UA: Close Quarters Shooter: OP or OK?

[Celcey]

Greetings, Playgrounders! I'm starting a new campaign, and one of my players would like to use the close quarters shooting fighter style from the Underdark UA. Have any of you use this fighting style? If so, how has it compared to the play tested styles? Is it OP or OK?

Edit: To clarify, my player is planning to go straight BM Fighter, with the Sharpshooter feat.

[DanyBallon]

I can only speak for myself, but as is, it is not allowed at our table, as we believe it stacks too well with archery and Sharpshooter. Maybe a future tone down version will pass, but until then it's not allowed

[Theodoxus]

We have a ranger in our group that uses it. He's eventually planning on MC to assassin for the opening salvo synergy. As it is though, he already has the highest To Hit in the group and rarely misses. He's a drow, in Out of the Abyss, so the 120' darkvision means he gets a drop on most things not drow. He took Skulker for the added benefits and typically snipes from hiding for advantage. The only real balancing factor is the 30' range on CQC.

If you're using point buy, it probably will be ok. We rolled, and he ended up with a starting 20 Dex on his elf... it really helps him out.

[RaynorReynolds]

I can only speak for myself, but as is, it is not allowed at our table, as we believe it stacks too well with archery and Sharpshooter. Maybe a future tone down version will pass, but until then it's not allowed

Yeah. This is a combo of a couple different feats and you gat +1 to all ranged attacks. Definitely OP.

[Crgaston]

My 13th level Champion took it on top of Archery as his 2nd fighting style at 10th. He's not outshining the casters. It's less powerful than Archery + crossbow expert feat, and the only way to get Archery and CQS is either as a L10 Champion or to multiclass.

[DanyBallon]

Yeah. This is a combo of a couple different feats and you gat +1 to all ranged attacks. Definitely OP.

It's a combo that you can easily pull off that grant you +3 to all ranged attack, no more disadvantage from shooting in close combat, you ignore all but full cover.


Not OP at all when you can get this at 3rd level (V. human F1/Ranger 2).


The fighting style is in itself really interesting and have a nice cool factor to it. It would be fine if you can get the combo only through Champion. But within Bound Accuracy, allowing an easy combo to give you +3 and removing most of the draw backs of ranged weapon at 3rd level, is a bit too much for our table. It may be fine by yours, and it's ok as there are many different playstyle.

[MaxWilson]

Greetings, Playgrounders! I'm starting a new campaign, and one of my players would like to use the close quarters shooting fighter style from the Underdark UA. Have any of you use this fighting style? If so, how has it compared to the play tested styles? Is it OP or OK?

Not OP per se but lame. Doesn't fit aesthetically to have two stackable fighting styles. If you rule that it cannot stack with archery style then it becomes okay.


It's a combo that you can easily pull off that grant you +3 to all ranged attack, no more disadvantage from shooting in close combat, you ignore all but full cover.

You were going to get that "ignore all but full cover" bit anyway from Sharpshooter which you got at first level; an Eldritch Knight could avoid disadvantage from shooting in close combat by just taking Expeditious Retreat as his spell (either Dash backwards or simply to Disengage, move, and then shoot). It should be fairly rare anyway for an archer to wind up in close combat anyway (means something has gone wrong with your battle plan) and even then, even if you don't know Expeditious Retreat, you always have the option of just eating the opportunity attack. And BTW you still don't want to be in close quarters combat even with no disadvantage because (1) that allows monsters to HIT you, which archers don't like; (2) if your bow is out instead of a rapier, you're not using a shield so you're not ready for melee fighting.

So you have an occasionally-useful "no disadvantage in close combat" and a +1 to ranged attacks which will increase your damage by maybe 15%, and for this you've delayed your Extra Attack by either one or two levels and permanently sacrificed your ability to get 4 attacks. (You gain some ancillary benefits too.)

I don't think it's OP, but I do think it's aesthetically gross to reward Fighter 1/Ranger 2 multiclassing. It makes no sense to me why that would make you better at archery than just being a dedicated archer fighter, so I would not allow CQS as written because it makes the game yucky.

[Markoff Chainey]

I don't think it's OP, but I do think it's aesthetically gross to reward Fighter 1/Ranger 2 multiclassing. It makes no sense to me why that would make you better at archery than just being a dedicated archer fighter, so I would not allow CQS as written because it makes the game yucky.

I know they are not popluar... but a champion fighter does not need to MC, he gets a second fighting style at lvl 10.

My table and I are in agreement that the ability to ignore the cover rules is just stupid. There are so darn few ranged combat rules anyways - 2 ranges (disadvantage and max) and a few cover rules. And almost any feat / style that a sane ranged combatant would take anyways lets you ignore those! - But the cover rules were written for ranged fighters...

That said, I think Close Quarters Shooter is far more balanced than Tunnel Fighter because there is no limit to the Opportunity attacks. IMO, both can be fixed fairly easily, though.

Do not let the +1 bonus stack with the +2 from archery AND limit it to "ranged weapon attacks" - otherwise this style becomes almost mandatory for blaster-oriented mages and will make the fighter 1/ spellcaster X MC even more popular.

[Celcey]

So you have an occasionally-useful "no disadvantage in close combat" and a +1 to ranged attacks which will increase your damage by maybe 15%, and for this you've delayed your Extra Attack by either one or two levels and permanently sacrificed your ability to get 4 attacks.

That's only true in the case of multi classing though. If a fighter was just taking it, than that problem doesn't exist. My player, for example, isn't planning to multi class, nor is he going champion (he plans to go BM).

[MaxWilson]

I know they are not popluar... but a champion fighter does not need to MC, he gets a second fighting style at lvl 10.

If you can think of a way to make them stack only for Champions and not for Ranger/Fighters, then that won't be gross. But as written, it's yucky.


That's only true in the case of multi classing though. If a fighter was just taking it, than that problem doesn't exist. My player, for example, isn't planning to multi class, nor is he going champion (he plans to go BM).

Sure, and so your player would be totally unaffected by a hypothetical ruling "CQS doesn't stack attack bonus with Archery," which is all that's needed to make CQS okay. In that case it's fine.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'd go one farther and rule that fighting styles in general shouldn't stack with each other. For two reasons:

1) So that archer-boy doesn't feel like he's being singled out.

2) In case another redundant fighting style gets published that creates a similar problem.

[Gtdead]

I'm not sure why an archer would prefer CQS over Archery.

A CE+SS+Archery build at lvl 4 is stronger than a 2DEX+SS+CQS.

Let him do it.

[MaxWilson]

I'd go one farther and rule that fighting styles in general shouldn't stack with each other. For two reasons:

1) So that archer-boy doesn't feel like he's being singled out.

2) In case another redundant fighting style gets published that creates a similar problem.

Absolutely, yes.

[Theodoxus]

I'd go one farther and rule that fighting styles in general shouldn't stack with each other. For two reasons:

1) So that archer-boy doesn't feel like he's being singled out.

2) In case another redundant fighting style gets published that creates a similar problem.

So, the champion Dueling/Protection style fighter gets? +2 damage or can guard his buddy, but not both? Can he choose round by round which he wants, or as soon as he picks up a shield, his damage gets worse? How do you determine which styles stack and which don't?

Seems it would be better to rule out multiclassing; or, less restrictive, classes with the same HD can't multiclass; or even less restrictive than that - you can only have 1 source of fighting styles. If you start Fighter and MC into Paladin or Ranger, you don't get their FS at 2nd and vice versa.

But if you really can't handle an extra +1 to hit, please, for the love of god, don't give out magic weapons...

[MaxWilson]

It's not about "not being able to handle" an extra +1. It's about not being fun to handle illogical things. (There's enough of them in 5E already that I don't want to introduce more.)

[Celcey]

Interesting as this conversation is, back to the topic at hand: is this style acceptable for a single classes Battlemaster Fighter? As it happens, he is taking the sharpshooter feat.

[Theodoxus]

I'm my perspective, it's redundant with SS, given the cover interaction - he'd actually get more bang from Archery, so yeah - it'll be fine.

[MaxWilson]

Interesting as this conversation is, back to the topic at hand: is this style acceptable for a single classes Battlemaster Fighter? As it happens, he is taking the sharpshooter feat.

Sure, it's fine.

[Hrugner]

It doesn't look like it would be too much of a problem if any. I'd scrutinize it more if they were dipping, or using it in conjunction with warcaster, but as something on a pure fighter I wouldn't worry about it.

[SharkForce]

i would consider it to be more powerful than other fighting styles if you don't have access to feats.

i wouldn't consider it to be so overpowered as to warp the game in any meaningful way (the tunnel fighting ability *will* warp the game, but i think i prefer the game allow for people that want to be tanks to actually be able to do something to keep a horde of monsters from just sacrificing one monster to the opportunity attack and then swarming the back line... still, i'd rather have that be a high level warrior ability than a level 2 fighting style).

[JakOfAllTirades]

So, the champion Dueling/Protection style fighter gets? +2 damage or can guard his buddy, but not both? Can he choose round by round which he wants, or as soon as he picks up a shield, his damage gets worse? How do you determine which styles stack and which don't?

Seems it would be better to rule out multiclassing; or, less restrictive, classes with the same HD can't multiclass; or even less restrictive than that - you can only have 1 source of fighting styles. If you start Fighter and MC into Paladin or Ranger, you don't get their FS at 2nd and vice versa.

But if you really can't handle an extra +1 to hit, please, for the love of god, don't give out magic weapons...

Do you really have no idea what the word stacking means?

Dueling and Protection styles don't provide the same bonus in any way, and your example is completely irrelevant.

[MaxWilson]

i would consider it to be more powerful than other fighting styles if you don't have access to feats.

Why? If you don't have access to feats, there's not much difference between Close Quarters Shooting and pulling out a rapier. In that scenario it's just +1 to hit all the time, whereas Archery is +2 to hit whenever you're not in melee and +2 to AC when you are in melee (because of your shield, which can't be used with CQS missile weapons).

[SharkForce]

Why? If you don't have access to feats, there's not much difference between Close Quarters Shooting and pulling out a rapier. In that scenario it's just +1 to hit all the time, whereas Archery is +2 to hit whenever you're not in melee and +2 to AC when you are in melee (because of your shield, which can't be used with CQS missile weapons).

because needing to spend your object interaction is a cost. because ignoring cover is a major advantage of sharpshooter that gets overlooked far too often. because switching between ranged weapon and melee weapon + shield takes up a full action, so it really works out to attacking all the time at +1 as compared to attacking at +2 when in ranged combat only if their target is not in cover (at which point they're attacking at normal or at -3 to hit) and attacking at normal in melee range.

[MaxWilson]

because needing to spend your object interaction is a cost. because ignoring cover is a major advantage of sharpshooter that gets overlooked far too often. because switching between ranged weapon and melee weapon + shield takes up a full action, so it really works out to attacking all the time at +1 as compared to attacking at +2 when in ranged combat only if their target is not in cover (at which point they're attacking at normal or at -3 to hit) and attacking at normal in melee range.

Hmmm. I suppose you're talking about stacking up in a chokepoint, where the party tank is blocking your shots of the enemy? If that happens to you a lot, yeah, I can see why you'd prefer CQS. My impression is that that is an unusual playstyle, but if it's common for you, more power to you and I hope your tank likes to Dodge and grapple because those are his two smartest moves in that situation.

I was thinking mostly about ignoring cover at long range during an archery duel, where CQS doesn't help (except for the +1).

[Citan]

I know they are not popluar... but a champion fighter does not need to MC, he gets a second fighting style at lvl 10.

My table and I are in agreement that the ability to ignore the cover rules is just stupid. There are so darn few ranged combat rules anyways - 2 ranges (disadvantage and max) and a few cover rules. And almost any feat / style that a sane ranged combatant would take anyways lets you ignore those! - But the cover rules were written for ranged fighters...

That said, I think Close Quarters Shooter is far more balanced than Tunnel Fighter because there is no limit to the Opportunity attacks. IMO, both can be fixed fairly easily, though.

Do not let the +1 bonus stack with the +2 from archery AND limit it to "ranged weapon attacks" - otherwise this style becomes almost mandatory for blaster-oriented mages and will make the fighter 1/ spellcaster X MC even more popular.
Hi! :)
Agreed with the houserule that they cannot stack, but not with limiting it to weapon attacks. How could this be overpowered?

Don't forget that CQS applies only within 30 feet for the "ignore cover". Roughly 10 meters. Seems awfully close to your opponent for many caster builds.
As for the +1 on all ranged attacks, well, it's powerful but still less than the +2 from Archery for martials.
And you still need to dip 1 level in Fighter for that.

In my eyes this seems a (roughly*) balanced trade for a caster to get a more efficient all around and get an edge when he's forced to close combat, but far from mandatory or broken unless you build your caster around the idea of close combat warcaster. :)

* I think it's more powerful overall that Archery in the sense that it brings benefits that can be better in some situations (ignore cover can be great), but not to the point of breaking the game as long as you don't allow it stacking.

[Submortimer]

This has a MUCH simpler fix: Make the CQS bonus to attack and damage only apply within 30 feet. That fits thematically, and rewards a character who chooses to put himself in harms way rather than hanging out in the back of the party.

[MaxWilson]

This has a MUCH simpler fix: Make the CQS bonus to attack and damage only apply within 30 feet. That fits thematically, and rewards a character who chooses to put himself in harms way rather than hanging out in the back of the party.

But then it's a nerf to anyone who doesn't stack Archery and CQS, like the OP's actual player. Why would you want to do that?

[Theodoxus]

Do you really have no idea what the word stacking means?

Dueling and Protection styles don't provide the same bonus in any way, and your example is completely irrelevant.

That in no way was what you said, nor implied. "fighting styles in general shouldn't stack with each other."

Common English, you said specifically "No two fighting styles can be used at the same time". If instead, you wanted to say "the mechanical benefit of styles can't overlap", that is different. I read what you wrote. Perhaps write better next time?

[JakOfAllTirades]

That in no way was what you said, nor implied. "fighting styles in general shouldn't stack with each other."

Common English, you said specifically "No two fighting styles can be used at the same time". If instead, you wanted to say "the mechanical benefit of styles can't overlap", that is different. I read what you wrote. Perhaps write better next time?

No, that's not what I said. Learn to read, or quit lying.

[djreynolds]

What if only the beastmaster could get this style? Just kidding.

I think its fine.

Really, its not going to ruin the game. At the end of the day combined with the archery style its +3 to hit, instead of +2.

It helps save on a feat and that's good.

Everyone complains that fighters and rangers are weak, now they get a leg up and we complain about that.

At they end of the day, its still a bow/crossbow/sling being used.

[SharkForce]

What if only the beastmaster could get this style? Just kidding.

I think its fine.

Really, its not going to ruin the game. At the end of the day combined with the archery style its +3 to hit, instead of +2.

It helps save on a feat and that's good.

Everyone complains that fighters and rangers are weak, now they get a leg up and we complain about that.

At they end of the day, its still a bow/crossbow/sling being used.

so far as I can tell, nobody thinks fighters are bad at low levels. there are plenty who think fighter needs help at higher levels (precisely how high level tends to vary, but most I've seen argue somewhere between 11 and 15), and an extra +1 to hit is really not the solution to the fighter's problems at those levels. the fighter's damage is, broadly speaking, good, and their accuracy is not a problem. it's their ability to shape the world around them that is generally lacking.

[Specter]

As a matter of fact, it has horrible synergy with Sharpshooter, since all the benefits it provides are provided by the feat too.

It's good, but not OP. Let him take it.

[djreynolds]

Its good synergy with sharpshooter because you can use your bow up close. No disadvantage with 5ft melee.

[DeAnno]

It's effectiveness mostly depends on how few of Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert you were going to take anyway. Also, it improves Spell Attack accuracy, so it's good if you're dipping Fighter 2 for Action Surge.

[Sir cryosin]

I played a gunslinger archtype from Matt Mercer I did pistol and shield. I was wrecking everything. But at lv 4 I had a +7 to hit. I would say for cqs tweak it to were it say you ignore the disadvantage and you ignore only half cover. Or just give it the +1 and ignore the disadvantage. But it does have to much in the fighting style.

[Celcey]

I would say for cqs tweak it to were it say you ignore the disadvantage and you ignore only half cover. Or just give it the +1 and ignore the disadvantage. But it does have to much in the fighting style.

Personally, I agree that it gives too much for just one fighting style when you compare it with the others in the books. I would personally use it even if it was just allowing to attack with a ranged weapon at melee range. But because my player is taking sharpshooter already, and that covers the cover, I'm OK with it.

Edit: Actually, not that I look at it, it seems this fighting style gets very underpowered once you hit 5th level and get extra attacks, because you can shoot most weapons more than once. In fact, that seems a disadvantage of most ranged weapons. Am I missing something?