Combat styles

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. So I'm about to jump into a 5E game, and I'm curious if theirs a combat style that shines above the rest, like two handed did in 3.5 that's about it, thanks, and as always, go nuts.

[Eslin]

Hey guys. So I'm about to jump into a 5E game, and I'm curious if theirs a combat style that shines above the rest, like two handed did in 3.5 that's about it, thanks, and as always, go nuts.

Depends on the character. What class are you using?

In general hand crossbows, glaives and quarterstaves are very good with the relevant feats. Rogues want to dual wield, everyone else wants two handed weapons or sword and board depending on whether they want more damage or AC.

[Teapot Salty]

Depends on the character. What class are you using?

In general hand crossbows, glaives and quarterstaves are very good with the relevant feats. Rogues want to dual wield, everyone else wants two handed weapons or sword and board depending on whether they want more damage or AC.

So its mostly balanced?

[Eslin]

So its mostly balanced?

Weapon use was never really unbalanced, was it? I mean two handers were better back in 3.5, but that wasn't a big deal. Weapons are incredibly same-y this edition.

[Ashrym]

It depends on the class.

Rogues are better off TWF for accuracy with sneak attacks, or ranged to not give up cunning action. Feat support generally gives pole arms strong damage opportunities. Fighters get many attacks so large weapons are better than TWF. Sword and board is a decent option with feat support.

TWF is a standard for damage at low levels but typically falls behind at higher levels for many classes unless a set of good magical weapons is available.

[MeeposFire]

Weapon use was never really unbalanced, was it? I mean two handers were better back in 3.5, but that wasn't a big deal. Weapons are incredibly same-y this edition.

No two handed weapons were much better in 3.5 compared to other styles. A two handed weapon with the right load out could out perform a single handed weapon (except of course lances and the like or two weapon fighting with access to large amounts of bonus damage) by a metric ton of damage or more due to the fact that power attack optimization was based around multipliers and so each point of damage increase was worth more for two handed fighters since the multipliers were higher and there were more to multiply as well.

IN addition this required far less resources to do than doing comparable power with two weapon and sword and board styles in 3.5.

[Eslin]

No two handed weapons were much better in 3.5 compared to other styles. A two handed weapon with the right load out could out perform a single handed weapon (except of course lances and the like or two weapon fighting with access to large amounts of bonus damage) by a metric ton of damage or more due to the fact that power attack optimization was based around multipliers and so each point of damage increase was worth more for two handed fighters since the multipliers were higher and there were more to multiply as well.

IN addition this required far less resources to do than doing comparable power with two weapon and sword and board styles in 3.5.

Me: I mean two handers were better back in 3.5
You: No two handed weapons were much better in 3.5

I'm aware they were better, they gained twice as much from power attack and 50% more from strength. It still wasn't a big deal, considering how pure damage dealing wasn't that great in any case and anyone could get an animated shield anyway after a while.

[MeeposFire]

Me: I mean two handers were better back in 3.5
You: No two handed weapons were much better in 3.5

I'm aware they were better, they gained twice as much from power attack and 50% more from strength. It still wasn't a big deal, considering how pure damage dealing wasn't that great in any case and anyone could get an animated shield anyway after a while.

It is not a big deal compared to casters in 3.5 but we are not comparing casters but fighingr styles.

Two handers combo the best with charging because they get more out of the leap attack feats, enchantments on charging, battle jump, etc Each of those added more to the attack (some of which are full on multipliers to damage) that other styles do not get anywhere as much.

Think about it do you consider it balanced when a single handed style deals roughly half the damage (slight exaggeration but it is an approximation) on a style that is dealing hundreds of damage or more? Also remember that it is far more mobile than two weapon style and did not require a specific class in order to get anything out of it (two weapon style requires bonus damage).

Also factor in that there are several ways to wield a two handed weapon and be able to choose to have a shield (animated shield or imp buckler defense) and/or two weapon fight while two handed fighting (armor spikes or similar). They are not needed but it is an option to add to the primary attack form of two handed (it is primary because it deals the most damage the other styles support it).

There is a reason why two handed style was far more common and more highly regarded in general in 3.5. The basic str bonus isn't the reason it was the support it received over the other styles in feats, prcs (think the damage potential of a frenzied berserker compared to the tempest), and the like.

[Teapot Salty]

Much as I love good ol 3.5 talk, lets get back on track here.

[Rummy]

How many levels do you think you'll play? At low levels they all are good in their own ways.

[Eslin]

It is not a big deal compared to casters in 3.5 but we are not comparing casters but fighingr styles.

Two handers combo the best with charging because they get more out of the leap attack feats, enchantments on charging, battle jump, etc Each of those added more to the attack (some of which are full on multipliers to damage) that other styles do not get anywhere as much.

Think about it do you consider it balanced when a single handed style deals roughly half the damage (slight exaggeration but it is an approximation) on a style that is dealing hundreds of damage or more? Also remember that it is far more mobile than two weapon style and did not require a specific class in order to get anything out of it (two weapon style requires bonus damage).

Also factor in that there are several ways to wield a two handed weapon and be able to choose to have a shield (animated shield or imp buckler defense) and/or two weapon fight while two handed fighting (armor spikes or similar). They are not needed but it is an option to add to the primary attack form of two handed (it is primary because it deals the most damage the other styles support it).

There is a reason why two handed style was far more common and more highly regarded in general in 3.5. The basic str bonus isn't the reason it was the support it received over the other styles in feats, prcs (think the damage potential of a frenzied berserker compared to the tempest), and the like.

You're mostly just repeating what I said, and the balance really did not matter. Fighting styles are actually meaningful in 5e, in 3.5 which weapon style you was irrelevant in terms of balance because it was the difference between 2 and 5 when 100 was what mattered.

[Ashrym]

Fighting styles are actually meaningful in 5e, in 3.5 which weapon style you was irrelevant in terms of balance because it was the difference between 2 and 5 when 100 was what mattered.


I agree with this. I knew there was hope for you. :elan:

I played with some nice two-handed weapon PC's in 3.5 and there were some nice two-weapon builds but I often went with pimped out save DC's and had enough high level spells that I would abuse them. Most players still played the concepts they liked and had fun, but it wasn't hard to see that spell advantage. That's one of the reasons I enjoy 5e more. Save or suck spells have been toned down a lot, stacking buffs and been practically destroyed, and the only class that can toss around save or die like candy is a high level open hand monk using quivering palm.

Weapon styles definitely make a difference in 5e but still depends on the class a lot.



Much as I love good ol 3.5 talk, lets get back on track here.


Did you have a specific build, class, or concept in mind?

[Gwendol]

Mind you, archery is quite viable this time around, and several classes make for good archers (but with slightly different specialities). Ranger vs multiple enemies, rogue for burst damage, champion fighter for burst damage, battlemaster fighter for ranged debuffs (trip, disarm, demoralize, etc). Warlock for eldritch blast, and bards as generally great at anything (lore bards for archers).

[Eslin]

Mind you, archery is quite viable this time around, and several classes make for good archers (but with slightly different specialities). Ranger vs multiple enemies, rogue for burst damage, champion fighter for burst damage, battlemaster fighter for ranged debuffs (trip, disarm, demoralize, etc). Warlock for eldritch blast, and bards as generally great at anything (lore bards for archers).

Mostly correct, except that champions are useless and if you want archery as a bard you'll be better served by valor bard+swift quiver.

[Ashrym]

Mostly correct, except that champions are useless and if you want archery as a bard you'll be better served by valor bard+swift quiver.

And then we disagree again. Doh.


Swift quiver works for anyone who can get it because it makes those 2 attacks using the bonus action. In both cases, the bard casts a spell and then makes 2 attacks if swift quiver is up, and in both cases, it's possible for the bard to have picked up eldritch blast, splashed 2 levels of warlock for agonizing blast, use the eldritch blast cantrip for 4 attacks and then follow up with 2 bow attacks on a CHA/DEX build. Skipping a dip to prevent slowing down progression still gives using a cantrip and then a bonus action as a good strategy in either case for damage. It's only better for the valor bard if both are strictly using ranged weapon attacks.


Champions can build DEX and have dueling and archery, use a bonus feat for each and still have the same feats as everyone else, half proficiency rounded up on several skills including initiative, and on an action surge with 6 or 8 attacks (depending on level) with that bow can have each arrow coated with purple worm venom at 12d6 damage DC19 CON save for half plus the high crit rate and accuracy. When someone is looking 8d8+96d6+40 damage in the face that's still 412 damage before accuracy, crits, and saves, on average. It cost a pretty penny at a vial per 3 missiles, but it's nice, and even without the poison 8d8+40 (longbow) or 8d10+40 (heavy crossbow, crossbow expert) or 8d8+120 (longbow, sharpshooter) twice per short rest is worthwhile. Not all poison is that expensive and multiplies out well. Action surge on top of multiple attacks on top of improved critical chance on top of any other bonuses available (feats, magic weapon, group buffs or caster support, poison) is a burst effect.

I never had any trouble using the same skills as everyone else in which I was proficient, and did make use of the half proficiency rounded up bonus from naturally athletic.

[Eslin]

And then we disagree again. Doh.


Swift quiver works for anyone who can get it because it makes those 2 attacks using the bonus action. In both cases, the bard casts a spell and then makes 2 attacks if swift quiver is up, and in both cases, it's possible for the bard to have picked up eldritch blast, splashed 2 levels of warlock for agonizing blast, use the eldritch blast cantrip for 4 attacks and then follow up with 2 bow attacks on a CHA/DEX build. Skipping a dip to prevent slowing down progression still gives using a cantrip and then a bonus action as a good strategy in either case for damage. It's only better for the valor bard if both are strictly using ranged weapon attacks.
If you're combining and have both high dex and cha, then yes. I was talking bow attacks, however.
With 20 in both stats you're doing 63 damage a round, while with hex'd eldritch blast you're only doing 56 - though you only need charisma for the latter. Using bow attacks you're only doing 42 damage a round as a valor bard, though it should be noted it scales better with magic bows and/or sharpshooter.


Champions can build DEX and have dueling and archery, use a bonus feat for each and still have the same feats as everyone else, half proficiency rounded up on several skills including initiative, and on an action surge with 6 or 8 attacks (depending on level) with that bow can have each arrow coated with purple worm venom at 12d6 damage DC19 CON save for half plus the high crit rate and accuracy. When someone is looking 8d8+96d6+40 damage in the face that's still 412 damage before accuracy, crits, and saves, on average. It cost a pretty penny at a vial per 3 missiles, but it's nice, and even without the poison 8d8+40 (longbow) or 8d10+40 (heavy crossbow, crossbow expert) or 8d8+120 (longbow, sharpshooter) twice per short rest is worthwhile. Not all poison is that expensive and multiplies out well. Action surge on top of multiple attacks on top of improved critical chance on top of any other bonuses available (feats, magic weapon, group buffs or caster support, poison) is a burst effect.

I never had any trouble using the same skills as everyone else in which I was proficient, and did make use of the half proficiency rounded up bonus from naturally athletic.

Just go a battlemaster, if you really want poison scaling it can boost your attack's accuracy which does a lot more than an expanded crit range.

[Gwendol]

Mostly correct, except that champions are useless and if you want archery as a bard you'll be better served by valor bard+swift quiver.

Valor bard works well, but with lore bard you get more magical secrets, which with the right choice should give an advantage. The armor proficiency shouldn't matter and weapon damage dice are not significant enough.

As for champion over battlemaster, I don't have a preference per se, but will note that the champion archer is far from useless.

[Eslin]

Valor bard works well, but with lore bard you get more magical secrets, which with the right choice should give an advantage. The armor proficiency shouldn't matter and weapon damage dice are not significant enough.

As for champion over battlemaster, I don't have a preference per se, but will note that the champion archer is far from useless.

Good point, let's redefine as 'less useful in every respect than any other subclass'.

[Gwendol]

You do that. I don't share your view.

[Amnoriath]

When just looking at the styles and not iconic class features the largest potential damage goes to the two-handed style. Ranged though probably can do more damage more often not just because of range but also they can trade their increased accuracy more reliably. Duelist has an okay damage base with a rather hefty AC boost. Two-weapon fighting though is problematic. At first it out paces other in damage but it becomes less and less relevant but unless you are a Beserker that has items of greater restoration it is a reliable extra attack with an AC boost. While sword and board may deal the least damage it has some pretty good options for you to choose from.

[AvatarVecna]

Eslin, I share your opinion on the less-than optimal Champion archetype. However, I also recently had it's purpose explained to me by a non-optimizer.

Firstly, optimization is less necessary in 5e than it was in 3e/3.5e/4e; in 4e, WotC responded to optimization by making monsters tougher, making it so that any character not fully optimized was pretty close to useless; in 3e/3.5e, certain characters were absolutely terrible without optimization (*cough*monk!*cough*fighter!*cough*truenamer!*coug h), and others could get good enough to challenge the gods themselves...at least, that was the limit in real games. In TO, one could wish themselves to godhood and kill the tarrasque at lvl 1 by optimizing their name...but I digress. In 5e, optimization is a possibility, but even the low-op options are still pretty decent...or at the very least, relevant. Bottom line: the distance between the char-op floor and ceiling in 5e is much shorter than it was in previous editions.

Secondly, some people just don't have the time, energy, or interest necessary to develop the system mastery that proper optimization calls for. There's a sig-quote somewhere around here that goes like "playing a 3.5e wizard the way the playground says you should requires roughly the same investment as a major college degree. Do you really wanna go down that rabbit hole, or do you just wanna cast a souped-up Fireball?" Most classes, especially at the higher levels, require a ton of decisions, and making good decisions requires an in-depth analysis of the game that less obsessive players won't bother with. Wizards get tons of spells, and have to choose which to prepare every day. Most casters have the same problem, except they don't even have the luxury of choosing better spells tomorrow morning. Even most non-casters have problems like this: which skills are actually worth investing in; which maneuvers are more optimal, and which are a waste of time; which hunter style is best for the game you're playing?

My mother has played the same consistent character in every game I've ever seen her play: a divine archer (invariably, a ranger/cleric focused on archery). With that concept in mind, building her character for a 5e family game has given us some trouble, since paladin with a fighter dip seemed just as good, and there's lots of good options for a cleric with a ranger dip. For the same game, I'm making a typical swashbuckler with a talent for breaking and entering. I can't figure out if I'd prefer making him a rogue, a bard, a warlock, or some esoteric combination thereof; they're all such great options, each with upsides and downsides. These choices makes optimization possible, but they make the character creation process more daunting for someone less familiar with such things. If I introduced someone to D&D with 5e, and they wanted to play, but were leery of all the complicated rules, I'd point them to the simplest thing I could think of: the Champion Fighter. "You're a person with a weapon. You have mastered your weapon. You hit people with your weapon, and you kill them, and you take their stuff."

That's the purpose of the Champion: it's a simple build that's hard for anyone, even a total newb, to screw up playing. Rogue? Nah, they'll forget to flank, or hide, or pick the lock, or look for traps. Full caster? Walls of text and rules can be confusing to new players, which can result in a bad experience (especially if they choose poorly and suffer for it). Battle Master? Who wants to just trip your foes, when you can just beat the crap out of them? The Champion's niche is in it's simple playstyle.

That said, they are absolutely not optimal, but it doesn't matter that much; it's hard to be too much worse or too much better than anyone else unless people are actually trying to build their character as strictly inferior to another. And for what it's worth, sometimes it's fun to just pick up a weapon and start swinging.

[Ashrym]

Just go a battlemaster, if you really want poison scaling it can boost your attack's accuracy which does a lot more than an expanded crit range.

Battlemasters do make nice archers and would have more damage on the bursts using superiority dice. One guaranteed die per encounter helps keep them performing in combat at that level outside of bursts too.

Champions get 2 fighting styles and can fit melee in with ranged, however, for a nice perk, and survivor is a nice ability. Know your enemy just isn't that useful when naturally athletic gives bonuses to a lot of ability checks.

The fact that battlemasters out-damaging champions isn't anything I dispute. Battlemasters doing more doesn't mean the champion wasn't a burst option nor that he contributed a lot of damage because number of attacks is strong, regardless. Damage isn't my only consideration.

[Eslin]

Eslin, I share your opinion on the less-than optimal Champion archetype. However, I also recently had it's purpose explained to me by a non-optimizer.

Firstly, optimization is less necessary in 5e than it was in 3e/3.5e/4e; in 4e, WotC responded to optimization by making monsters tougher, making it so that any character not fully optimized was pretty close to useless; in 3e/3.5e, certain characters were absolutely terrible without optimization (*cough*monk!*cough*fighter!*cough*truenamer!*coug h), and others could get good enough to challenge the gods themselves...at least, that was the limit in real games. In TO, one could wish themselves to godhood and kill the tarrasque at lvl 1 by optimizing their name...but I digress. In 5e, optimization is a possibility, but even the low-op options are still pretty decent...or at the very least, relevant. Bottom line: the distance between the char-op floor and ceiling in 5e is much shorter than it was in previous editions.

Secondly, some people just don't have the time, energy, or interest necessary to develop the system mastery that proper optimization calls for. There's a sig-quote somewhere around here that goes like "playing a 3.5e wizard the way the playground says you should requires roughly the same investment as a major college degree. Do you really wanna go down that rabbit hole, or do you just wanna cast a souped-up Fireball?" Most classes, especially at the higher levels, require a ton of decisions, and making good decisions requires an in-depth analysis of the game that less obsessive players won't bother with. Wizards get tons of spells, and have to choose which to prepare every day. Most casters have the same problem, except they don't even have the luxury of choosing better spells tomorrow morning. Even most non-casters have problems like this: which skills are actually worth investing in; which maneuvers are more optimal, and which are a waste of time; which hunter style is best for the game you're playing?

My mother has played the same consistent character in every game I've ever seen her play: a divine archer (invariably, a ranger/cleric focused on archery). With that concept in mind, building her character for a 5e family game has given us some trouble, since paladin with a fighter dip seemed just as good, and there's lots of good options for a cleric with a ranger dip. For the same game, I'm making a typical swashbuckler with a talent for breaking and entering. I can't figure out if I'd prefer making him a rogue, a bard, a warlock, or some esoteric combination thereof; they're all such great options, each with upsides and downsides. These choices makes optimization possible, but they make the character creation process more daunting for someone less familiar with such things. If I introduced someone to D&D with 5e, and they wanted to play, but were leery of all the complicated rules, I'd point them to the simplest thing I could think of: the Champion Fighter. "You're a person with a weapon. You have mastered your weapon. You hit people with your weapon, and you kill them, and you take their stuff."

That's the purpose of the Champion: it's a simple build that's hard for anyone, even a total newb, to screw up playing. Rogue? Nah, they'll forget to flank, or hide, or pick the lock, or look for traps. Full caster? Walls of text and rules can be confusing to new players, which can result in a bad experience (especially if they choose poorly and suffer for it). Battle Master? Who wants to just trip your foes, when you can just beat the crap out of them? The Champion's niche is in it's simple playstyle.

That said, they are absolutely not optimal, but it doesn't matter that much; it's hard to be too much worse or too much better than anyone else unless people are actually trying to build their character as strictly inferior to another. And for what it's worth, sometimes it's fun to just pick up a weapon and start swinging.

I'm aware the point is simplicity for those who want it, it's just less useful than the other choices else from a gameplay perspective.

[silveralen]

I'm aware the point is simplicity for those who want it, it's just less useful than the other choices else from a gameplay perspective.

Not really.

For example, insert flanking or facing rules and champion gets a potentially big boost. If he actually optimizes for criticals, half orc and great weapon master, or multiclass with barbarian, it can be a big deal as well.

Not to mention getting a bonus to initiative. That either puts a strength fighter near most dex builds in initiative, or puts a dex build far ahead.

Regeneration is fun for clearing hordes, though not as amazing as it could be this edition due to fairly high damage totals.

The second fighting style is great fun as well. If you actually want to be a master archer and swordsman, champion fighter is great way to do so without dipping other classes. Which actually makes it the only way to remain a "martial" while doing so, and we all know how important that is, don't we?

Less useful than other options? Depends on a number of things. A simple greatsword wielding half orc can benefit greatly from improved initiative and better criticals. A second fighting style for an extra point of AC wouldn't be awful either. It isn't ground breaking or fancy, but it can get the job done. Eventually regeneration helps solidify things further.