5E Basic Fighter - Combat Styles

[Firechanter]

Just prepping a character for a test game, and wondering which combat style to try out. I already picked the Fighter as class; the three other players cover the other classes.

Scores (rolled) are 16, 16, 16, 16, 11, 10
So I figured I'm gonna be a Mountain Dwarf and get the modified scores 18, 10, 18, 11, 16, 15.
[If I had known this before I might have called dibs on the Cleric, but now what's done is done.]

My thoughts on the combat styles:
- Archery: No. This is a Dwarf.
- Defense: Might be good enough to pick up at a later level, but a passive bonus sounds a bit boring to start play with.
- Dueling: what the heck? Why would anyone ever do that?
- Great Weapon Fighting: now it's getting interesting. Obviously, this style benefits from weapons with multiple smaller dice. This is a pity for me, because the dwarviest of weapons, the Greataxe, is arguable the one benefitting the least from this style. I might take a Maul, though.
- Protection: seems mechanically sound, but also rather reactive and boring to play. You place yourself next to your Squishy and stay there. Meh.
- Two-Weapon Fighting: ah, good old AD&D TWF. This might actually be the best choice.

So basically it comes down to GWF vs TWF, it seems. GWF with a Maul would do 2d6+4 and reroll 1s and 2s, while TWF would have to be with Handaxes so we're looking at (1d6+4)x2.
Which one's better?

As I see it, GWF is effectively 2d4+4+4 (~13), except when you manage to get 1s or 2s on your reroll, but this exceed my Math-Fu.
Whereas TWF is effectively 2d6+4+4 (15), so... it's better, isn't it?

However, the Champion gets a second fighting style only at level 10, and it might well be that TWF loses its steam before that. But I'm not sure about the rules here, how Extra Attacks and TWF interact in 5E. Does a Fighter also get additional off-hand attacks, or not?

If you only get 1 off-hand attack no matter what, between levels 5 and 10 (assuming +1 weapons) we're looking at
GWF 4d4+4+4+5+5+1+1 ~ 30
TWF 3d6+5+5+5+1+1+1 ~ 28,5

Hm, not a world of difference, considering GWF will in fact be a bit weaker than that due to occasional poor rerolls.

But what do you think?

[obryn]

I think Protection is the best of the bunch because it actually adds options for you, while the rest are passive bonuses. The downside is that it takes your Reaction, which you'll presumably want for other things, too.

A +1 to AC is more valuable than it seems once you get to the upper ends of the AC boundaries, but still, as you said, completely boring.

GWF and TWF are both offensive styles. GWF starts out slightly weaker but stays more relevant through a campaign, whereas TWF seriously loses steam after the first few levels and might interact weirdly with other Bonus actions. As you mentioned, though, GWF is much better with a 2d6 weapon. I'd definitely go Greatsword or Maul if you go that way; Mauls in particular are very Dwarfy.

[Human Paragon 3]

Note that Dueling says "you wield a weapon in one hand, and no weapon in your other hand." You can wield a shield. This makes it a good style for people that want to balance attack and defense.

[obryn]

Note that Dueling says "you wield a weapon in one hand, and no weapon in your other hand." You can wield a shield. This makes it a good style for people that want to balance attack and defense.
Good point. Dueling is solid. Highly recommended.

[akaddk]

I'd go Dueling. It makes a S&B fighter pretty beastly.

If your primary aim is damage, however, then two shortswords is the go. At lower levels the rogue outdamages the fighter in this aspect but the fighter starts to outpace the rogue from the extra attacks.

[Firechanter]

Good point on the Dueling & Shield bit, I hadn't realized.

[obryn]

If your primary aim is damage, however, then two shortswords is the go.
Only at low levels. After the Fighter gets their second attack, Great Weapon Fighting pulls ahead.

[Prophet_of_Io]

You're dismissing it because you're a dwarf, which is fine and dandy, so I'd say Duelist is the smart choice but Defender and Great Weapon Fighter are the flavorful choices. That said I want to talk about Archery for a second. It probably looses it's value at higher levels but that +2 to attack for extra accuracy is huge in 5e. Starting at +7 when others are +4 or 5. Even when we get the full PHB I can't imagine I'd ever make an archer type character without a one level dip into fighter for the extra buff to hits.

[akaddk]

Even when we get the full PHB I can't imagine I'd ever make an archer type character without a one level dip into fighter for the extra buff to hits.

I see a lot of people mentioning one level dips but the multi-class rules will probably make them think twice. I'm hoping that the stat restrictions will be 15 in a primary ability score making only some combinations viable but even at 14 it will make it difficult to qualify for a lot of them.

[obryn]

I see a lot of people mentioning one level dips but the multi-class rules will probably make them think twice. I'm hoping that the stat restrictions will be 15 in a primary ability score making only some combinations viable but even at 14 it will make it difficult to qualify for a lot of them.
For a Ranger it shouldn't be bad. I think they, like Archer Fighters, use Dex as the gatekeeper.

I don't think it will be a problem, because I expect Rangers to use the same list of styles.

[akaddk]

For a Ranger it shouldn't be bad. I think they, like Archer Fighters, use Dex as the gatekeeper.

I don't think it will be a problem, because I expect Rangers to use the same list of styles.

Well it doesn't go by what the character has though. The primary abilities for a fighter, I'm guessing based on the saving throw proficiencies, will be Strength and Constitution. This makes it very difficult for an archer type fighter to multiclass with, say, a rogue who has Dexterity & Intelligence. If the minimum required to multiclass is even 14, then that'd mean you'd need a 14 in Str, Dex, Con & Int.

Of course, not having seen what the multiclass rules actually are they could be piss-easy like a 14 in just Strength for the Fighter and Dexterity for the Rogue. I'd be disappointed if it was as low an entry requirement as that though.

[Sartharina]

I don't think Duelist is supposed to be used Sword+Board style.

I think it's intended to be used primarily by Dexterity-based fighters as a viable way to play swashbuckling characters like Inigo Montoya and Robin Hood, and especially as a backup style for Archers. Fighters do not pigeonhole themselves into one weapon style anymore.

Also - a 14 is not "Piss-easy", given that 15's the highest you can point-buy, and a 14's just 2 points shy of that - and likely in an off-stat.

If the multiclass rules are the same as in the last playtest, it requires a 15 (9 points from 8) in one stat for SAD classes (Cleric and Wizard), or a 13 in two stats for MAD classes (10 points from 8) - and those are unlikely to be stats important for your starting class.

[Balyano]

As I see it, GWF is effectively 2d4+4+4 (~13), except when you manage to get 1s or 2s on your reroll, but this exceed my Math-Fu.
Whereas TWF is effectively 2d6+4+4 (15), so... it's better, isn't it?

This will consist of rambling since I'm barely awake right now.

Treat the rerolls as the average roll for the die. So the 1's and 2's are effectively 3.5s.
Thus the average damage for a GWF maul before adding modifiers becomes
(3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6 x 2 = 8.333.........

TWF gets you 7 before modifiers

GWF = 8.333 + 4 str = 12.333...
TWF = 7 + (4 str x 2) = 15

Dueling with a 1d8 gets
1d8 + 4 str + 2 = 10.5

so GWF goes from 11 > 12.333...
TWF from 11 > 15
Dueling from 8.5 > 10.5

From what I remember TWF doesn't gain any more attacks from level, so it falls behind.
Each additional attack with TWF adds 7.5 damage, each attack with GWF adds 12.333..., each attack with Dueling adds 10.5, so with the first additional attack the GWF does 24.666..., TWF does 22.5, Dueling does 21

[Friv]

Also - a 14 is not "Piss-easy", given that 15's the highest you can point-buy, and a 14's just 2 points shy of that - and likely in an off-stat.

If the multiclass rules are the same as in the last playtest, it requires a 15 (9 points from 8) in one stat for SAD classes (Cleric and Wizard), or a 13 in two stats for MAD classes (10 points from 8) - and those are unlikely to be stats important for your starting class.

It's pretty easy if you're human, but tricky if you're a race that doesn't have a bonus in those stats. Using starting array, a human's at 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9; they can have a 16 in their main class stat, a 15 in the stat of the class they want to multiclass into, and a 13 in four of their six stats, making it pretty trivial.

If you aren't human, you've only got 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 - but if your +2 or +1 is in your multiclass stat, just stick your 13 or 14 there and you're set. If it isn't, but your +2 is your prime stat, you can always stick your 15 in your multiclass stat, and your 14 in your prime stat, without much penalty. Two 13s is still simple, since there's not much chance you won't want your three best stats to be in your primary and multiclass stat focuses.

[obryn]

Well it doesn't go by what the character has though. The primary abilities for a fighter, I'm guessing based on the saving throw proficiencies, will be Strength and Constitution. This makes it very difficult for an archer type fighter to multiclass with, say, a rogue who has Dexterity & Intelligence. If the minimum required to multiclass is even 14, then that'd mean you'd need a 14 in Str, Dex, Con & Int.

Of course, not having seen what the multiclass rules actually are they could be piss-easy like a 14 in just Strength for the Fighter and Dexterity for the Rogue. I'd be disappointed if it was as low an entry requirement as that though.
From what I've heard, because of how Archer Fighters were a design goal, it's 15 Strength or Dexterity. Otherwise, with the "must qualify for both" multiclassing rules, Archer Fighters could never multiclass.

[Prophet_of_Io]

From what I've heard, because of how Archer Fighters were a design goal, it's 15 Strength or Dexterity. Otherwise, with the "must qualify for both" multiclassing rules, Archer Fighters could never multiclass.

Even with the ability qualifiers if you needed, say a 15 in str to qualify for fighter but a 15 in dex for something like Ranger you could always start in fighter then switch to Ranger, no? Again now I'm just speculating and getting off topic but we don't know exactly how they've tuned multi-classing yet. Either way I can't imagine it would be that hard to balance a Fighter/Ranger. A GISH class, sure you may have to spread your stats a bit but that should be expected.

edit-In my above example I'm assuming you're building towards an archery character where you have a 15 in dex already but only a 12+ in str.

[obryn]

Even with the ability qualifiers if you needed, say a 15 in str to qualify for fighter but a 15 in dex for something like Ranger you could always start in fighter then switch to Ranger, no?
Per the Basic set, you need to qualify for both classes - the one you're in, and the one you want to get into.

[rlc]

Yeah, but the big question is what the qualifications will be for each class. Obviously, wizards will be intelligence, rogues will be dexterity and bards will be charisma, but we don't know what the magic number is. Then, you have fighters with str or dex, rangers with...that's the questions. Will they need wisdom for their spellcasting stat and their tracking? Will they need dexterity for fighting? Will it even be worth it to dip fighter if rangers already get ranged combat proficiency? We don't know any of these things right now.

[Yuukale]

The best scenario for archery so far is Rogue5/Fighter15

You get Assassinate and 2d6 Sneak Attack from Rogue + 2 Extra Attacks (and 1 action surge per short rest) not to count on Superiority Dice used in maneuvers.

There`s no way that Rangers can top that off. Course, they offer some nice group stuff and their volley is sweet if combined again with a rogue`s assassinate, but against single targets the fighter is clearly superior.

[Sartharina]

Against single targets relying strictly on martial prowess the fighter is superior. Which isn't a problem. The ranger has other abilities, like spellcasting. Right?

[Firechanter]

That said I want to talk about Archery for a second. It probably looses it's value at higher levels but that +2 to attack for extra accuracy is huge in 5e.

Yeah it seems like quite the head-start. After all, that's 8 levels worth of Proficiency progression.
In fact, if NPCs used the same rules as PCs (which apparently they don't), a small troop of 1st-level archers could take down a Dragon (of any colour) within a couple of rounds. Going by the playtest Bestiary, that is.



This will consist of rambling since I'm barely awake right now.

Treat the rerolls as the average roll for the die. So the 1's and 2's are effectively 3.5s.
Thus the average damage for a GWF maul before adding modifiers becomes
(3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6 x 2 = 8.333.........

TWF gets you 7 before modifiers

GWF = 8.333 + 4 str = 12.333...
TWF = 7 + (4 str x 2) = 15

Dueling with a 1d8 gets
1d8 + 4 str + 2 = 10.5


Thanks for doing the math, that makes sense!

[Yuukale]

Against single targets relying strictly on martial prowess the fighter is superior. Which isn't a problem. The ranger has other abilities, like spellcasting. Right?

Well, if we're talking about out-of-combat capabilities, the Ranger gets the trophy by a huge margin, but its combat spellcasting could be better. Hunter's Mark would be WAY better if it scaled with level. If I cast it in a 5th level slot it'd grant me 5d6.

Now THAT would make the ranger a better competitor against the fighter. Swift quiver is good, but you can only cast it 2 times/day by level 18. 4 Levels of rogue sounds like a better deal.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah it seems like quite the head-start. After all, that's 8 levels worth of Proficiency progression.
In fact, if NPCs used the same rules as PCs (which apparently they don't), a small troop of 1st-level archers could take down a Dragon (of any colour) within a couple of rounds. Going by the playtest Bestiary, that is.


I kinda want to make a TWF/Archery (level 10 Fighter Archetype gives second choice) Heavy Armor Dwarf Fighter who throws handaxes.

Ability scores...

Str: 14 (+2 race) +2 (4th) +2 (6th): 20
Dex: 15 +1 (8th): 16
Con: 12 (+2 race): 14
Int: 10
Wis: 13 +1 (8th): 14
Cha: 8

Prof: +4

I can...

Use a bow (long range): +9 to hit (W+3, W+3 damage)
TWF (melee): +9 to hit (1d6+5, 1d6+5, 1d6+5 damage)
TWF (ranged): +11 to hit ( 1d6+5, 1d6+5, 1d6+5 damage)


Critical: 19-20

Extra attack added... I'll deal with action surge later.

I would need a set of returning handaxes or just a crap ton of them... AC wouldn't be the highest but it would be respectable. To bad in the basic pdf you have to have two light weapons to TWF :/ .

But I like the fighter's ability to kill stuff :D, now we just need cool things to do with this ability to kill stuff and we will be set.

[akaddk]

Yeah it seems like quite the head-start. After all, that's 8 levels worth of Proficiency progression.
In fact, if NPCs used the same rules as PCs (which apparently they don't), a small troop of 1st-level archers could take down a Dragon (of any colour) within a couple of rounds. Going by the playtest Bestiary, that is.

Monsters have been beefed up a lot from the last playtest. There's talk of some monsters having in excess of 1k hit points and at least one confirmed to have around 500. Still, it wouldn't be impossible for a small army of 1st-level archers to take out an ancient wyrm simply due to bound accuracy. Now whether or not the army survives long enough to take it out is another question entirely :)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Monsters have been beefed up a lot from the last playtest. There's talk of some monsters having in excess of 1k hit points and at least one confirmed to have around 500. Still, it wouldn't be impossible for a small army of 1st-level archers to take out an ancient wyrm simply due to bound accuracy. Now whether or not the army survives long enough to take it out is another question entirely :)

I actually like it that an army can take out a dragon if the dragon doesn't use tactics.

Even if it is 10 villages banding together with a total of 1,000 bows shooting. Sure an ancient wyrm may win due to tactics but a younger dragon may rush in head first and get slaughtered.

Edit:

This makes it so that heroes aren't needed for survival but for conveinance. Sure an army can take out the threat but a tactical strike force (adventurers) will save soldier lives and cost less.

This also keeps he world from being overly reliant on adventurers which I see as a problem with 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e.

[Envyus]

I actually like it that an army can take out a dragon if the dragon doesn't use tactics.

Even if it is 10 villages banding together with a total of 1,000 bows shooting. Sure an ancient wyrm may win due to tactics but a younger dragon may rush in head first and get slaughtered.

Edit:

This makes it so that heroes aren't needed for survival but for conveinance. Sure an army can take out the threat but a tactical strike force (adventurers) will save soldier lives and cost less.

This also keeps he world from being overly reliant on adventurers which I see as a problem with 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e.

Plus even a hundred commoners attacked a young dragon. Getting breathed on by the Young Green from the packet is scary enough that I would have them start running away if it did because that would kill a lot of them.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Plus even a hundred commoners attacked a young dragon. Getting breathed on by the Young Green from the packet is scary enough that I would have them start running away if it did because that would kill a lot of them.

Thing is, they would know they have nowhere to go. It is either fight and die with the possibility to get rid of the evil or run away and die.

Humans become really really brave in numbers.

[Xefas]

Thing is, they would know they have nowhere to go. It is either fight and die with the possibility to get rid of the evil or run away and die.

Humans become really really brave in numbers.

When a story is told of many weak mortals overcoming a great evil, we say things like "Humans, small and frail though they may be individually, possess great, foolhardy, heroic courage and, in numbers, can band together and become so much more than the sum of their parts. When men stand together, even the demons and dragons of the world give pause."

And when a story is told of a great evil raining destruction upon the masses that stand against them, as the mortals flee for their lives like mice, we say things like "Humans, in their hubris, believe themselves mighty, believe themselves brave, believe themselves masters of their world. But this world was claimed long before their feeble limbs scuttled from the muck, and when the ancient beast of fire, lord of the land for generations beyond counting, roared his displeasure, the earth shook, and the sky broke, and the hearts of men failed."

Humans have the capacity to be brave and cowardly, smart and stupid, strong and weak, at any time in any circumstance for any situation because of any reason. Whether a bunch of inbred dirt farmers can band together and steel themselves before dragon-fire, or a bunch of hardy, grizzled peasants are overwhelmed by primal fear that ends in their total, potentially preventable, annihilation, depends entirely on what story you're telling.

Often times, the latter happens first, so the former is that much more satisfying. And, in D&D, in my experience, the former is usually where the PCs are meant to come in.

[akaddk]

Humans become really really stupid in numbers.

Fixed it for my opinion.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

When a story is told of many weak mortals overcoming a great evil, we say things like "Humans, small and frail though they may be individually, possess great, foolhardy, heroic courage and, in numbers, can band together and become so much more than the sum of their parts. When men stand together, even the demons and dragons of the world give pause."

And when a story is told of a great evil raining destruction upon the masses that stand against them, as the mortals flee for their lives like mice, we say things like "Humans, in their hubris, believe themselves mighty, believe themselves brave, believe themselves masters of their world. But this world was claimed long before their feeble limbs scuttled from the muck, and when the ancient beast of fire, lord of the land for generations beyond counting, roared his displeasure, the earth shook, and the sky broke, and the hearts of men failed."

Humans have the capacity to be brave and cowardly, smart and stupid, strong and weak, at any time in any circumstance for any situation because of any reason. Whether a bunch of inbred dirt farmers can band together and steel themselves before dragon-fire, or a bunch of hardy, grizzled peasants are overwhelmed by primal fear that ends in their total, potentially preventable, annihilation, depends entirely on what story you're telling.

Often times, the latter happens first, so the former is that much more satisfying. And, in D&D, in my experience, the former is usually where the PCs are meant to come in.

The problem is that D&D had ran on one side of the hero setting since the beggining (more or less) where the people of the world have no way of defending themselves unless Keanu Reeves shows up.

Which is a pretty messed up way to create a world and one of the reasons people don't like Keanu Reeves movies, he is always the only one that can save the day (that and some of them suck).

You take out so much story and plot if the people of the world can't defend themselves. It is a damn shame so much is going to waste.

Basically I want d&d to stop making PCs be Keanu Reeves and start letting them be heroes the way they want to be (which can be Keanu Reeves).

Low level: Oh a dragon is coming? The army will deal with it, you PCs are needed to find the traitor within our gtoup that is helping the dragon.

Mid Level: Oh a dragon is coming? The army will deal with it, our scouts have said that a bunch of rust monsters are on their way... If they get to us then we will be defenseless.

With the old way, there is no real reason for PCs to believe that the army can take on a dragon. In 5e there is at least a possibility that the army can.

If the group of 5 PCs want to take on the dragon then that could be an option but it shouldn't always be the only option.


Fixed it for my opinion.

*rolls eyes*

Because in the context of the situation (army versus dragon) it is stupid to stand up to the big bad threat in order to save the lives of the ones you love... Sure.

[akaddk]

*rolls eyes*

Because in the context of the situation (army versus dragon) it is stupid to stand up to the big bad threat in order to save the lives of the ones you love... Sure.
Huh? I honestly didn't even make that connection. I just think people are stupid and that stupid tends to multiply exponentially when people gather into groups.

[Fwiffo86]

Just throwing this out there for the multi-class discussion. Isn't there the concept that when you multi-class into something, what you pick up isn't as powerful or modified in some way?

e.g.) Picking up Sneak attack would be 1d4 instead of 1d6 or never getting beyond 1d6.

I know that you use a modified table for multiple caster classes that flattens both castings a bit or something similar.

It basically sounds to me like they are trying really hard to discourage dipping at all. Either you take a couple of classes and keep them very close in level to each other, or you cause yourself nothing but problems.

---- EDIT -----

I remember a Druid in a party I played with once that was stripped of his powers because he multiclassed. There was a whole vision of his Nature god basically saying "If what I provide is not enough for you, then I shall take it back". Which then forced the druid onto this long quest for redemption... It was awesome.

[1337 b4k4]

The problem is that D&D had ran on one side of the hero setting since the beggining (more or less) where the people of the world have no way of defending themselves unless Keanu Reeves shows up.

This really isn't quite true. Early editions of D&D assumed that NPCs of at least the firs 3 levels were fairly common, and they did assume that kingdoms had standing armies and such. Admittedly over time as PCs became more powerful relative to the world around them, that fell by the wayside, but at least up through BECMI, PCs were hardly unique or special until at least level 5 if not higher.


Because in the context of the situation (army versus dragon) it is stupid to stand up to the big bad threat in order to save the lives of the ones you love... Sure.

It does depend on the army. One of the problems with the "army of commoners vs dragon" analysis is that it fails to take into account how unreliable irregular armies tend to be. While the "defending your home" angle would bolster morale, people can be awful brave in groups up to the point where bodies start falling. That's part of the reason why the original morale rules called for a morale check the first time a combatant on a side died.

[obryn]

I will posit that 5e is not a game of peasant-army-on-dragon combat and should not be relied upon to simulate it.

[Fwiffo86]

I will posit that 5e is not a game of peasant-army-on-dragon combat and should not be relied upon to simulate it.

I agree. If you still have the Rules Cyclopedia, check out the mass combat rules. We found that they break down quite easily.

eg) 100 naked human men vs. 10 green dragons.

Combat results: Green dragons win, but take 90% casualties. All we could think of is that the naked men ran up and jumped on the dragons. And the dragons were all "BOB GET IT OFF GET IT OFF!!!" and were clawing each other to death.

Basically... D&D was adapted from a mass combat system in the first place, catered to the individuals. In essence, it should never simulate mass combat well at all.

[TrexPushups]

I like the idea of large groups being able to take down the big scary dragon.

It lets you replicate the "heroes show the villagers their strength when they raise a militia to stand up to the dragon."

It is a story told in numerous action and adventure shows.

[Morty]

I will posit that 5e is not a game of peasant-army-on-dragon combat and should not be relied upon to simulate it.

I'm not so sure about that. D&D characters and creatures always reach a point, sooner or later, where facing down a few dozen or a hundred rank-and-file warriors or creatures is something they can reasonably do. It would be nice if an edition finally managed to include working rules and guidelines for it.

[Lacrimosa]

Optional style I saw in Hero Lab but decided it was way to broken to be allowed to use it as a Polearm Master/Sentinel for GM to ever allow use.
Tunnel Fighter
You excel at defending narrow passages, doorways, and other tight spaces. As a bonus action, you can enter a defensive stance that lasts until the start of your next turn. While in your defensive stance, you can make opportunity attacks without using your reaction, and you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against a creature that moves more than 5 feet while within your reach
While I like it but unlimited attacks of Opportunity are just a little bit overpowered so I decided to fix it here's what I've come up with

Stand Your Ground
Prerequisite: Reach Weapon

Through training you have become a master of
Standing Your Ground. As a bonus action,
you may enter a defensive stance, while using
this stance you gain bonus Attacks of Opportunity
against targets that move 5' while in your Reach.
gain additional bonuses 2 at 7th and 3 at 15th

Took what I liked in Tunnel Fighter and decided to try to make it a little less broken but still good also wanted it to be able to scale with level

Thoughts?

[xanderh]

Optional style I saw in Hero Lab but decided it was way to broken to be allowed to use it as a Polearm Master/Sentinel for GM to ever allow use.
Tunnel Fighter
You excel at defending narrow passages, doorways, and other tight spaces. As a bonus action, you can enter a defensive stance that lasts until the start of your next turn. While in your defensive stance, you can make opportunity attacks without using your reaction, and you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against a creature that moves more than 5 feet while within your reach
While I like it but unlimited attacks of Opportunity are just a little bit overpowered so I decided to fix it here's what I've come up with

Stand Your Ground
Prerequisite: Reach Weapon

Through training you have become a master of
Standing Your Ground. As a bonus action,
you may enter a defensive stance, while using
this stance you gain bonus Attacks of Opportunity
against targets that move 5' while in your Reach.
gain additional bonuses 2 at 7th and 3 at 15th

Took what I liked in Tunnel Fighter and decided to try to make it a little less broken but still good also wanted it to be able to scale with level

Thoughts?

I think you should have checked the posting date of the thread, and made your own thread. This thread is from 2014. Making your own thread about that fighting style would have been a much better choice.

[TheProfessor85]

Taking the Duel Wielder feat into consideration and you net a plus +1 to AC while dual wielding and you d6 handaxes can become d8 battleaxes

Edit: lol just noticed the date thing

[Malifice]

- Dueling: what the heck? Why would anyone ever do that?

You can use a shield and get the +2 bonus to damage with a weapon in the other hand.

[djreynolds]

If archery style opens up options with a 16 in dex, now your bonus to hit is equal to that of a 20 dex. But you took a 10, so no

I like dueling style, +2 damage bonus, same as having an 18 in strength.

Protection is good, but is team dependent.

Defensive style is nice for GW fighters, half a shield. And for me, this leaves all weapon options viable

TWF is great if that is your stylistic approach, aka Drizzt.

I like GWS.

For me in a strength based build, are you using GW or S&B? Since it is an action to switch out a shield, that to me is significant in battle. And shield master is a good feat.

And of course there is always magic weapons to add to this, I'm a S&B but no way am I selling this +2 greatsword.

I prefer damage, if that is your gig in the party, GWS & GWM are your choices. Grab a maul or greatsword and go to town.

Who else is in your party?
Is there a barbarian, wolf totem granting you advantage? GWM
Is there a rogue, not using his bonus action to disengage? Protection
Is there a paladin spamming bless? GWM

Who else is in the party?
Laying someone low with shield master and letting the barbarian swing away is nice.