D&D 5E Passive or Active Fighting Styles?

[Shiroiken]

I like the idea of passive then active. A small benefit that is always on, followed by a benefit that can be triggered. Unfortunately for the current setup, I think it would upset the balance to do so. Many of the minor benefits from the equivalent feats would be useful to add (such as drawing and stowing an additional weapon with TWF)

 

[Garthanos]

4E had similar problems with some optimised builds using feats. An optimised 4E character was more boring to play than a normal 4E character.

Situational abilities that have some Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock kind of balance is what I like to think of. But yes the ability to over optimize has repercussions. In general reducing the benefits from optimizing is only part of it. The active and situational i think needs to be allowed not suppressed.

 

[Minigiant]

I think fighting styles should be passive.
Active is more for feats.

To me, you should default to DM rulings for active combat actions. And then the DM/Group can choose to use feats as an option to replace some DM rulings.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problems with Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are the biggest example. If something is at will it's hard to balance. ...The problem is when you can create a clear and optimal strategy to follow.

It's the difference between having only one option, and having a number of options, one of which is always the best: no difference, at all, really.

Since any given at-will option is always available to compete with every other at-will option, they're most susceptible.

(I'm pretty sure I'm just agreeing with you, there.)

4E had similar problems with some optimised builds using feats. An optimised 4E character was more boring to play than a normal 4E character.

Those builds were usually strikers, which, IMB, make's 'em boring, anyway, from the start.

And of course 3E has its' trip builds and the like - and power attack was an issue then also.

Power Attack at least could be a bit situational. And, yeah, trip builds were cheesy and illustrate the issue perfectly - it makes no sense that tripping is always the best thing for you to do vs anything you can trip, at all - but, damn, with Reach & WWA, they were more fun than Fighters could legally have had before, nor even, mostly, since.

5E seems to recognise this everywhere other than with feats.

And the Champion Fighter (a prime consumer of feats, afterall), and the few other non-spell-casting sub-classes, of course. In a way, it doesn't acknowledge it, at all - 5e's 6-8 encounter/day is a way of sweeping the issue under the Rug (of Smothering). Nope, your DPR's'll average out about the same over the day, it's fine. Everything's fine. We're all fine... here.... thanks - how are you?

13th Age clearly recognises this. There is almost no way to reliably do a maneuver every round in 13th Age. Flexible attacks are divisive but they do solve this problem.

The 13A fighter manages a similar result, though, by randomly determining the maneuver for you.

 

[Don Durito]

Situational abilities that have some Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock kind of balance is what I like to think of. But yes the ability to over optimize has repercussions. In general reducing the benefits from optimizing is only part of it. The active and situational i think needs to be allowed not suppressed.

This is why I don't mind the Battlemaster too much. Sure, Precise Strike and Riposte may be clearly the best, and you may use them the most, but having others to choose from means they will see use too. If you find yourself fighting on the edge of a cliff, or a crumbling bridge Pushing Attack is going to come to the fore. While Riposte is only useful if you're actually being attacked, if that's not happening, might want to try goading attack.

Goading attack is more interesting to me than the cavalier's always on mark precisely because you have to weigh it against other options (For a similar reason the later 4E berserker was my favourite defender).

I'd still prefer is there was some upgrading of maneouvres by level mind.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'd still prefer is there was some upgrading of maneouvres by level mind.

There is sort of already upgrading built in via three methods:

1. you get more maneuvers
2. the save DC goes up as your ability and proficiency increase
3. the superiority die size increases

But, I understand your point.

 

[Garthanos]

It's the difference between having only one option, and having a number of options, one of which is always the best: no difference, at all, really.

Since any given at-will option is always available to compete with every other at-will option, they're most susceptible.

(I'm pretty sure I'm just agreeing with you, there.)

Those builds were usually strikers, which, IMB, make's 'em boring, anyway, from the start. Power Attack at least could be a bit situational. And, yeah, trip builds were cheesy and illustrate the issue perfectly - it makes no sense that tripping is always the best thing for you to do vs anything you can trip, at all - but, damn, with Reach & WWA, they were more fun than Fighters could legally have had before, nor even, mostly, since. And the Champion Fighter (a prime consumer of feats, afterall), and the few other non-spell-casting sub-classes, of course. In a way, it doesn't acknowledge it, at all - 5e's 6-8 encounter/day is a way of sweeping the issue under the Rug (of Smothering). Nope, your DPR's'll average out about the same over the day, it's fine. Everything's fine. We're all fine... here.... thanks - how are you?The 13A fighter manages a similar result, though, by randomly determining the maneuver for you.

Ack the zero tactics because simplistic random can be balanced gambit yuck yuck yuck. That is probably my number one dislike about 13A...

 

[Garthanos]

Goading attack is more interesting to me than the cavalier's always on mark precisely because you have to weigh it against other options (For a similar reason the later 4E berserker was my favourite defender).

I like brash strike for perhaps similar reasons... you can trade out that extra defense to do damage that is more striker that way too. The 4e mark is subtler advantage in some ways and more dramatic in others as well.

I'd still prefer is there was some upgrading of maneuvers by level mind.

Oh definitely... one could simply add more scaling like multi-target effect your menacing visage (and fearsome stroke) impacts a several nearby enemies who see it = no not bloody 4 attacks that use all of your resources sheesh. Or even yes uses 2 attacks (and still 1 superiority die) in action economy but upgrades it to enemies within 15 feet who can see the attack. A greater cleave uses 2 attacks and 1 superiority die but hits all adjacent enemies and so on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is sort of already upgrading built in via three methods:
1. you get more maneuvers

But, you get them from the same list.

2. the save DC goes up as your ability and proficiency increase
3. the superiority die size increases

So that'd be like the EK getting 3) Higher-level slots, 2) improving save DCs, but 1) only picking from the 1st level spell list, ever.

 

[TwoSix]

Not be an ass, but both. In my ideal world, each fighting style would give 2 benefits. One, a small bonus to your attacks when using certain weapon styles, and two, a useful bonus action related to the fighting style. (TWF style would boost the already present bonus action.)

That would make fighting style more effective at low levels, when a lot of classes don't yet have any useful bonus actions, but still provide a small amount of scaling even when a character acquires a more potent bonus action.