D&D 5E Thoughts about the Protection Fighting Style

[NotAYakk]

If P chance of hitting, % hit increase is (1-P)P/P, aka 1-P. DPR percent increase is gonna be half that ish.

Using dual flametongues shortswords with 20 dex at level 20 against 20 AC is (+11 means hit on 9), so .4*4=1.6 misses*.6 is 24/25 hits * 3d6(10.5) or about 10 DPR from style, plus crits. Bonus action offhand is another 6 DPR.

Dueling with 1 longsword gains 3 per hit on mainhand attacks over TWF, times 4 times .6 is 12*.6 or 7.2 DPR, and less from crits.

GWM gices 8/6 per hit, but weapon deals 3.5 more, or 4.83*2.4 or 11.6 DPR.

If you add in bonus action extra attaxk, it just dominates (before feats). And I assume you do, as it is the base rule.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

If P chance of hitting, % hit increase is (1-P)P/P, aka 1-P. DPR percent increase is gonna be half that ish.

Using dual flametongues shortswords with 20 dex at level 20 against 20 AC is (+11 means hit on 9), so .4*4=1.6 misses*.6 is 24/25 hits * 3d6(10.5) or about 10 DPR from style, plus crits.

Dueling with 1 longsword gains 3 per hit on mainhand attacks over TWF, times 4 times .6 is 12*.6 or 7.2 DPR, and less from crits.

GWM gices 8/6 per hit, but weapon deals 3.5 more, or 4.83*2.4 or 11.6 DPR.

If you add in bobus action extra attaxk, it just dominates (before feats).

Whoa. First off, why would you base it off using two powerful magic weapons? Are you using similar magic weapons in the calculations of the other styles? It's not really clear in your numbers.

I think a more useful analysis is with typical non-magic weapons of the given type associated with the fighting style. Additionally an analysis of each tier as well, as the difference from levels 1, 5, and 11 will give a better impression regarding relative balance in levels that are most often seen in play. Finally, while dueling may lag behind in DPR, the purpose of a fighting style is just just DPR. Dueling provides greater AC and thus impacts survivability as well as DPR. Additionally per the numbers you present, the TWF I proposed is relatively in line with GWF. Additionally, if you include feats in the analysis of TWF you must also take into account GWM, which also provides a bonus attack option as well as increased damage at the cost of accuracy.

Additionally, I have specifically worded the Dual Weapon fighting feat to only provide the addition of the ability modifier on the attack made with a bonus action, reducing the obvious synergy such a feat would have on the TWF style, and thus preventing abuse.

 

[NotAYakk]

All of those where using flametongues. Against a medium AC target it is usually the best choice, and is more xommon that +3 weapons.

I simply started with a 1d6 weapon, and plotted extra damage on top of that. Dueling gets 3 per hit, or 1.8 per swing TWF gets a 10.5 offhand swing per miss, or about 2.4 per swing, plus 6 from offhand. GWF gets 3.5+8/6 per hit, or just under 3 per swing.

Duelinf and GWF damage scales with accuracy. TWF with P(1-P), which peaks at 50% hit rate.

So at 80% hit rate it becomes 2.4 dueling (times 4 is 9.6), almost 4 GWF (times 4 is 16ish), and 1.6 TWF + 8 offhand (times 4 is 14.4).

None of these builds use feats.

Hitting 80% at +11 to hit is AC 16, still plausible at 20.

Superior GWF feat support isn't reflected here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So I've been thinking about the Protection Fighting Style. Like the Defense and Two-Weapon Fighting Styles, it does not scale with the number of attacks or with Action Surge.

To make Protection scale with Extra Attack, and a sort of 'synergy feature,' something like:

When you have Protection Style and Extra Attack, the first time you use Protection Style on a give round, you do not expend your Reaction. For each additional extra attack you gain another 'free' use of the Style.

You could also make it compatible with other protector-themed options, like Sentinel:

When you have both Protection Style and the Sentinel Feat, expending your Reaction to use one of them leaves it available, but only for the use of the other before your next turn begins.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

@Tony Vargas That would certainly work. But I think I'm starting to lean towards not using reactions for this Fighting Style. Each fighting style seems to focus on providing a passive bonus in some way. Dueling give +2 to damage, GWF gives rerolls on 1 or 2, Archery is a flat +2 to attack... none of them seem to require any additional effort from the player outside making attacks.

Likewise the Defense Fighting Style gives a flat +1 to AC. That one doesn't scale with level, but I'm thinking it probably doesn't need to. If bounded accuracy is maintained, it is always relevant and it actually does scale, though it scales with how many attacks come your way, rather than the number you dish out.

So I think an ideal Protection Fighting Style would also be passive in the vein of the Defense Fighting Style. It should scale based on attacks directed at your ally or allies, rather than the attacks you make, and not require any special attention from the fighter. At least not anything more than positioning and fighting, which is the whole point of fighters.

Personally, I really like the idea of providing cover to allies within 5ft of you. It stacks with normal AC, but not with itself (the better cover is taken, rather than combining into superior cover). It also has the benefit of lacking undue complexity (which is in line with the preference towards streamlining and natural language in 5e design philosophy).

But I also like the idea of preventing advantage on attacks against allies within 5ft similar to the Wildhunt shifter ability. That would help in situations such as surprise or against invisible attackers, and prevent things like sneak attack against allies. But I don't think that in itself is robust enough to justify a whole fighting style. On the other end of the spectrum, forcing full disadvantage on attacks against allies within 5ft seems too powerful for a fighting style (even if limited to only one ally within 5ft), especially if we maintain that a Fighting Style ability should be passive and not require action economy expenditure aside from what a fighter is already going to do.

So that's where my thought process is right now:

-Protection should have a passive bonus to an action a fighter would naturally take during combat, even if they did not have the fighting style
-Should not require action economy to activate aside what a fighter will already be doing (thus should not require a reaction or other type of action to activate)
-Should likely scale based on number of attacks directed at a target, rather than number of attacks the fighter can make

 

[Stormonu]

Personally, I think the Defense style would be more in line with the others if it allowed you to add your Proficiency bonus to defense, allowing for some scaling.

I'd also like to see a style - perhaps Dueling - that added your Proficiency bonus to damage. My players are constantly asking me why they don't get to add such a thing to damage when it's added to just about everything else.

 

[Xeviat]

I don't remember where I posted it, but this is what I settled on:

Two-Weapon Fighting Style
When you take the attack action wielding two weapons and miss with your main weapon attacks, you may make one weapon attack with your off-hand weapon for each missed attack. If you hit with your off-hand weapon attacks, you do not add your ability modifier to the damage.

Hmmm ... Is this in addition to the bonus action attack? If so, it's way better. If not, it's a little lower.

65% chance to hit.

Level 1
Great weapon vs TWFing
2d6*+3 (5.83) vs 1d6+3 (5.31), bonus +2.45?

The gap will grow as ability bonus increases.

I still say that the fighting style should allow you to use one-handed weapons (so rogues fight with two daggers or two shortswords, fighters fight with two axes or two longswords). Then have the bonus action attacks scale with extra attack.

Greatsword is 2d6+str; two shortswords would be 1d6+stat +1d6, so even.
GWFing increases to 2d6* (8.33)+Str; two longswords would be 1d8+stat +1d8 (9, slightly more, which is a benefit for the bonus action requirement).

My change requires a 1/round revision to hex/hunter's mark, but I'm okay with that.

I do think you're onto something for protection, though. It should really grant disadvantage on all attacks and advantage on dex saves to the protected ally. The reaction is cool, but I hate how it has to be declared before an attack is rolled; when I have a protection player in my group, I have to start saying "and the orc is going to attack the wizard ..." and wait for the fighter to say if they're defending or not.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Hmmm ... Is this in addition to the bonus action attack? If so, it's way better. If not, it's a little lower.

65% chance to hit.

Level 1
Great weapon vs TWFing
2d6*+3 (5.83) vs 1d6+3 (5.31), bonus +2.45?

The gap will grow as ability bonus increases.

I still say that the fighting style should allow you to use one-handed weapons (so rogues fight with two daggers or two shortswords, fighters fight with two axes or two longswords). Then have the bonus action attacks scale with extra attack.

Greatsword is 2d6+str; two shortswords would be 1d6+stat +1d6, so even.
GWFing increases to 2d6* (8.33)+Str; two longswords would be 1d8+stat +1d8 (9, slightly more, which is a benefit for the bonus action requirement).

My change requires a 1/round revision to hex/hunter's mark, but I'm okay with that.

The way that I play it, the TWF Style does not require the bonus action to use. So technically, a fighter wielding the appropriate weapons can use their bonus action for another attack. But without feat investment, it is limited to max 1d6 weapons.

But I will say I have made SIGNIFICANT changes to my fighters. Action Surge is delayed until level 6, and instead Fighters get a homebrew ability called Shrewd Fighting. It allows a fighter to use their bonus action to attempt a grapple, shove, or disarm. This gives fighters a consistent and reliable bonus action they can use, rather than only those that use TWF or those that have feat investments for bonus action options.

Also, I have adjusted the Great Weapon Fighting Style. Instead of the normal ability, you roll an additional weapon die and drop the lowest, allowing it to come online and be impactful more consistently.

I guess I should communicate these things in the OP. The game I play is a heavily modified homebrew version of 5e, and I know the power curve in my games is higher. But still, despite that I think it' helpful to discuss the mechanics I'm exploring in comparison to normal 5e. Even if the consensus is generally that something I propose is a bit unbalanced, it can still help me make a judgment call regarding whether it will fit in my game, as well as reveal any blindspots I may have regarding potential balance issues or abuse potential.

I do think you're onto something for protection, though. It should really grant disadvantage on all attacks and advantage on dex saves to the protected ally. The reaction is cool, but I hate how it has to be declared before an attack is rolled; when I have a protection player in my group, I have to start saying "and the orc is going to attack the wizard ..." and wait for the fighter to say if they're defending or not.

Yea. I feel like we are getting closer to a Protection Fighting Style that is more interesting, more conceptually consistent with someone trained to protect others, and mechanically similar to what is offered by other fighting styles.

Personally, I think the Defense style would be more in line with the others if it allowed you to add your Proficiency bonus to defense, allowing for some scaling.

I'd also like to see a style - perhaps Dueling - that added your Proficiency bonus to damage. My players are constantly asking me why they don't get to add such a thing to damage when it's added to just about everything else.

I think there's certainly a case for creating ways for fighting styles to scale based on proficiency bonus. But Currently all the bonuses provided by fighting styles are static bonuses. So you would need to redesign each fighting style to take that into account. Alternatively, you could perhaps increase the bonus provided at a later level. Perhaps at level 11 or 13 or something increase them slightly.

 

[NotAYakk]

Personally, I think the Defense style would be more in line with the others if it allowed you to add your Proficiency bonus to defense, allowing for some scaling.

That would break the game. Like, entirely.

@Tony VargasSo I think an ideal Protection Fighting Style would also be passive in the vein of the Defense Fighting Style. It should scale based on attacks directed at your ally or allies, rather than the attacks you make, and not require any special attention from the fighter. At least not anything more than positioning and fighting, which is the whole point of fighters.

I'd lean the other way. Make every fighting style active.

Archer:

• You gain a +2 bonus to hit with ranged weapon attacks.
• Called Shot: When you make a ranged weapon attack you can choose to forgo your proficiency bonus to attack. If you do so, you gain a bonus to your damage roll equal to twice your proficiency bonus.
• Your short range with ranged weapon attacks is doubled, and you ignore partial cover on ranged weapon attacks.

Defence:

• You can choose to calculate your AC as 12+Dex bonus
• Shields grant an additional +1 AC.
• You can expend your reaction for +proficiency AC against one attack. If the attack is ranged, you can only do this if you are wielding a shield.

Dueling:

• When you hit with a thrown or melee weapon in one hand, you deal +2 additional damage.
• You can draw a weapon as part of an attack with it.
• While missed by a melee attack, you can expend your reaction to attack with a 1 handed melee weapon. If you have a hand free, this attack is at advantage.
• When hit by a melee attack while you wield a weapon in one hand, you can expend your reaction to roll with the attack and reduce the damage from the attack by your proficiency bonus plus your shield bonus. If you have one hand free, this reduction is doubled.

GWF:

• When you roll weapon damage with a heavy weapon, roll one extra die and discard the lowest.
• Power Attack: When you make an attack with a melee weapon in both hands, you can forgo your proficiency bonus to attack. If you do so, you gain a bonus to your damage equal to twice your proficiency bonus.
• If a creature within its reach is reduced to 0 HP, or you score a critical hit, you can expend a reaction to make a melee weapon attack with a weapon you are wielding in 2 hands.

Protection:

• When a creature within your reach is attacked, or a creature within your reach attacks, and the target is not you, you can use reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack. If the triggering attack still hits, you reduce the damage by 1d10+proficiency+shield AC bonus damage.
• You can shove as a bonus action with a shield.
• Allies adjacent to you can use your shield bonus to AC. If they are using a shield, they must forgo their own shield bonus to do so.

Note that this merges Thrown, TWF and Dueling style into one.

All of them, except Archery, consume reactions. Most of them partially combine with other styles.

Archery+Dueling is great for a thrower.
Dueling+GWF with a versatile weapon is great.
Protection+Defensive works together, as does Dueling+Protection and Dueling+Defensive.
Both Protection and Defensive work better with a shield, but don't need it. So they can combine with Archery or GWF, or TWF Duelists or 1 hand free Duelists. This matters for Champions and for multiclass builds, so the second style isn't a dead level.

I rolled the -5/+10 feats into Archery and GWF styles, but and they scale with proficiency. (I also grant Barbarians a similar ability tied to reckless attacks). Dueling gets a better reaction than GWF, especially in a one-on-one fight. GWF's cleave consumes your reaction instead of your bonus action.

Defensive offers the option of being a completely unarmored fighter; you basically get studded armor while naked.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

@NotAYakk If that's how you want to do it, more power to you! But such an approach is really contrary to the current 5e design philosophy of reducing complexity. Especially for the fighter class, which many would argue was built to be simplified as a gateway class for beginners. Another concern would be that your proposed fighting styles could be really attractive and thus worth a 1 level fighter dip, which is something I try to dissuade in my games. Your approach is certainly interesting and worth exploring, but for me I'd rather stay on the path I've set for a Protection Fighting Style.