Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
After reading over the OP's fighting styles and glancing over some of the comments, I might have a few suggestions.
1) I like the idea for the thrown weapon style. Personally as a DM, I tend to rule that a player can draw as many weapons as they have attacks (seems stupid to me that you can draw and loose an arrow multiple times but not other kinds of weapons). But 5e seems to go towards simplicity, so the increase in damage die just doesn't fit the general feel of 5e (it would be well at home in 3.5).
I would consider having this style instead improve range and accuracy. Double the range of thrown weapons, and increase attack +1 when throwing a weapon. Thrown weapons generally (in my opinion) shouldn't be dealing more damage than when used in melee, but could be used for better accuracy.
2) I see where you're going with the blade torch style, and I like it. You wanna be able to increase the combat effectiveness for humans and others without darkvision since they must sacrifice a weapon or shield to be able to fight in the dark. But let's examine some existing rules and compare.
Normally, improvised weapons deal damage similar to their non-improvised equivalent. A torch is most similar to a club, which deals a 1d4. Also, unless you have the tavern brawler feat, a person can't be proficient with improvised weapons. On top of this, torches already state in their description in the items section that when used as a weapon, they deal 1 point of fire damage.
Using this as a starting point, I might change the fighting style to allow proficiency with lit torches, consider them light weapons, and change their damage to 1d6 bludgeoning plus 1 point of fire damage. This way they are equivalent to a short sword with a little extra fire damage, you could use them with a shield or an offhand weapon, and it allows players to fight in the dark.
I'm trying to think of a way to create a dazzle type effect, but I can't see a way to implement it without really turning this more into a feat than a fighting style.
3) With guerrilla style and skirmisher style, they seem less like fighting styles and more like feats. I say this for a few reasons. First, they offer more mechanical benefits than what the other fighting styles offer. Secondly, they seem to have little to do with combat. A fighting style should confer some benefit to landing blows, dealing damage, avoiding damage, or offering combat related options. Neither guerrilla style nor skirmisher style seem to offer such benefits.
From my perspective, guerrilla fighters strike quickly from hiding, trying to overwhelm in an initial show of force. Therefore, I might say that guerrilla style would allow a +2 to damage when attacking while hidden, and your hiding spot is not automatically given away (though enemies would be entitled to a new perception vs stealth check to find you).
As for a skirmisher, these guys rely on movement. They thrive on quick attacks and getting out. Therefore, an appropriate fighting style might be a +2 to their next attack after moving at least 10ft. Something along those lines.
4) Finally, with Phalanx style, I just don't see the point. Such a style relies too greatly on cooperation given that the Phalanx was a very specialized and regimented type of fighter. The fighting style as it is written is too situational in my opinion.
1) I like the idea for the thrown weapon style. Personally as a DM, I tend to rule that a player can draw as many weapons as they have attacks (seems stupid to me that you can draw and loose an arrow multiple times but not other kinds of weapons). But 5e seems to go towards simplicity, so the increase in damage die just doesn't fit the general feel of 5e (it would be well at home in 3.5).
I would consider having this style instead improve range and accuracy. Double the range of thrown weapons, and increase attack +1 when throwing a weapon. Thrown weapons generally (in my opinion) shouldn't be dealing more damage than when used in melee, but could be used for better accuracy.
2) I see where you're going with the blade torch style, and I like it. You wanna be able to increase the combat effectiveness for humans and others without darkvision since they must sacrifice a weapon or shield to be able to fight in the dark. But let's examine some existing rules and compare.
Normally, improvised weapons deal damage similar to their non-improvised equivalent. A torch is most similar to a club, which deals a 1d4. Also, unless you have the tavern brawler feat, a person can't be proficient with improvised weapons. On top of this, torches already state in their description in the items section that when used as a weapon, they deal 1 point of fire damage.
Using this as a starting point, I might change the fighting style to allow proficiency with lit torches, consider them light weapons, and change their damage to 1d6 bludgeoning plus 1 point of fire damage. This way they are equivalent to a short sword with a little extra fire damage, you could use them with a shield or an offhand weapon, and it allows players to fight in the dark.
I'm trying to think of a way to create a dazzle type effect, but I can't see a way to implement it without really turning this more into a feat than a fighting style.
3) With guerrilla style and skirmisher style, they seem less like fighting styles and more like feats. I say this for a few reasons. First, they offer more mechanical benefits than what the other fighting styles offer. Secondly, they seem to have little to do with combat. A fighting style should confer some benefit to landing blows, dealing damage, avoiding damage, or offering combat related options. Neither guerrilla style nor skirmisher style seem to offer such benefits.
From my perspective, guerrilla fighters strike quickly from hiding, trying to overwhelm in an initial show of force. Therefore, I might say that guerrilla style would allow a +2 to damage when attacking while hidden, and your hiding spot is not automatically given away (though enemies would be entitled to a new perception vs stealth check to find you).
As for a skirmisher, these guys rely on movement. They thrive on quick attacks and getting out. Therefore, an appropriate fighting style might be a +2 to their next attack after moving at least 10ft. Something along those lines.
4) Finally, with Phalanx style, I just don't see the point. Such a style relies too greatly on cooperation given that the Phalanx was a very specialized and regimented type of fighter. The fighting style as it is written is too situational in my opinion.
Last edited:
