D&D 5E (2014) New(?) Fighting Style: Tactical

[MarkB]

Sounds like it'd make a great Fighter dip for an Artificer.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

I don't want to use the word "realism" because I don't actually care about "realism" in RPGs, especially Dungeons and Dragons, but the idea of applying your Int bonus to every damage roll is lacking in let's call it credibility. You make so many damage rolls it is absurd to rationalize a meaningful tactical decision (such as targeting a weak spot, etc) behind every one of them, and therefore it's very hard to buy that being smart will add to your damage rolls on EVERYTHING just like Dexterity does to your damage rolls with a rapier and Strength does with a mace. One of the things keeping the swords in the sword & sorcery genre for D&D is that physical stats still matter; magic is better/magic always wins is definitely a thing.

Also it's probably broken a bunch of ways /breaks a bunch of things balance-wise but I bet other people have already pointed that out.

If I were to homebrew a fighting style called Tactical, its benefits would probably be more similar (and modeled after) those of the Rogue's Cunning Action class feature.

 

[Blue]

I think I would rather do something like:

If you spend a round studying an opponent, you can add your int modifier (in addition to your str/dex modifier) to your damage rolls for your next 2 attacks against that target.

I think that would need to be a lot stronger, right now it's a bit of a trap option.

First, who knows if it will still be alive to take advantage of it - your PC isn't the only one dishing out damage.

Second, denying it actions by killing it sooner is stronger then killing it later.

Third, +INT extra damage, if you hit, on two attacks, is about + 1.3 * INT expected damage with the standard 65% chance to hit. That will be much less than expected damage from a single attack for most martial characters.

Fourth, you may not only be giving up a single attack in a round, you are likely giving up multiple, so it's many times worse.

Fifth, by having that round where you aren't taking the Attack action, it also means there are a number of bonus actions you might have that can't be taken.

 

[Blue]

I don't want to use the word "realism" because I don't actually care about "realism" in RPGs, especially Dungeons and Dragons, but the idea of applying your Int bonus to every damage roll is lacking in let's call it credibility. You make so many damage rolls it is absurd to rationalize a meaningful tactical decision (such as targeting a weak spot, etc) behind every one of them, and therefore it's very hard to buy that being smart will add to your damage rolls on EVERYTHING just like Dexterity does to your damage rolls with a rapier and Strength does with a mace. One of the things keeping the swords in the sword & sorcery genre for D&D is that physical stats still matter; magic is better/magic always wins is definitely a thing.

But by the same logic, with armor increasing AC and STR adding to bonus to hit, it's "absurd to rationalize powering through full armor on every one of them without any accuracy, and therefore it's very hard to buy that being strong will add to your attack rolls on EVERYTHING". No matter how accurate I am with a rapier that has no affect at all on my chance to attack with a longsword, and no matter how bad my aim and reflexes, as long as I throw hard enough my thrown javelin will connect.

While I have different reservations about it, STR only to hit is so unbelievable that some other ability that can credibly affect damage at least some of the time is way ahead of it.

 

[Esker]

I think that would need to be a lot stronger, right now it's a bit of a trap option.

It'd definitely be the True Strike of fighting styles.

 

[DND_Reborn]

First off, thanks to all for the responses! I love getting home from work and finding multiple posts.

From some of the posts, I think there is some confusion maybe? The style default is to allow the Fighter to use his Intelligence modifier for attack rolls, not damage.

Now, maybe those posts were addressing the optional house-ruled bonus action? We added bonus action or reaction abilities to all the fighting styles, so I included it for that reason. But my focus is on the main description of the Fighting Style.

I added something to the fighter in both 4e and 5e that allows any mental attribute to be used as your initiative stat (call it battle ready).

I would like tactical maneuvers for the Battlemaster as the next step similar to how the Battlemaster has Charisma mods

We already house-rule Initiative can be a Dex, Int, or Wis check (player's choice).

I think I would rather do something like:

If you spend a round studying an opponent, you can add your int modifier (in addition to your str/dex modifier) to your damage rolls for your next 2 attacks against that target.

That sounds more like a feat than a Fighting Style, but the idea has merit as feat maybe.

My goal, obviously, is to increase the potential value of Intelligence to Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. By extension, other classes might add a bit to favor a dip into those classes for a couple levels, which I am fine with.

Actually, in reviewing the Fighting Styles, maybe a feat would be better.

Tactician
Once during your turn, when you take the Attack action, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll and damage when you attack with a weapon or make an unarmed strike.

I'll update the OP with this idea. Thoughts on the feat?

 

[Esker]

But by the same logic, with armor increasing AC and STR adding to bonus to hit, it's "absurd to rationalize powering through full armor on every one of them without any accuracy, and therefore it's very hard to buy that being strong will add to your attack rolls on EVERYTHING". No matter how accurate I am with a rapier that has no affect at all on my chance to attack with a longsword, and no matter how bad my aim and reflexes, as long as I throw hard enough my thrown javelin will connect.

While I have different reservations about it, STR only to hit is so unbelievable that some other ability that can credibly affect damage at least some of the time is way ahead of it.

I'm on record here as being decidedly anti-simulationist, but if stepping away entirely from the game balance aspect, this is absolutely true. I wonder what would happen if you just got rid of the finesse property and had DEX governing to-hit for all weapons, and STR affecting damage for all weapons except crossbows (and you got rid of the crossbow expert feat). A lot more rogues would use crossbows, I guess, though they don't care all that much about their static damage bonus after a point. But I kind of like the strategic tradeoffs inherent in having to decide whether your character is going to to hit harder or more often.

 

[Esker]

Tactician
Once during your turn, when you take the Attack action, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll and damage when you attack with a weapon or make an unarmed strike.

I'll update the OP with this idea. Thoughts on the feat?

It'd be a must have for Arcane Tricksters, that's for sure.

 

[bedir than]

As there isn't a fighting style that boosts Initiative, I would be tempted for the Tactical Style to add INT to Initiative, as well as allow the character to choose to delay their action.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As there isn't a fighting style that boosts Initiative, I would be tempted for the Tactical Style to add INT to Initiative, as well as allow the character to choose to delay their action.

There are other features that allow you to add INT to Initiative, but I suppose for Fighters this would be a great boon if you favor frontloading your nova abilities. Otherwise, as a pet peeve of mine, I have never valued Initiative highly since after the initial action, it is just a "I go, you go, I go, you go" thing... so I would rather see something you will benefit from every round, not just the first.