How do you handle single, one-handed fighting?

[Giant2005]

I mean Inigo Montoya-style fencing.
Obviously, using a single, one-handed weapon is going to be inferior to all other alternatives, yet the imagery involved is very cool. I don't want the style to be the sole domain of roleplayers that are always going to be inferior to their more optimized cousins.
I want a badass like Inigo Montoya to actually be able to exist, and in 5e he can't. He can exist sure, but it is near impossible for him to be considered a badass when everyone else is superior to him by a noticeable margin.

Does anyone know of any decent solutions to make fencing viable?
I was thinking of simply giving it the mechanics of any of the other fighting style and simply refluffing it as fencing. That estoc being used is mechanically identical to a greatsword, or for unknown reasons, that epee is giving a +2 AC bonus, or you can make a bonus action attack with your single sabre. Is there anything wrong with any of the above?
I can see some issues forming when magical equipment is taken into account - that shield AC bonus starts to get a little wierd when it comes time to upgrade that non-existent shield.

[Mandragola]

A swashbuckler rogue from SCAG can dart in and out, slash people and then hide behind a friend. That’s probably the nearest you can get I think.

Part of the issue is that in reality a fencer would have no chance whatsoever against someone in full plate. You’d just end up with a blunt rapier, plus maybe some superficial damage to the knight’s paintwork.

Fencing has never been a thing in actual battlefield conditions. It’s for duels of honour where both parties promise not to rock up in full plate with a halberd, or to just shoot the other guy. It also dates from a time when firearms had been invented, so heavy armour was largely redundant.

But for real combat you use all the tools available to you, so of course you put armour on. Armour helps – that’s why it was invented, and why soldiers still wear it today.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Although pure one-handed fighting does mean you sacrifice some mechanical benefits, it's not necessarily unworkable under the RAW. Having a free hand means you can grapple, object-interact and perform somatic/material components etc. without having to spend an interaction sheathing a weapon (or a whole action stowing a shield). It becomes a more attractive set up if you enforce those sorts of things more strictly and build interactive elements (doors, levers, ladders, etc.) into your battlefields.

Beyond that, you could perhaps make it a prerequisite of the defensive duelist feat, or treat them as if they have a shield (perhaps the action to stow/don a shield could be refluffed as an action to enter/exit a fighting stance). That seems a fair way to balance it.

Class wise, the shortsword-armed monk probably suffers the least from single-weapon fighting. Swashbucklers much prefer two-weapon fighting, since they don't need their Cunning Action to Disengage.

[TurboGhast]

I mean Inigo Montoya-style fencing.
Obviously, using a single, one-handed weapon is going to be inferior to all other alternatives, yet the imagery involved is very cool. I don't want the style to be the sole domain of roleplayers that are always going to be inferior to their more optimized cousins.
I want a badass like Inigo Montoya to actually be able to exist, and in 5e he can't. He can exist sure, but it is near impossible for him to be considered a badass when everyone else is superior to him by a noticeable margin.

Does anyone know of any decent solutions to make fencing viable?
I was thinking of simply giving it the mechanics of any of the other fighting style and simply refluffing it as fencing. That estoc being used is mechanically identical to a greatsword, or for unknown reasons, that epee is giving a +2 AC bonus, or you can make a bonus action attack with your single sabre. Is there anything wrong with any of the above?
I can see some issues forming when magical equipment is taken into account - that shield AC bonus starts to get a little wierd when it comes time to upgrade that non-existent shield.

You don't necessarily need to upgrade it because magic items aren't required in 5e. You can just say that the person doing this won't be able to upgrade their invisible shield, and let them have other items to compensate. Magic shields are considered to be worrying because they break bounded accuracy from the AC side anyway.

[Plaguescarred]

One handed fighting style is basically Protection or Duelist Fighting Style with the benefit of a free hand. It's not the greatest defensive wise as that free hand could hold a shield or another weapon, but leaving it free allow you to interact with other objects, weapons, creatures, environment etc.. more easily so there's still a benefit.

A possible houserule could be to modify Duelist Fighting Style to grant either +2 to damage or AC when you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or shield.

[JellyPooga]

As a GM, I'd be happy to allow a player to fluff their "shield" as a cloak, so long as the player promised not to abuse the ruling in some way.

[Zman]

I added the Dueling Master Feat in my tweaks.

While fighting with a one handed melee weapon or versatile weapon and no other weapons or a shield you gain +1 AC, and can make a one handed weapon attack as a bonus action with no ability modifier added to damage.

[Giant2005]

I added the Dueling Master Feat in my tweaks.

While fighting with a one handed melee weapon or versatile weapon and no other weapons or a shield you gain +1 AC, and can make a one handed weapon attack as a bonus action with no ability modifier added to damage.

That is a good foundation, but I don't think it is enough to be worthy of a feat.
All it gives you is 1 AC over a featless dual-wielder. Using a feat to cover the weakness of a fighting style doesn't help that fighting style compete with others, due to it being basically the same thing just with one feat less.

[Zman]

That is a good foundation, but I don't think it is enough to be worthy of a feat.
All it gives you is 1 AC over a featless dual-wielder. Using a feat to cover the weakness of a fighting style doesn't help that fighting style compete with others, due to it being basically the same thing just with one feat less.

Not quite true. As a feat it provides an AC boost which is equivalent to half a feat and provides a substantial boost to damage. It isn't on par with GWM, PAM, or Sharpshooter, nor is it a Savage Attacker or Charger, but those aren't balanced.

Without Fighting Styles Duel Wielder and Dueling Master deal equivalent damage, both D8+AB/D8, both have +1 AC, and dueling Master has a free hand. That makes it close but mechanically superior to Dual Wielder. Now, in my Houserules fighting with two weapons grants a second offhand attack at 8th level if you have extra attack.

When you factor in Fighting Styles and feat you have d8+Ab/d8+Ab vs d8+AB+2/d8+2. Without feats fighting with just one weapon is inferior damage wise to TWF until later i.e. level 11, but offers a free hand. And is inferior compared to sword and board where you trade +2 AC shield to an open hand. It is workable, but really falls behind without feat support, defensive Duelist just didn't cut it.

[Cybren]

A swashbuckler rogue from SCAG can dart in and out, slash people and then hide behind a friend. That’s probably the nearest you can get I think.

Part of the issue is that in reality a fencer would have no chance whatsoever against someone in full plate. You’d just end up with a blunt rapier, plus maybe some superficial damage to the knight’s paintwork.

Fencing has never been a thing in actual battlefield conditions. It’s for duels of honour where both parties promise not to rock up in full plate with a halberd, or to just shoot the other guy. It also dates from a time when firearms had been invented, so heavy armour was largely redundant.

But for real combat you use all the tools available to you, so of course you put armour on. Armour helps – that’s why it was invented, and why soldiers still wear it today.
Who cares? D&D isn't a HEMA simulation. Full plate is anachronistic to the time period most D&D settings try to emulate anyway, as are rapies (to say nothing of the egregiously bad nomenclature. No, Gary, that's not what a longsword is). The fencer is an iconic fantasy archetype, so it should be possible in D&D. Rules changes might encourage it, like requiring a free hand for shoves, but I know lots of people on this forum would cry foul that you're taking away someone's toys.

Keeping one hand free is useful in RAW if you intend be on casting or grappling, but there's not much incentive beyond that. A new fighting style might help.

[Giant2005]

What about changing weapons (or adding new ones) themselves? Something with a weapon quality that is basically the opposite of Versatile.
When wielding this weapon in one-hand with nothing in the other, you gain +X to whatever.
Any ideas on a weapon quality that would be thematic and make the option viable?

[djreynolds]

You could easily grab monk and treat your 1d6 short sword as a rapier. Thus allowing you a bonus action with FOB. Coupled with swashbuckler, very good.

Good defense, and allow that "bonus action" from FOB to let you taunt, or trip, or perform or dodge or dash away or even hide behind your cloak. Just call patient step something else.

If it is cool and we'll thought out, I'm game for it. You can use the monk chassis along with rogue, just sneak attack with your "rapier" and you have bonus action to punch or kick,etc

[jas61292]

Personally, I think the usefulness of a free hand tends to be underrated. It typically doesn't have a mechanical benefit you can point to in optimization discussions, but in practice i have found it quite useful. Obviously grappling is a mechanical advantage, but there are plenty of other less obvious ones. Most notably holding objects and interacting with the environment. I find that forcing yourself to have a free hand rather than a weapon, focus, or shield will often get people to think more creatively about what their character can do with the world around them, which can often be far more effective than just having slightly more AC.

[Specter]

Easy - give them a reason to have a hand free. In these swashbuckling movies, people had to dart in and out of danger, jump on tables, climb on ropes, chandeliers, and the like. A man with a weapon and a shield can't hold ropes or pick a lock or grab someone or control a horse remaining armed. And it should be harder for them to tumble and make stunts. For balance, you definitely a free hand, for instance.

You can even houserule it: disadvantage on Acrobatics and Animal Handling for those without a free hand. Now, it's up to you to make that matter.

[ZenBear]

I just houserule that having an open off-hand gives +1 AC, no Feat or Fighting Style needed.

[Beleriphon]

Who cares? D&D isn't a HEMA simulation. Full plate is anachronistic to the time period most D&D settings try to emulate anyway, as are rapies (to say nothing of the egregiously bad nomenclature. No, Gary, that's not what a longsword is). The fencer is an iconic fantasy archetype, so it should be possible in D&D. Rules changes might encourage it, like requiring a free hand for shoves, but I know lots of people on this forum would cry foul that you're taking away someone's toys.

Keeping one hand free is useful in RAW if you intend be on casting or grappling, but there's not much incentive beyond that. A new fighting style might help.

Oddly enough 5E actually uses longsword more or less correctly, although it disregards the fact there are swords that are also one handed but not shortswords.

[ad_hoc]

Personally, I think the usefulness of a free hand tends to be underrated. It typically doesn't have a mechanical benefit you can point to in optimization discussions, but in practice i have found it quite useful. Obviously grappling is a mechanical advantage, but there are plenty of other less obvious ones. Most notably holding objects and interacting with the environment. I find that forcing yourself to have a free hand rather than a weapon, focus, or shield will often get people to think more creatively about what their character can do with the world around them, which can often be far more effective than just having slightly more AC.

The most overlooked benefit to fighting with a hand free is that you can switch to the other hand mid-fight to intimidate your opponents.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Part of the issue is that in reality a fencer would have no chance whatsoever against someone in full plate. You’d just end up with a blunt rapier, plus maybe some superficial damage to the knight’s paintwork.


Well, this isn't really true. Once plate armor was invented, it was slashing weapons that basically became unusable. Piercing swords were used to pierce through the in-between sections of the plate armor, sticking into the soft spots, as it were. Blunt weapons were also used to dent plate armor and hurt the person inside but hack and slashing at plate with a longsword or broadsword was ineffectual.

[uraniumrooster]

I think the Inigo Montoya style image of a lightly armored, single weapon fighter draws largely from the age of sail. Seafarers couldn't wear heavy armor, in case they were thrown overboard, and often fought with a single weapon to leave a hand free for climbing, close-quarters grappling, or steadying themselves while aboard a rolling ship. Many would have favored pistols if they were available, but the reload time made them impractical in drawn out ship-to-ship engagement. Preferred melee weapons would have been handaxes or cutlasses, but rapiers were also used, especially by the Spanish and Portuguese.

The UA Mariner fighting style does a pretty good job capturing this, and I'd probably use that for what you're going for.

[smcmike]

Someone made the point that, historically, one-handed unarmored fencing was essentially a civilian pursuit. Why not occasionally put your characters in a civilian context, where small arms are socially acceptable, but heavy armor, shields, giant weapons, or destructive spells might cause problems?

[jas61292]

The most overlooked benefit to fighting with a hand free is that you can switch to the other hand mid-fight to intimidate your opponents.

As silly as that is, I actually would love if my players did this kind of thing, and would totally grant them advantage in an intimidation check. People love to smash things and throw things and yell to intimidate. But when someone can use a simple action or word to calmly prove how much power they have over you, that is far more terrifying.

[JellyPooga]

As silly as that is, I actually would love if my players did this kind of thing, and would totally grant them advantage in an intimidation check. People love to smash things and throw things and yell to intimidate. But when someone can use a simple action or word to calmly prove how much power they have over you, that is far more terrifying.

That could make an interesting Fighting Style; some kind of free Intimidate check when fighting with a single weapon. Perhaps something along the lines of the Barbarians Intimidating Presence?

[Alcibiades]

Although pure one-handed fighting does mean you sacrifice some mechanical benefits, it's not necessarily unworkable under the RAW. Having a free hand means you can grapple, object-interact and perform somatic/material components etc. without having to spend an interaction sheathing a weapon (or a whole action stowing a shield). It becomes a more attractive set up if you enforce those sorts of things more strictly and build interactive elements (doors, levers, ladders, etc.) into your battlefields.


Doesn't that just make Great Weapon Fighting the stand-out superior option? They have a free hand whenever they need to interact with something as well.

[Crgaston]

I don't think it's underpowered at all. With just 1 feat, getting to add your proficiency bonus to AC is pretty sweet. And the +2 damage bonus from Dueling fighting style is nice as well. I think the best way to build it is either a straight swashbuckler or a fighter/rogue combo.

[Giant2005]

I don't think it's underpowered at all. With just 1 feat, getting to add your proficiency bonus to AC is pretty sweet. And the +2 damage bonus from Dueling fighting style is nice as well. I think the best way to build it is either a straight swashbuckler or a fighter/rogue combo.

But that same character would be more powerful simply by sticking a shield in his off-hand. Particularly because of the effects of compounded AC.

[Crgaston]

But that same character would be more powerful simply by sticking a shield in his off-hand. Particularly because of the effects of compounded AC.
By pure numbers, sure. But then, he lose the free hand. Disarm + free object interaction to take an opponent's weapon away is just a different sort of powerful.

[Vogonjeltz]

I mean Inigo Montoya-style fencing.
Obviously, using a single, one-handed weapon is going to be inferior to all other alternatives, yet the imagery involved is very cool. I don't want the style to be the sole domain of roleplayers that are always going to be inferior to their more optimized cousins.
I want a badass like Inigo Montoya to actually be able to exist, and in 5e he can't. He can exist sure, but it is near impossible for him to be considered a badass when everyone else is superior to him by a noticeable margin.

Does anyone know of any decent solutions to make fencing viable?
I was thinking of simply giving it the mechanics of any of the other fighting style and simply refluffing it as fencing. That estoc being used is mechanically identical to a greatsword, or for unknown reasons, that epee is giving a +2 AC bonus, or you can make a bonus action attack with your single sabre. Is there anything wrong with any of the above?
I can see some issues forming when magical equipment is taken into account - that shield AC bonus starts to get a little wierd when it comes time to upgrade that non-existent shield.

Actually I find it quite valuable to have a free hand for various combat maneuvers.

A free hand is useful for:

Grappling an enemy (to drag them somewhere, like a window, and then defenestrate them!)
Climbing Aboard a larger enemy
Fighting while swinging from chandeliers (or other rope) or while climbing
Picking up an enemies weapon after disarming them
Spellcasting (EK's)
Chugging potions in combat or using other objects.

Yes, the one-handed weapon deals slightly less damage on average, and not using a shield provides less defense, but the free hand provides utility. That's the trade off.

[djreynolds]

Try the monk chassis, and use your bonus action to dodge after attacking, every strike at you is now at disadvantage. That is very powerful, and you still have a reaction if you multiclassed to rogue to use uncanny dodge or select defensive duelist.

And if you promise not multiclass to paladin or warlock or sorcerer, I would allow you to use charisma instead of wisdom for your bonus AC and to use it instead of wisdom for stunning fist.

Infact you could homebrew a charisma dex based monk as high charisma saves rarely come up.

Or try out a bard/rogue/monk multiclass

Have fun storming the castle!!!

[Cybren]

Except a low strength, single-classed monk still has almost no reason to keep a free hand, as they're definitely not grappling, and can still make unarmed strikes while holding a spear or quarter staff in two hands. Eventually their monk damage will be as good/better than a two handed versatile weapon, but not for a while.

[NiklasWB]

I'm going to play a character just like this in a while, and the best solution I have come up with will probably be to re-fluff a shield as a duelist gauntlet/vambrace. This way the rule-of-cool/theatre of the mind is still intact, and you can get the benefits of the Dueling fighting style and a +2 to AC. Things like the duelist vambrace actually existed (don't have a specific source, but I know I've seen them in fencing illustrations from the Italian and Spanish fencing schools). If anyone has seen the movie Fearless with Jet Li, the Spanish fencer in the Tournament fight uses one. It is basically an extended leather/metal vambrace that is strapped to the forearm that goes all the way to the elbow. While it wouldn't be as affective as a shield in 'real life', it serves somewhat the same purpose as a buckler(or a wrapped cloak) in a duel, meaning that you could parry pretty well with it. Since ALL shields regardless of shape and size are mashed into one simple +2 mold in 5e I think the duelist vambrace should be allowed to work the same way as a shield as long as you can't use other weapons in the off-hand and can't use two handed weapons.

[Asmotherion]

I could see him working as a Bladelock/paladin 2. It won't be terribly optimized, yet optimized enough.

Your other option is a Ranger to add some extra dammage with Hunters Mark and other stuff

You can always go Eldrich Knight and perhaps a warlock or ranger dip for hex or hunter's mark

Finally you can make him a sword dancer or Valor Bard... Your sword skills are enough to make you a swordsman, yet you have other abiloties to compencate for your lack of dammage output.

If you decide to go for non caster, then rogue assasin is your safest bet... You are more mobile than most others, take only half dammage from a failed dex save and non on a successful and so on. You also have a broken dammage output if you surprise the target, and if you work well with mages, they can turn you invisible... or work with your DM to get a cloack and eventually a ring of invisibility, and effectivelly become more terrifying than an invisible stalker...

[Dalebert]

But then you end up like this.

http://i.imgur.com/U8fdG.png

[2D8HP]

I've only seen it on film in:
Sword of Sherwood Forest (http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0054358/), but the use of "parrying" daggers (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger), was common in the era of duels. (http://umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/martial_arts/swords.html)

http://umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/martial_arts/images/throatcut.jpg
In fact a Rapier and a Dagger were found in the excavation of the Globe Theatre (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17675002-shakespeare-s-restless-world).
I suppose you could "re-skin" the dagger as a shield?

[Mandragola]

Rapier and dagger definitely ought to be allowed for dual-wielding together, without the feat.