D&D 5E Passive or Active Fighting Styles?

[DND_Reborn]

But, you get them from the same list.
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.

The EK is not the BM and they are balanced against each other in different ways. I wouldn't try comparing the two, they are separate things. While the EK gets higher level spells, he doesn't get as many as the uses of maneuvers, the EK also has to use action economy for his spells, as were most of the maneuvers are riders to attacks and at higher levels you can use more per turn giving more attacks, etc. Also, maneuvers can usually be used after the attack hits, so you don't have the potential of wasting them.

Also, I forgot to include you get more superiority dice as well, from 4 to 6 eventually. With the 2 short rests per long, that is 2 to 4 more uses per "adventuring day" than the ones you begin with.

Let me ask you all this instead:

1. Do you find the BM maneuvers stop being useful at higher levels?

2. If you answered "Yes" to #1, why? Please be specific and give examples if possible.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

LOL you aren't being an ass, this is basically the Passive to Active vote. Archery is given as an example in the OP.

The problem I have with this, and I was following it for a while--using bonus actions for more active fighting style options--was that there really aren't a lot of uses for bonus actions for Fighters (at least), and not really a lot for Paladins or Rangers, either. Maybe that is okay? I found it too powerful--at least with the direction I was going before...

For example, with the Archery example, when you hit 5th level and get Extra Attack, you would go from one attack per round to as many as three attacks due to the bonus action. Now, our table has tried this with other styles, and our DM found it is just too many attacks at that level.

So, if you have any thoughts, please let me know.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also, I forgot to include you get more superiority dice as well, from 4 to 6 eventually.

Yes. The parallel holds. Casters get more slots, and higher level slots, and access to additional spells to choose from. The Warlock would be a good comparison, too, as all it's slots rise in level & it's short-rest based.
So, imagine a Warlock that only ever got 1st level spells: that's what the BM's coping with by not opening up new/better/different maneuvers, but choosing from the same list his whole career.

1. Do you find the BM maneuvers stop being useful at higher levels?

No. I also don't find that the EK's 1st-level spells stop being useful at higher levels. Shield, for the obvious instance.

That hypothetical Warlock, above, could probably get by pretty well, just throwing EB and up-casting first level spells, too. But it would still be inferior to the real version.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes. The parallel holds. Casters get more slots, and higher level slots, and access to additional spells to choose from. The Warlock would be a good comparison, too, as all it's slots rise in level & it's short-rest based.
So, imagine a Warlock that only ever got 1st level spells: that's what the BM's coping with by not opening up new/better/different maneuvers, but choosing from the same list his whole career.

No, it doesn't. Again, you are comparing completely different things. If you insist on it, the BM, like all Fighters, gets "more power spells" by getting more attack per round. At level 1, you can do one maneuver but at level 11 you can do 3. That is quite an increase in power IMO.

No. I also don't find that the EK's 1st-level spells stop being useful at higher levels. Shield, for the obvious instance.

That hypothetical Warlock, above, could probably get by pretty well, just throwing EB and up-casting first level spells, too. But it would still be inferior to the real version.

So what would make them more powerful and/or useful then? You want them to affect multiple targets or something? Give some examples if you want to contribute meaningfully, otherwise I stand by the four different ways BM maneuvers can improve as you level.

 

[TwoSix]

LOL you aren't being an ass, this is basically the Passive to Active vote. Archery is given as an example in the OP.

The problem I have with this, and I was following it for a while--using bonus actions for more active fighting style options--was that there really aren't a lot of uses for bonus actions for Fighters (at least), and not really a lot for Paladins or Rangers, either. Maybe that is okay? I found it too powerful--at least with the direction I was going before...

For example, with the Archery example, when you hit 5th level and get Extra Attack, you would go from one attack per round to as many as three attacks due to the bonus action. Now, our table has tried this with other styles, and our DM found it is just too many attacks at that level.

So, if you have any thoughts, please let me know.

Well, I'd make the following arguments.

1) The lack of solid bonus actions is what helps make some feats so strong, with Polearm Master being the best example. If you're going to be spending a while at low levels, going VHuman for Polearm Master is really enticing if you're taking any weapon-using class.

2) You don't have to have the bonus action be an attack. In fact, I'd say it shouldn't be generally, except for TWF which is already using it even without the style. Granting bonuses to follow up attacks, giving defense bonuses, or giving allies a bonus are all things that could be tied to the bonus action.

One thing I've been kicking around is getting an attack as a bonus action if you take some other type of action that isn't Attack. Like Defense fighting style might be "Take Dodge as an action, make one weapon attack as a bonus action." Something good at low level, but becomes less useful once you gain Extra Attack. Then have the +1 to AC as the passive bonus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, it doesn't. Again, you are comparing completely different things.

We're comparing short-rest resources that constitute a significant sub-class feature.

So what would make them more powerful and/or useful then?

The point would be to have more maneuvers, that push the envelop of what they already do. They might or might not seem a lot more "powerful" than a baseline maneuver with a bigger CS die (think of the difference between 1st & 4th level spells). But it'd open up more choice and versatility.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, I'd make the following arguments.

1) The lack of solid bonus actions is what helps make some feats so strong, with Polearm Master being the best example. If you're going to be spending a while at low levels, going VHuman for Polearm Master is really enticing if you're taking any weapon-using class.

2) You don't have to have the bonus action be an attack. In fact, I'd say it shouldn't be generally, except for TWF which is already using it even without the style. Granting bonuses to follow up attacks, giving defense bonuses, or giving allies a bonus are all things that could be tied to the bonus action.

One thing I've been kicking around is getting an attack as a bonus action if you take some other type of action that isn't Attack. Like Defense fighting style might be "Take Dodge as an action, make one weapon attack as a bonus action." Something good at low level, but becomes less useful once you gain Extra Attack. Then have the +1 to AC as the passive bonus.

Yeah, coming up with non-attack bonus actions was the best solution I found as I've been typing stuff up. For example, for GWF, the bonus action allows the attacker to shove or knock the target prone. Although an attack, it does no damage and follows the flavor of pushing/shoving someone with a two-handed weapon.

But do you see how even your suggestion makes it OP a bit? Allowing Defense style to have the character gain the benefits of Dodge while still getting in one attack (all they would otherwise have up to level 4) for a bonus action they would not likely use anyway... Now all your enemies have disadvantage to attacking you but you still get an attack in--it is too much (for me, anyway...). Maybe if it allowed you to make an attack as a bonus action but with disadvantage? You are focusing on your defense after all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Chose other bc I want a mix of all three.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We're comparing short-rest resources that constitute a significant sub-class feature.

The point would be to have more maneuvers, that push the envelop of what they already do. They might or might not seem a lot more "powerful" than a baseline maneuver with a bigger CS die (think of the difference between 1st & 4th level spells). But it'd open up more choice and versatility.

Well, can we stick to comparing one aspect of things then?

There are already 16 or so maneuvers, plus more in UA articles IIRC for optional use. At best you can have 9 of them, so 16 seems like a good number to me but if you want more than I am sure more will come eventually.

Would it be too powerful to allow a maneuver selection to be chosen once, roll a single die, but applied to each attack made using your attack action?

For example: if you spend your die on precision attack, you would gain the bonus to each attack made by that attack action.

It seems OP to me, but I am just spit-balling here...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Chose other bc I want a mix of all three.

Sure, make things difficult.