of the reasons we even have 5e.
And, I don't think that your new combat style is an existential threat to that or anything...

I agree. But there have already been instances where WotC has demonstrated willingness to push the boundaries of existing design with their Unearthed Arcana series, and as new material for 5e continues to be created, we are more likely to see exceptions to these precedents.

And MM has prettymuch gone on record as kinda regretting bonus actions, anyway.

And, it's your variant, for your game, so consistency is only as important as you find it to be. So, I'm not say "gack, don't do that," just "be aware of this, and see how it goes..." sounds like you're making an informed decision, to me.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Yep. Truth be told, my games and homebrew tend to increase player choice, complexity, and power. Not to the extent of 3.5, but probably somewhere in between. So I certainly understand the concern. And I agree that for some tables, the bonus action attack may be reasonable to limit abuse. But I think its too cool of an idea to limit it just yet.

I mean, a monk with this style and action surge could make 8 attacks dealing 1d10+5 damage. And as others have mentioned, there are concerns for abilities like Hex or Hunter's Mark, as well as synergy between the styles.

I am concerned about the synergy, especially the Dueling fighting style. I'm not really sure how that might be addressed though.

I suppose one limitation could be maintaining a free hand. That way even if you join it with dueling, you lose the benefit of the shield. And you would also lose the option for two weapon fighting. But then it sharply falls behind the dueling style in damage without any way to otherwise boost it.

I have my own version of the fighter. I replace Action Surge with Shrewd Fighting, which allows Shove, Grapple, and Disarm to be used as bonus actions (Action Surge moves to level 6). So freeing up the hand allows for grapple and stab, which is interesting. Dueling and TWF don't work well with grappling opponents (assuming dueler uses a shield). And then there is the flexibility for ranged weapons and the whip which is also interesting.

But is that enough? I'm not sure. Perhaps I could state that one cannot use a shield with this fighting style. That would still allow dueling and Swift Striker to synergize but the cost of the shield, which I think is reasonable. It also allows the user a choice to keep a free hand for grapple or to use a second weapon. In which case synergy with TWF style is not as huge as combining it with the Dueling style.

I'm leaning towards stating that Swift Striker cannot be used while using a shield. What do people think? Would that change the balance to be more reasonable?

By level 11, Dueling style + Swift Striker would deal and average of 42.5 damage. Well above any of the other styles, but at the cost of using a shield.

By level 11, TWF + Swift Striker would deal an average of about 37.5, which is right there with a pure TWF using more optimal weapons.

So I'm not as worried about Swift Striker combining with TWF. But with the Dueling style is it is really a lot deadlier.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm leaning towards stating that Swift Striker cannot be used while using a shield. What do people think? Would that change the balance to be more reasonable?.

I don't like it. It feels like a sort of artificial limiting.

Perhaps consider limiting the ability modifier that gets applied to damage when using Swift Striker. Perhaps just halve it for all attacks, or not apply it at all on the extra strike. The latter sort of follows the model of two weapon fighting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Swift striker: when you only wield one one-handed light weapon and have a free off-hand you can make one extra attack with your attack action.

I suppose one limitation could be maintaining a free hand. That way even if you join it with dueling, you lose the benefit of the shield.

If the game had multiple shield types like 3e (Tower, Large, small, & buckler), or even just Heavy & Light like 4e, you could limit it to the lightest type of shield to match the lightest-weapons vibe.

I'm leaning towards stating that Swift Striker cannot be used while using a shield. What do people think? Would that change the balance to be more reasonable?

Feels more like it hurts the shield (sadly under-appreciated throughout D&D history) than the style.

Requires a free hand instead of using a bonus action would keep it from combining with both shields and TWF, but I'm not sure I see why you'd need a free hand? ... actually, just a few months ago I saw a martial arts demo of techniques used with mismatched weapons - dagger vs spear, that kinda thing. A lot of the dagger tricks involved grabbing the haft of the opponent's weapon or grappling, to keep the engagement close enough to favor the shorter weapon.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I don't like it. It feels like a sort of artificial limiting.

Perhaps consider limiting the ability modifier that gets applied to damage when using Swift Striker. Perhaps just halve it for all attacks, or not apply it at all on the extra strike. The latter sort of follows the model of two weapon fighting.

If I do that, it decreases the damage significantly to the point that I don't see a person taking the fighting style since it is so inferior to the other styles using optimized weapons. So while it would limit abuse of combining with other fighting styles, it would ONLY become viable if you combine it with other fighting styles. If the goal is to have the fighting style stand on its own while reducing possibility of abuse, then we need to consider something else.

If the game had multiple shield types like 3e (Tower, Large, small, & buckler), or even just Heavy & Light like 4e, you could limit it to the lightest type of shield to match the lightest-weapons vibe.

I agree. But sadly, that isn't a thing in 5e. :-(

Feels more like it hurts the shield (sadly under-appreciated throughout D&D history) than the style.

Not sure I follow.

Requires a free hand instead of using a bonus action would keep it from combining with both shields and TWF, but I'm not sure I see why you'd need a free hand? ... actually, just a few months ago I saw a martial arts demo of techniques used with mismatched weapons - dagger vs spear, that kinda thing. A lot of the dagger tricks involved grabbing the haft of the opponent's weapon or grappling, to keep the engagement close enough to favor the shorter weapon.

Yea, I don't like the "requires a free hand to use." Combining TWF and Swift Striker seems to only moderately increase DPR over TWF or Swift Striker alone. Before extra attack, the difference is about 2 points of damage, with the difference falling for each additional attack until the difference of only 0.5 damage when a fighter can get 3 attacks with the attack action.

And actually, combining Dueling style with Swift Fighter also puts it in relative range of TWF alone. The problem is that not only is it typically slightly higher than TWF, but you also get access to a shield. This assessment would change if we assume feats and give the TWF the Dual Wielder feat, putting them at about equal AC and damage output, but if we require a feat investment to equate the synergy, it points to an imbalance from my perspective.

But then, is the imbalance great enough to be a concern? I mean, gaining multiple Fighting Styles is really only achievable with a Champion Fighter, through multiclassing, or with a feat investment if you have a feat that allows acquisition of a fighting style (which I do have). The question becomes, is the opportunity cost for multiclassing or the feat tax great enough to balance out increased DPR and AC?

I feel like I kind of vacillate between yes and no. Is the synergy of the fighting styles powerful? Sure. Is it so powerful that everyone that takes it would multiclass for another fighting style? Or is it so powerful that everyone that took this style would also grab a feat to combine it with another fighting style? I'm not sure.