D&D 5E New "Fighting Style": Versatile

[JohnnyNitro]

Qwik query on the board's thoughts on Game Balance regarding this potential Fighting Style home-brew:

Versatile--Whilst wielding a Shield and a Versatile weapon you may take -1 to AC til the beginning of your next turn to deal Versatile Damage. Or some such language.

 

[RCanine]

Given that the Duelist fighting style gives you more damage and doesn't penalize AC, I don't see why someone would take this. Here's my thoughts from another thread:

I don't mind this, but it might be better as a fighting style rather than a feat.

Versatile Style

When you attack with a versatile weapon wielded in one hand, you gain a +1 bonus to the attack roll. When you hit with a versatile weapon you are wielding in two hands, add +1 to the damage roll.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/show...ed-Homebrew-Signature&p=19372539#post19372539

Check under the Fighting styles expandable in this guys post. I like their work, even if I'm a little iffy on how some of it is balanced.

 

[Rune]

Much worse than dueling style. +1AC from shield (instead of +2) and an average +1 (max +2, possibly +0) damage compared to a consistent +2.

Personally, I'd rather see a style that gives you a reason to want to switch from one to two hands and vise versa.

Perhaps something like this:

Versatile Fighting

You are skilled in confounding your opponent with a mix of one-handed and two-handed strikes.

When you make an attack with a versatile weapon wielded in one hand after you have made an attack with a vesatile weapon wielded in two hands during the same turn, or when you make an attack with a versatile weapon wielded in two hands after making an attack with a versatile weapon wielded in one hand during the same turn, you add +1 to your attack roll.

 

[PnPgamer]

We need more imaginative than just pluses.
If you attack with a versatile weapon in two handed, the target cant make attacks of oppottunity against you this turn. (Power of the swing disorients or something)
If you attack with a versatile weapon one handed and not hold anything in the other hand, you can attempt a shove action when that enemy provokes an attack of opportunity. This shove, if successful lessens the movement 10 ft, instead of knocking prone or moving the target

 

[Georlik]

I always thought that the advantage of versatile weapons is their binding ability (also hooking and somesuch).
Why not: when you attack with a versatile weapon in one hand - you may perform a Grapple as a bonus action. When you attack with a versatile weapon in two hands - you may perform a Shove as a bonus action.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've had the privilege of studying western martial arts for a while. I'm not saying I'm some kind of badass swordsman but at least I have proficiency with the weapon

Anyway, if you look at a proper bastard sword, when you switch to two hands you can do more damage yes, but the biggest advantage is increased speed and leverage. This is even more the case with a longsword (note, a longsword is *bigger* than a bastard sword. The classical (older editions) one-handed d&d longsword is an "arming sword") where the longer handle gives you even more leverage. This speed and leverage is what leads to higher damage, but also higher increased *defensive* capacity, allowing you to deflect incoming attacks fairly well.

So that's "reality". I'm not really sure how to translate this into gaming terms though. Obviously you already get improved damage with the bigger dice. A +1 to hit, + 1 to AC springs to mind, but then that would be strictly better than defensive (although defensive would allow you to use a shield too).

This is all for 2 handed use. The benefit of being able to use one hand is whatever it is you are doing with your off-hand (shield, dagger etc), so it gives you options. It doesn't work better as a single hand weapon than a proper arming sword, so in my mind the effect would only work when wielding it two handed.

So let's compare balance:

Defensive: +1 AC but +3 with shield
Duelist: + 2 damage, +2 damage + 2 AC with shield
Versatile (2 handed): +1 AC, +1 to hit, slightly bigger damage dice (equivalent to +1 damage) *and* the option of using a shield (ie gaining 1 AC but losing +1 to hit and damage).

Seems balanced to me? Am I right in saying that duelist can use a shield (since it's not a weapon)?

 

[Mirtek]

Seems balanced to me? Am I right in saying that duelist can use a shield (since it's not a weapon)?

Yes, duellist can use a shield.

However you can't just count in the use of a shield when balancing against defensive style.

Many 2h users chose defense since greatweapon style rerolling just is bothersome and slows down combat for a minimal gain

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I've had the privilege of studying western martial arts for a while. I'm not saying I'm some kind of badass swordsman but at least I have proficiency with the weapon

Anyway, if you look at a proper bastard sword, when you switch to two hands you can do more damage yes, but the biggest advantage is increased speed and leverage. This is even more the case with a longsword (note, a longsword is *bigger* than a bastard sword. The classical (older editions) one-handed d&d longsword is an "arming sword") where the longer handle gives you even more leverage. This speed and leverage is what leads to higher damage, but also higher increased *defensive* capacity, allowing you to deflect incoming attacks fairly well.

So that's "reality". I'm not really sure how to translate this into gaming terms though. Obviously you already get improved damage with the bigger dice. A +1 to hit, + 1 to AC springs to mind, but then that would be strictly better than defensive (although defensive would allow you to use a shield too).

This is all for 2 handed use. The benefit of being able to use one hand is whatever it is you are doing with your off-hand (shield, dagger etc), so it gives you options. It doesn't work better as a single hand weapon than a proper arming sword, so in my mind the effect would only work when wielding it two handed.

So let's compare balance:

Defensive: +1 AC but +3 with shield
Duelist: + 2 damage, +2 damage + 2 AC with shield
Versatile (2 handed): +1 AC, +1 to hit, slightly bigger damage dice (equivalent to +1 damage) *and* the option of using a shield (ie gaining 1 AC but losing +1 to hit and damage).

Seems balanced to me? Am I right in saying that duelist can use a shield (since it's not a weapon)?

I like it..... Now let's get WoTC to include it in the next errata

 

[Ancalagon]

Yes, duellist can use a shield.

However you can't just count in the use of a shield when balancing against defensive style.

Many 2h users chose defense since greatweapon style rerolling just is bothersome and slows down combat for a minimal gain

Hmmm

Let's compare with a greatsword.


Defensive greatsword: 2d6 dgm, +1 AC
Versatile 2-handed longsword: 1d10 dmg + 1 to hit + 1 AC

I *think* that's balanced? 2d6 dmg = 7 average, while 1d10 = 5.5. You sacrifice 1.5 damage for a +1 to hit.

Incidentally, how good is the other style? It works particularly well with greatsword I believe because there are 2 dice.

(edit: this is wrong, rolled a 1 on math)

Average damage on "normal" 1d6 = 3.5

The reroll on a 1-2 replaces the damage value of 1 or 2 with well, a 2nd roll which has an average value of 3.5. This means that the new average can be calculated to be approx. (3.5 + 3.5 + 3 + 4 +5 + 6)/6 = 5.04 (let's say 5).

So the average damage of a greatsword wielding thus becomes *10*! Minimal gain?!? Heck no!


(btw, on a d12 the average goes from 6.5 to 7.3, so clearly this is far superior with a greatsword vs great axe)