D&D 5E Versatile Fighting Style

[DND_Reborn]

Thanks y'all for some very creative feedback. Felt like attaching a Bonus Action was unnecessary (and unprecedented) but I like to start off underpowered and build from there. Im leaning towards @dnd4vr and their recommendations but eliminating the +1's, so it would look like this

Versatile Weapon Style

When wielding a weapon with the versatile property using two hands you may also add either the finesse or heavy property to the weapon description. Additionally, when wielded two handed you may use your reaction to increase your AC by 1 until the start of your next turn.

Think we're getting there, what do we think gang??

Thanks in advance!

I think it works well, as long as having those properties is meaningful in your games. I added the +1's simply because not many tables make weapon properties really important. But, if it works for you I think it is great!

 

[i_dont_meta]

My only concern (so far) is the implications on Sneak Attack. Now the Rogue w/ 1-level dip in Fighter Sneak Attacks @ 1d10. Is this a game-changer?

 

[NotAYakk]

Thanks y'all for some very creative feedback. Felt like attaching a Bonus Action was unnecessary (and unprecedented) but I like to start off underpowered and build from there. Im leaning towards @dnd4vr and their recommendations but eliminating the +1's, so it would look like this

Versatile Weapon Style

When wielding a weapon with the versatile property using two hands you may also add either the finesse or heavy property to the weapon description. Additionally, when wielded two handed you may use your reaction to increase your AC by 1 until the start of your next turn.

Think we're getting there, what do we think gang??

Reactions should, in general, be in reaction to something. And the effect of spending them should be worth the table time.

Small fiddly bonuses should not involve saying something to the DM each round. That is a waste of table time and attention.

 

[i_dont_meta]

Reactions should, in general, be in reaction to something. And the effect of spending them should be worth the table time.

Small fiddly bonuses should not involve saying something to the DM each round. That is a waste of table time and attention.

Appreciate the feedback, I ALSO was wondering if there needed to be a specific trigger for the reaction, but thought that purposefully leaving it ambiguous felt more in line with established design criteria. But I AM curious what you mean by "worth the table time"...
Also, are you referring to the bonus to AC as a "small fiddly bonus"?

 

[Laurefindel]

Appreciate the feedback, I ALSO was wondering if there needed to be a specific trigger for the reaction, but thought that purposefully leaving it ambiguous felt more in line with established design criteria. But I AM curious what you mean by "worth the table time"...
Also, are you referring to the bonus to AC as a "small fiddly bonus"?

Better not to leave things ambiguous: "When a creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reactions to add +1 to your AC against this attack, potentially causing the attack to miss you."

"Worth the table time" refers to the time a player spends every round asking "I raise my AC by 1, does it still hit?"

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Versatile Fighting Style:

You can Don or Doff a Shield as a bonus action.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My only concern (so far) is the implications on Sneak Attack. Now the Rogue w/ 1-level dip in Fighter Sneak Attacks @ 1d10. Is this a game-changer?

No, not IMO. You are already able to do 1d8 for rapiers, so it is only 1 point of damage more.

A rogue would benefit more from Dueling with a flat +2 damage if that was the concern.

Now, I will caution again about the +1 AC bonus. It might not seem like much, but it makes this a "defensive" style if you allow it to apply to all attacks, even at the cost of a reaction, it is a bit much. You get an offensive boon (choice of finesse or heavy property) and a defensive boon (+1 AC). Seems a bit contradictive.

This is why I suggested the three options and who had to choose which to gain. Also, the cost of a reaction is only really a big deal to rogues IME, who often use it for Uncanny Dodge. Certainly it will stop OA's for the fighters who use it, which IMO means it won't be used often because the possible option for an extra attack (the OA) outweighs the benefit of a +1 to AC depending on the situation...

 

[Laurefindel]

When I look at fighting styles, I always assume the character to either use a shield or a two handed weapon.

Shield is +2 AC but restricts your damage to 1d8
Two handed weapons roughly increase your damage by +2 (some deal 1d10 but have special abilities like reach)

Therefore...
Dueling: +2 damage, +2 AC
Great-weapon fighting: +4 damage (ish)
Defense: +3 AC ~OR~ +1 AC, +2 damage
Two-weapon fighting: +3~+6 damage, but at the cost of a bonus action. Its return also diminishes with multiple attacks.
Protection: +2 AC, impose disadvantage to protect an ally at the cost of reaction.

Versatile (I_dont_meta version): +1 AC (limited to 1 melee attack), +1 damage (d10), finesse or heavy.

For a STR user, you are still better off with a two-handed weapon and defense style. Your Versatile at any case does not bring anything new other than the ability to fight one-handed (without benefits) if need be. I'm not convinced it's worth a -1 to damage and your +1 AC available to all attacks, melee and ranged.

[edit] however, it does allow monks to use the great weapon master feat with spears (which they can already use with DEX). That's the only clear net advantage I can see so far, if feats and multiclassing are allowed.[/edit]

For a DEX user, you are opening up the possibility of a 2-handed with DEX, but 1d10 is still inferior to 1d8+2 that dueling would give you. You do have a 1/turn +1AC, but you sacrificed a shield that would give you a flat +2 AC.

Versatile as a fighting style is a tough nut to crack.
So far, the best proposition I've heard is "when you are wielding a weapon with the versatile quality, you can select a fighting style at the beginning of your turn. You gain this fighting style until your next turn."

 

[Laurefindel]

Now, I will caution again about the +1 AC bonus. It might not seem like much, but it makes this a "defensive" style if you allow it to apply to all attacks, even at the cost of a reaction, it is a bit much. You get an offensive boon (choice of finesse or heavy property) and a defensive boon (+1 AC). Seems a bit contradictive.

Unlike the defense fighting style, if you want the +1 AC, you need to sacrifice the possibility of wearing a shield. So you are at a net -1 AC...

You are on par with 2-handed weapon+defense, but you need to sacrifice reach or slightly better damage (and the flat application of defense's +1 AC). It's a bit better in the hand of a rogue, monk, or quarterstaff wizard, but they don't have fighting styles. And even then, other styles are arguably better should they multiclass.

+1 AC with 2-hand versatile is not broken. It's actually weaker, but it does allow you to use your weapon 1-handed in a pinch...

 

[DND_Reborn]

+1 AC with 2-hand versatile is not broken. It's actually weaker, but it does allow you to use your weapon 1-handed in a pinch...

True, but that wasn't the point. You get the +1 AC (same as defensive style) but also any potential benefits of the finesse/heavy properties (depends on the game of course). For instance in our game, we have house-rules for heavy that makes this style strong. Hence, my words of caution--which is all they were.