Improved Fighting Styles: Evolving the Baseline

[rudy]

EDIT: Based on well-reasoned feedback, Improved Fighting Styles are only accessible either through the Champion at level 10, or via a homebrew feat which allows an Extra style to be picked up.

So, I'm sure I'm not the first to do something like this, but casual searches don't turn anything up. I've been working on a mini-project of creating "Improved Fighting Styles", which are fighting styles that you take when you've already taken one, but want to focus more in on it. They would be available to the Champion Fighter Archetype upon their second style, or to players who multi-class for multiple styles. (Or, in my case, if you've implemented a feat that allows a player to pick up an extra fighting style).

The pretty looking link to look at them on homebrewery is here: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rJSQMufi

Note that there are also some tweaks I made to the base styles, and I incorporated things inspired by the Unearthed Arcana styles (some of which were clearly overpowered *cough* CloseQuartersShooter *cough*


Archery: You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons, and to damage you deal with them.

Bastion: You can make one opportunity attack per round without using your reaction.

Close Quarters Shooter: You are not at Disadvantage for making ranged attacks when within 5 feet of a hostile creature. When your target is within 30 feet, you ignore half cover granted by creatures, and treat three-quarters cover granted by creatures as half-cover.

Defense (unchanged): While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

Dueling: While you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, or a versatile weapon in both hands, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

Great Weapon Fighting: When you roll weapon damage for an attack you make with a melee weapon you are using in two hands, you can roll the weapon damage twice and take either result. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit. As a note, on average, this increases weapon damage of 2d6 and 1d12 by just under 2 per hit, and 1d10 by 1.65 per hit.

Mobile Fighter: As long as you are wearing light or medium armor, and are not wielding a shield, your speed is increased by 5 feet, and you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

Protection (unchanged): When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.

Two-Weapon Fighting (unchanged): When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

Improved fighting styles are an evolution of the base fighting styles. Whenever you have the opportunity to choose a Fighting Style when you already have at least one, and you have the Extra Attack feature, you can choose an Improved Fighting Style instead. You may only choose an Improved Fighting Style when you have the base style, and they **replace** the benefits of the base style.

Improved Archery: You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls you make with ranged weapons.

Improved Bastion: You can make two opportunity attacks per round without using your reaction, and can use your reaction to make a weapon attack against a creature that moves more than 5 feet while within your reach.

Improved Close Quarters Shooter: You are not at Disadvantage for making ranged attacks when within 5 feet of a hostile creature. When your target is within 30 feet, you ignore half cover of any kind, treat three-quarters cover as half cover, and get +1 to attack and damage.

Improved Defense: While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC, and any piercing, bludgeoning or slashing damage dealt to you is reduced by 2.

Improved Dueling: While you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, or a versatile weapon in both hands, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon, and a +1 bonus to attack rolls or AC. You can change which benefit you receive at the start of your turn.

Improved Great Weapon Fighting: When you roll weapon damage for an attack you make with a melee weapon you are using in two hands, you may roll the weapon damage twice and use either result. For one attack per round, you may instead deal maximum damage. You must choose to do so before you roll for damage. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain these benefits.

Improved Mobile Fighter: As long as you are wearing light or medium armor, and are not wielding a shield, your speed is increased by 10 feet, you gain a +1 bonus to AC, and a +1 to attack rolls with melee weapon attacks.

Improved Protection: When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose Disadvantage on the attack roll and force the attack to target you instead. If the attacking creature has further attacks during the turn, any they make against the creature you are protecting are made at Disadvantage (but can target you without Disadvantage) .

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: When you use a bonus action to make an attack with your second weapon, you can instead make two attacks with it. You add your ability modifier to damage for the first of the two attacks that hits.


Fighters: All

Rangers: Archery, Close Quarters Shooter, Dueling, Mobile Fighter, Two-Weapon Fighting

Paladins: Bastion, Defense, Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, Protection

Love to hear thoughts on any of it! :)

[Specter]

Fighter multiclass becomes a must for Rangers and Paladins with this.

[rudy]

Fighter multiclass becomes a must for Rangers and Paladins with this.
How so? I don't want it to be a "must", but I don't mind the multiclass being more tempting. I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you give an example of why it's a must? (I'm not expecting a detailed analysis, or anything)

[rudy]

I do see that it could cause issues at low levels... an easy fix for that would be to make the Extra Attack feature a prerequisite for taking any Improved Fighting Style. Which I will definitely add, now that it occurs to me.

[R.Shackleford]

Fighter multiclass becomes a must for Rangers and Paladins with this.

Not anymore than normal.

Ranger 1 is already quite pathetic and both gain a lot from Action Surge and Fighter 3.

[Gastronomie]

First off, "Particular ability X is overpowered" does NOT stand as a reason why you should create overpowered homebrew abilities to compete with them. That's like nuclear arnament expansion. It wouldn't end up anywhere. Please, just, don't do it.

Second, as for "why multiclassing Fighter becomes a must": Because Fighter 2 now grants you this overpowered new Fighting Style on top of Second Wind and Action Surge, both of which are already strong abilities on their own. Add how non-Fighter martial classes never get their third or fourth attacks, and most either don't have spell slot progression or it's a secondary ability (Paladins, Rangers, Arcane Tricksters etc.), so they can multiclass in and out easily without worrying about the strong abilities they miss out for several levels (this is the main concern when Casters multiclass, but doesn't stand as much for martial classes).

This makes it very easy for any martial class to dip into Fighter. In fact it's already quite popular, and already a strong option. Making it stronger will break the main "design concept" of 5e, which is to simplify class progression - the key philosophy is that "you don't need to multiclass to be as strong as you wanna be". It's not like going straight Paladin will become weaker as a result of this, it's just that if the Paladin player feels somewhat complex about how "if he went Fighter-dip he'd be much, much stronger", that's a sign of bad game design, at least from this particular perspective of 5e.

Third, this goes in the Homebrew forum. Not like it's a big problem, but just please go there from next time.

My advice is to give these the clause "...if you take a second Fighting Style from the same Class as that of your first Fighting Style", making it Champion-exclusive. Champions need more love, and this wouldn't hurt them at all. But that's how I'd do it, so if you wanna go other ways, feel free.

I wouldn't like it if a DM introduced these current Fighting Styles into a game in which I'm playing, though.

[R.Shackleford]

First off, "Particular ability X is overpowered" does NOT stand as a reason why you should create overpowered homebrew abilities to compete with them. That's like nuclear arnament expansion. It wouldn't end up anywhere. Please, just, don't do it.

Second, as for "why multiclassing Fighter becomes a must": Because Fighter 2 now grants you this overpowered new Fighting Style on top of Second Wind and Action Surge, both of which are already strong abilities on their own. Add how non-Fighter martial classes never get their third or fourth attacks, and most either don't have spell slot progression or it's a secondary ability (Paladins, Rangers, Arcane Tricksters etc.), so they can multiclass in and out easily without worrying about the strong abilities they miss out for several levels (this is the main concern when Casters multiclass, but doesn't stand as much for martial classes).

This makes it very easy for any martial class to dip into Fighter. In fact it's already quite popular, and already a strong option. Making it stronger will break the main "design concept" of 5e, which is to simplify class progression - the key philosophy is that "you don't need to multiclass to be as strong as you wanna be". It's not like going straight Paladin will become weaker as a result of this, it's just that if the Paladin player feels somewhat complex about how "if he went Fighter-dip he'd be much, much stronger", that's a sign of bad game design, at least from this particular perspective of 5e.

Third, this goes in the Homebrew forum. Not like it's a big problem, but just please go there from next time.

My advice is to give these the clause "...if you take a second Fighting Style from the same Class as that of your first Fighting Style", making it Champion-exclusive. Champions need more love, and this wouldn't hurt them at all. But that's how I'd do it, so if you wanna go other ways, feel free.

I wouldn't like it if a DM introduced these current Fighting Styles into a game in which I'm playing, though.

Without resorting to handwaving, DPR abilities are really weak when you have a DM that can do their job half way decently.

I'm not saying these aren't unbalanced, just that martial HP damage is the least of a DM's worries.

I love how people get so hung up on DPR (and PAM and Sentinel) when they are the absolutely easiest thing to mitigate... Because you know exactly what that character can do. There is no real curveballs when it comes to martial cass features (specifically fighter, champion or battlemaster).

[Specter]

How so? I don't want it to be a "must", but I don't mind the multiclass being more tempting. I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you give an example of why it's a must? (I'm not expecting a detailed analysis, or anything)

Any ranger making a living out of a bow and Sharpshooter wants +1 to hit and +1 to damage, in all circumstances. Twf with Hunter's Mark also becomes a beast with 4 attacks now. Same for pallys with Dueling and/or Defense. Even the Paladin capstone gets behind 18 levels of more damage.

About Ranger 1 being ridiculous, true, just as Pally 1.

[rudy]

First off, "Particular ability X is overpowered" does NOT stand as a reason why you should create overpowered homebrew abilities to compete with them. That's like nuclear arnament expansion. It wouldn't end up anywhere. Please, just, don't do it.
I'm not sure what this is addressing?


Third, this goes in the Homebrew forum. Not like it's a big problem, but just please go there from next time.
I actually didn't know there was a homebrew forum... I just saw people posting homebrew stuff here frequently, so I thought anything 5e could go here...


TMy advice is to give these the clause "...if you take a second Fighting Style from the same Class as that of your first Fighting Style", making it Champion-exclusive. Champions need more love, and this wouldn't hurt them at all. But that's how I'd do it, so if you wanna go other ways, feel free.
That's actually a really good idea. Though, in my case I would make them accessible either through the Champion, OR through the Homebrew feat which allows you to choose a Fighting Style. I think I will definitely implement this suggestion; thanks.

[Gastronomie]

Note that there are also some tweaks I made to the base styles, and I incorporated things inspired by the Unearthed Arcana styles (some of which were clearly overpowered *cough* CloseQuartersShooter *cough*^ What I was addressing to.


Without resorting to handwaving, DPR abilities are really weak when you have a DM that can do their job half way decently.

I'm not saying these aren't unbalanced, just that martial HP damage is the least of a DM's worries.

I love how people get so hung up on DPR (and PAM and Sentinel) when they are the absolutely easiest thing to mitigate... Because you know exactly what that character can do. There is no real curveballs when it comes to martial cass features (specifically fighter, champion or battlemaster).Well, eh, I honestly don't think the PHB stuff is much of a worry right now, but when you mix that with certain homebrew material it can easily become a perplexing problem. No real reason to impliment homebrew in this area anyways.

Apart from that, unrelated to the original topic, but I'd like to hear how you'd fix DPR problems. Could be beneficial for us too.


Well, I believe that homebrew should be created so that you can either 1) incorporate the "thematic fluff" for a character that can't be created with official material, or 2) make a weak option stronger. I suggested the Champion thing because right now this makes something that's already fine stronger.

I'm genuinely interested in the idea of a feat that gives you extra fighting styles. The cost of an ASI is high (not so much for Fighters, but still it's a bit of a cost), so if you compare these new Fighting Styles with original PHB Feats, I don't think there'll be too much of a problem... unless there's certain stuff that really, really stack.

[rudy]

^ What I was addressing to.
Oh! I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that I incorporated a nerfed version of the Close Quarters Shooter because the style as written in Unearthed Arcana is way too powerful for a fighting style.


I'm genuinely interested in the idea of a feat that gives you extra fighting styles. The cost of an ASI is high (not so much for Fighters, but still it's a bit of a cost), so if you compare these new Fighting Styles with original PHB Feats, I don't think there'll be too much of a problem... unless there's certain stuff that really, really stack.
To give credit where it's due, it's something I took from Zman's tweaks. He has it as a feat that gives +1 to Strength or Dexterity and allows you to choose one fighting style. Given the high cost of feats for Paladins and Rangers I think this works reasonably well. If it's a bit easier for fighters to get access to that, that's not something I have a problem with.

[Giant2005]

Am I missing something about Improved Close Quarters Shooter, or is it strictly inferior to picking up the Archery style?
It seems to me that the upgrade just gives you +1 to attack and damage against a target within 30', when you could get that same bonus but with unlimited range by taking the Archery style instead of upgrading.

[Corran]

I like the idea, especially considering how important these improved fighting styles would be in a featless game (replicating many things that feats can accomplish, from a tactical standpoint). My first issues/suggestions after a quick read, is that I would include drawing two weapons at once at the two weapon fighting style (the first one even, not the improved) and take out that benefit from an already lackluster feat (dual wielder) which essentially is now replaced by the improved version of the fighting style (yes, include the non-light weapon restriction benefit of dual wielder to the improved version of the fighting style and be done with this feat).

Secondly, I am not a fan of restricting fighting styles to classes. For example, I fail to see a reason why the GWF ranger should not see much love, same for a dual wielder paladin. Original approaches to the classes should be encouraged by the mechanics, so I would personaly give gwf to the ranger and twf to the paladin (still, the class features make the use of other fighting styles more optimal, but I would like to see this small additional support in term of having access to the fighting styles). Yes, the fighter might need to have access to more fighting styles to illustrate somehow his martial superiority to the rest melee classes, but giving 1 or two additional fighting styles to the ranger and the paladin is equally important, so that shoehorning ranger and paladin builds to specific fighting styles is less obvious.

Regarding balance, well, I will just have to give it some more thought, or just read through the rest of the posts to see what other people think of balance issues and get a good idea, but at first glance, I say I would be really interested of playtesting these improved fighting styles. They seem to be quite interesting! (And the make the champion a bit stronger, which is a very good thing imo.)

[R.Shackleford]

^ What I was addressing to.

Well, eh, I honestly don't think the PHB stuff is much of a worry right now, but when you mix that with certain homebrew material it can easily become a perplexing problem. No real reason to impliment homebrew in this area anyways.

Apart from that, unrelated to the original topic, but I'd like to hear how you'd fix DPR problems. Could be beneficial for us too.


Well, I believe that homebrew should be created so that you can either 1) incorporate the "thematic fluff" for a character that can't be created with official material, or 2) make a weak option stronger. I suggested the Champion thing because right now this makes something that's already fine stronger.

I'm genuinely interested in the idea of a feat that gives you extra fighting styles. The cost of an ASI is high (not so much for Fighters, but still it's a bit of a cost), so if you compare these new Fighting Styles with original PHB Feats, I don't think there'll be too much of a problem... unless there's certain stuff that really, really stack.

If the ubercharger could be mitigated, any form of martial HP damage can be. You just need to do it in a way that is organic to the situation. Like... don't just make enemies resistant or immune to damage, too boring, but set the encounter up where the players have to think, time, and execute based on their surroundings.

My favorite is having thr players go after a pirate who's ship is docked . They go below to defeat the crew but the boat is swaying back n forth (this is a big boat by the way... Maybe bigger on the inside as part of a sub plot ;) ). As the boat moves back n forth the cargo (barrels) roll back n forth and the pirates are hiding among the cargo (crates are stack around).

There is no clear way to charge these enemies, they all have at least half cover (the ones p3aking out of their hiding spots), and if the players move in certain places they can get hit by a rolling barrel. Sometimes as the players move, they will need to make a save (str or dex) to stop or dodge a barrel that is rolling at them (essentially the boat sways as a reaction at anytime but also sways 1 / round or so). Also some pirates may drop cargo on the players.

Anyways... getting from one pirate to another isn't always a clear walk in the park. Shooting at a pirate isn't going to be a good option. AoE are effected by cover (Dex saves). For save or suck spells, I've always played that you needed clear sight of the target so if they have 3/4 or full cover then no Save or Suck spells.

[Gastronomie]

-snip-That pirate idea is awesome. Thanks for the example~

[Zman]

I'm opposed to the improved fighting styles, especially those with static modifiers, in principle. As no class but a Champion can get them without multiclassing it heavily benefits multiclassing Fighter and makes that dip even better. Now, if you have a half feat that allows access to a Fighting style, then they become more viable and workable for single classed characters. You also doesn't want it to feel like a tax.

At first glance I don't think you have anything in there that is broken, but the Multiclass problem exists. GWF may be a bit strong, IMO choosing to reroll and take the second is better than just rolling twice.

[rudy]

Am I missing something about Improved Close Quarters Shooter, or is it strictly inferior to picking up the Archery style?
It seems to me that the upgrade just gives you +1 to attack and damage against a target within 30', when you could get that same bonus but with unlimited range by taking the Archery style instead of upgrading.
What you're missing is that the Improved Close Quarters Shooter mitigates cover of all kinds within short distances, as opposed to the base style which only mitigates cover from creatures.


I like the idea, especially considering how important these improved fighting styles would be in a featless game (replicating many things that feats can accomplish, from a tactical standpoint).Thanks!


My first issues/suggestions after a quick read, is that I would include drawing two weapons at once at the two weapon fighting style (the first one even, not the improved) and take out that benefit from an already lackluster feat (dual wielder) which essentially is now replaced by the improved version of the fighting style (yes, include the non-light weapon restriction benefit of dual wielder to the improved version of the fighting style and be done with this feat).
Allowing them to draw two weapons I'm fine with; that's circumstantial at best. However, I think that allowing the Improved version to BOTH add a second off-hand attack AND allow them to use non-light weapons would be far too much for what should be roughly equivalent to half of a feat.


Secondly, I am not a fan of restricting fighting styles to classes. For example, I fail to see a reason why the GWF ranger should not see much love, same for a dual wielder paladin.I don't think that's natural to the idea of the pure classes, personally, and it can still be accomplished with a Fighter 1 dip for those who really want it.


Regarding balance, well, I will just have to give it some more thought, or just read through the rest of the posts to see what other people think of balance issues and get a good idea, but at first glance, I say I would be really interested of playtesting these improved fighting styles. They seem to be quite interesting! (And the make the champion a bit stronger, which is a very good thing imo.)Thanks!


I'm opposed to the improved fighting styles, especially those with static modifiers, in principle. As no class but a Champion can get them without multiclassing it heavily benefits multiclassing Fighter and makes that dip even better. Now, if you have a half feat that allows access to a Fighting style, then they become more viable and workable for single classed characters. You also doesn't want it to feel like a tax.

At first glance I don't think you have anything in there that is broken, but the Multiclass problem exists. GWF may be a bit strong, IMO choosing to reroll and take the second is better than just rolling twice.
I've already decided to modify it so that you can't take an Improved Fighting Style with the 1st or 2nd level features of any of the classes. They are only accessible through the Champion archetype OR through the feat which grants an extra fighting style (which I took from your tweaks). The feat also only allows you to pick up an Improved Style if you have the Extra Attack feature, so actually they can't be obtained before 8th level for Paladin or Ranger.

I don't think GWF is too strong; on average it still adds less damage than the Dueling style does per hit. I also believe that it will speed up play in practice, because you won't have players agonizing over whether to re-roll a given amount of damage. Removing a decision that has to be made with every damage roll is a good thing, I think.

[rudy]

At first glance I don't think you have anything in there that is broken, but the Multiclass problem exists. GWF may be a bit strong, IMO choosing to reroll and take the second is better than just rolling twice.

To elaborate on the effects of the GWF style, based on AnyDice analysis. This assumes that you include the critical hit damage in the weapon damage (which I would) but no other bonus damage.



Wpn
Avg Dmg
Avg Crit. Dmg
Avg Dmg GWF
ACrit Dmg GWF
Dmg Incr.
Crit Dmg Incr.


Grtswrd
7
14
8.37
15.93
1.37
1.93


Grtaxe
6.5
13
8.49
15.79
1.99
2.79


Halberd
5.5
11
7.15
13.32
1.65
2.32



As can be seen, the GWF now benefits the Greataxe more than the Greatsword, BUT only enough to bring them up to nearly the exact same average damage (where normally the Greatsword is superior).

[R.Shackleford]

That pirate idea is awesome. Thanks for the example~

You'r welcome!

It's my go to example of how to mitigate HP damage organically.

I don't want to get this even more off topic so I'll leave it at that but there is more to it than just mitigating damage. Putting players who do damage into situations they can do a lot of damage and kill a lot of things is also part of it :)

[Zman]

To elaborate on the effects of the GWF style, based on AnyDice analysis. This assumes that you include the critical hit damage in the weapon damage (which I would) but no other bonus damage.



Wpn
Avg Dmg
Avg Crit. Dmg
Avg Dmg GWF
ACrit Dmg GWF
Dmg Incr.
Crit Dmg Incr.


Grtswrd
7
14
8.37
15.93
1.37
1.93


Grtaxe
6.5
13
8.49
15.79
1.99
2.79


Halberd
5.5
11
7.15
13.32
1.65
2.32



As can be seen, the GWF now benefits the Greataxe more than the Greatsword, BUT only enough to bring them up to nearly the exact same average damage (where normally the Greatsword is superior).

Sure, in absolute terms that may be true. A while ago, I broke it down using the +2AC from a shield vs the damage of going from a Longsword to a Greatsword to create an ACDC(AC Damage Coefficient) which allows us to compare fighting styles vs the defense choice. Since defense is less of a relative increase in defense for a GWF than a S&B the damage increase doesn't need to be equal, and in fact Dueling needs to be better to keep the options relative to defense viable. The changes I made which are close to your came out pretty close, your will make GWF slightly too good, but won't be any more unbalanced than the stock game.