So basically, you'd rather play a character with boring mechanics and interesting aesthetics than a character with boring aesthetics and interesting mechanics.
Weapon-specific fighting styles
- Thread starter Gavin O.
- Start date
So basically, you'd rather play a character with boring mechanics and interesting aesthetics than a character with boring aesthetics and interesting mechanics.
I was going off on a tangent with someone about in what situations +1 AC is or isn't better than +2 damage per hit. He asked me in what situations would a Paladin or Ranger want to have an offensive fighting style, and since it was past 1 in the morning, I was too tired to do more math, so I offered up a generic answer in hopes of getting off the tangent.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
I'm not sure. I don't think I would describe it that way but I'm not really sure how what you are saying is describing it.
I think you want the option for super specialization into a single weapon such that you gain some benefit for not taking a general purpose style that affects multiple weapons. I do not want that to even be an option as the moment super specialization is an option my generalist fighter concept is invalidated. To keep up I will have to specialize and then I will no longer be a generalist. Either that or I am effectively forced to chose to be a less effective fighter because of flavor.
But isn't that already the case though? A generalist fighter can't use both bows and swords to their fullest extent because archery and dueling are separate fighting styles. A generalist fighter can't use a shield to protect his allies while also focusing on protecting themselves since defense and dueling are separate styles. You can't even wield a longsword and plan to switch between wielding it in one hand or two because those are separate fighting styles.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
There you go again with the reducto ad extremum arguments. Just because something is okay in a small measure doesn't mean any measure of it is okay.
I actually would prefer there not be "styles" but I understand why they added them in and that it was more that they needed a cool ability to make the really fightery classes better at combat or some portion of combat than they are. I would have preferred something like Expert Fighter: you gain +1hit and +1 damage with every weapon you are proficient with. No styles or anything.
That said, I am very thankful that they chose to make fighting styles be very broad abilities that affect a large number of weapons at once instead of weapon specialization type abilities where I just get something for a single weapon type. I can still get my generalist fighter feel as there isn't enough fighting style weapon categories to hamper it to much and you can always choose defensive as a general one.
The way the fighting styles exist now leads to interesting aesthetics but boring mechanics. If you want your character to wield a weapon you think is cool, like a war pick, a flail, or whatever weapon was wielded by the last enemy they defeated, you can and you won't be penalized much for it. However it leads to boring mechanics, since in order for the fighting styles to be broad enough to cover every type of weapon, they have to be generic. You can wield a war pick or a flail, but your character will be the same mechanically as a character wielding a longsword or a warhammer.
On the other hand, having weapon-specific fighting styles leads to more interesting mechanics, since the styles themselves are more interesting, but less interesting aesthetics, since now if your character wants to use a specific style they're locked into one of fewer weapons. Now if you want to use a war pick, you have to use the war pick-specific fighting style, but that style will make your character be different and defined by their choice of weapon.
You want to play a generalist fighter who can wield every weapon with skill. I want to play a specialist fighter who is rewarded for their dedication to one type of weapon with specific benefits. There needs to be a way we can coexist.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
There isn't. Though if it was just about making what you genearlish fighting style you chose give a different benefit depending on your weapon I'd still be good with that.
The very idea of a specialist who excels at a single weapon destroys the concept of the guy who is great at all weapons (or in our case a large group of weapons).
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
. . . until the party finds a magic weapon. Its likely to be one that the generalist fighter can use better than the specialist.
The problem is that is extremely table-dependent. In groups where magic items are tailored to the party for example, this is no longer a drawback.
Wiseblood
Adventurer
If weapon styles were tied to the weapon proficiency. Each could have a few key moves and not be locked into such dogmatic instistance as a greatsword must be used with two hands.
Alternatively styles could be disassociated from weapons and become more about movement, positioning, and momentum.
Parrying and/or dodging with a repost.
Neutralizing enemy advantage such as reach, armor and weapons.
This way you wield what you want and fight how you want and can change as you grow. Specializing then becomes about feats.
Alternatively styles could be disassociated from weapons and become more about movement, positioning, and momentum.
Parrying and/or dodging with a repost.
Neutralizing enemy advantage such as reach, armor and weapons.
This way you wield what you want and fight how you want and can change as you grow. Specializing then becomes about feats.
Similar Threads
