New fighting style: Fencing

[kenposan]

I've noticed that the fighting styles seem to assume armor being worn, a shield being carried, or two weapons being used. But what if you want to wear no or light armor and no shield or second weapon, like a 'classical' sword fighter?

Fencing:

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, and provided that you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield, you gain a +2 bonus to your AC.

Does it work?

[Sage Tellah]

If you're worried about it being overpowered, I think it's ok.

Seems good for a monk MC fighting style, since their unarmored defense doesn't allow a shield. Other uses for the free hand I can think of are holding a spellcasting focus and grappling.

[nickl_2000]

I would require the melee weapon to be finesse. Mind you I don't see this being taken by a strength fighter, but still.

For overpowered or not, compare it to mariner. You are trading a climbing/swimming speed for one extra AC. I think the extra AC is better, but not excessively so

It feels off for some reason and I'm trying to figure out why, it may be the name since I was a fencer.

[Matrix_Walker]

Given that Defense only gives a +1 and has a requirement, this is a little too much IMO.

If you level a few restrictions, like, "While wearing no armor and wielding only finesse weapons" I could get onboard with a +2

[Sariel Vailo]

Fun tlfighting style

[Jama7301]

I think I'd run a Kensai Monk with this using a Finesse weapon.

[nickl_2000]

Given that Defense only gives a +1 and has a requirement, this is a little too much IMO.

If you level a few restrictions, like, "While wearing no armor and wielding only finesse weapons" I could get onboard with a +2

I don't actually see the need for the no armor clause. I do agree with no shields and 1 finesse weapons only.

Compare my requirement to sword and board with defensive style. Both styles get the same damage and sword and board has 1 extra AC

Compare with heavy armor and great weapon and defensive style. Fencing gets an extra AC, while heavy armor and great sword gets a 2d6 damage verses the 1d8 on rapier.

With both of these, the fencer style appears less powerful or pretty close in power

[MaxWilson]

I've noticed that the fighting styles seem to assume armor being worn, a shield being carried, or two weapons being used. But what if you want to wear no or light armor and no shield or second weapon, like a 'classical' sword fighter?

Fencing:

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, and provided that you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield, you gain a +2 bonus to your AC.

Does it work?

Hmmm. The most abusive combo I can think of is to get it for a Bladesinger, e.g. Fighter 1/Bladesinger X. By 5th level, a fairly typical Dex 18 Int 16 elf could be rocking Mage Armor, Bladesong, Fencing style, and the Shield spell for a total max AC of (13 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 5) = AC 27. AC 22 without spending any spell points/slots, and he can use melee cantrips for a competitively-good offense. A few ASIs down the road, that may be AC 25 (+5 for Shield).

So, if you introduce this style, expect Fighter/Bladesingers to be more popular than they otherwise would be.

On the one hand, AC 22/27 is not necessarily more powerful than a Rogue 2/Bladesinger X, so overall I'd guess that introducing this fencing style will probably not warp your campaign's power levels too badly if your players are skilled. On the other hand, exploiting AC is easier and more attractive to novices than exploiting other defensive capabilities, so if your players are unskilled, being able to get a high AC just by taking Fencing style + boosting Int and Dex may indeed represent power creep.

I guess the bottom line is, are you as a DM prepared for the consequences if some of your players do start rocking AC 25+ on a regular, resource-free basis? If you shrug and say, "He'll have an easy time in 2/3 of encounters, but when he runs into the magma mephit swarm on level 4 or the basilisk + medusa I put on level 5 he'll feel more than his share of pain," then fine, use Fencer as written. If on the other hand the thought of AC 25+ makes you freak out, you might want to add some more restrictions to Fencer to prevent it from stacking with Bladesong, and maybe with Martial Arts too. E.g. it could just be "Fencer: when not wearing armor, you can calculate your AC as 12 + your Dex modifier," although that would make it very weak. (AC = 13 + Dex modifier would probably be more reasonable.)

[kenposan]

Given that Defense only gives a +1 and has a requirement, this is a little too much IMO.

If you level a few restrictions, like, "While wearing no armor and wielding only finesse weapons" I could get onboard with a +2

Defense only gives +1 but allows moderate/heavy armor + shield. I see it as a trade off for having a no/light armor and no shield restriction. That was my thinking.


I would require the melee weapon to be finesse. Mind you I don't see this being taken by a strength fighter, but still.

For overpowered or not, compare it to mariner. You are trading a climbing/swimming speed for one extra AC. I think the extra AC is better, but not excessively so

It feels off for some reason and I'm trying to figure out why, it may be the name since I was a fencer.

I had finesse in there originally but thought it might be too limiting so I went with single-handed weapons instead.

[kenposan]

Hmmm. The most abusive combo I can think of is to get it for a Bladesinger, e.g. Fighter 1/Bladesinger X. By 5th level, a fairly typical Dex 18 Int 16 elf could be rocking Mage Armor, Bladesong, Fencing style, and the Shield spell for a total max AC of (13 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 5) = AC 27. AC 22 without spending any spell points/slots, and he can use melee cantrips for a competitively-good offense. A few ASIs down the road, that may be AC 25 (+5 for Shield).



Thanks for that, I didn't crunch math. But this is only +1 more than what Defense offers, so does it make that big of a difference in the end? I ask because you seem to have a good grasp of mechanics I don't.

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for that, I didn't crunch math. But this is only +1 more than what Defense offers, so does it make that big of a difference in the end? I ask because you seem to have a good grasp of mechanics I don't.

In this case it is +2 more than Defense offers, because Defense doesn't work with Mage Armor and no shield.

It doesn't make a big difference in absolute terms, but it could cause problems in some scenarios. As mentioned previously, if you have unskilled players, especially unskilled players who are prone to stat envy, it could potentially cause problems there if they discover the Bladesinger combination (or to a lesser extent a monk-based combination) and if you allow Bladesingers.

If you're asking for my personal opinion: if you were a player at my table, and you really wanted this fighting style, I'd allow it with no qualms. (I wouldn't include it without someone asking for it, but that's just because I try to keep my number of houserules small enough to be manageable.) It wouldn't cause problems with the style of adventures that I write and run.

I don't know what style you run or what your players are like but I'd guesstimate an 80+% chance you could use this fighting style as-is at your table without causing any problems.

[BigKaiju]

Talking as a devil's advocate, isn't the choice to go heavier on armor being somewhat negated by something like this? You're rewarded for giving up stealth or a free hand (for grappling or magic-ing) by being harder to hit, so it balances out. Whereas your style really only rewards the choice of lighter armor by. Fighting styles should be all about trade-offs.

TWF = more offense for less defense (no shield)
Defense = no extra offense for a LITTLE more defense
GWF = better offense for no shield (less defense)

By the same token, light armor already has the advantages of stealth and unlimited DEX modifier in exchange for lower base. Medium has higher base in exchange for limited DEX modifier and a mix of stealth or not. Heavy ditches DEX and stealth entirely in exchange for really high base numbers.

"Fencing" seems to entirely negate medium armor's need to exist in exchange for.... what? It asks for nothing in return for it's bonus and gives only advantages.

(having said that, it does seem to mesh thematically with DnD's hit-or-miss mechanics with Dodging and Parrying. I still think at least one of the sets of armor should be resistance based instead of all-or-nothing)

[Foxhound438]

seems fine, if not a bit boring. I would tack on something like +5 movement speed or +1 to initiative, otherwise it's basically just worse than taking defense and using a shield on top.

[Foxhound438]

Given that Defense only gives a +1 and has a requirement, this is a little too much IMO.

If you level a few restrictions, like, "While wearing no armor and wielding only finesse weapons" I could get onboard with a +2

you would never take that when you could instead take studded leather and dueling style and also a shield for 2 more AC and 2 more damage.

[bid]

Fencing:

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, and provided that you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield, you gain a +2 bonus to your AC.

Does it work?
Good for EK, having a shield's AC while keeping your free hand for casting.
Good for bladedancer, bladelock and other gish.

Perfect for monk. A little too strong I'd say.


How do you handle versatile weapons?
The way 2-handers work, you always have a free hand except when you do your attack rolls. Therefore you are always wielding in one hand when you are attacked. Except maybe through sentinel...
I understand the intent, and finesse is a big restriction.

[sir_argo]

I would be very leery of this for several reasons. It's debatable if +2 AC is too much, but the problem I see is it can be stacked with other things that benefit AC. There are already a number of ways to improve your AC that even another +1 could be overpowered and this one is a +2.

1/1/4 human fighter/ranger/bladesinger, 16 Dex and Int
Studded Leather (12)
Dex (+3)
Bladesong (Int +3)
Fighting styles: Defense (+1), Fencing (+2)
Feats: Dual Wielder (+1), Defensive Duelist (+3)

This character has a combat AC of 22
AC 25 against the first attack in a round, or AC 27 (shield spell) if anticipating multiple attacks.


The Paladin is jealous.

[Crgaston]

I would be very leery of this for several reasons. It's debatable if +2 AC is too much, but the problem I see is it can be stacked with other things that benefit AC. There are already a number of ways to improve your AC that even another +1 could be overpowered and this one is a +2.

1/1/4 human fighter/ranger/bladesinger, 16 Dex and Int
Studded Leather (12)
Dex (+3)
Bladesong (Int +3)
Fighting styles: Defense (+1), Fencing (+2)
Feats: Dual Wielder (+1), Defensive Duelist (+3)

This character has a combat AC of 22
AC 25 against the first attack in a round, or AC 27 (shield spell) if anticipating multiple attacks.


The Paladin is jealous.

Not that it's THAT much of a big thing, but don't rangers get their FS at 2?

[sir_argo]

Not that it's THAT much of a big thing, but don't rangers get their FS at 2?

Honestly, I didn't look it up. Just bump the level by 1.

[Mellack]

I would be very leery of this for several reasons. It's debatable if +2 AC is too much, but the problem I see is it can be stacked with other things that benefit AC. There are already a number of ways to improve your AC that even another +1 could be overpowered and this one is a +2.

1/1/4 human fighter/ranger/bladesinger, 16 Dex and Int
Studded Leather (12)
Dex (+3)
Bladesong (Int +3)
Fighting styles: Defense (+1), Fencing (+2)
Feats: Dual Wielder (+1), Defensive Duelist (+3)

This character has a combat AC of 22
AC 25 against the first attack in a round, or AC 27 (shield spell) if anticipating multiple attacks.


The Paladin is jealous.

Can't have Fencing (only one weapon) and Dual Wielder (need 2 weapons) at the same time.

[sir_argo]

Can't have Fencing (only one weapon) and Dual Wielder (need 2 weapons) at the same time.

Ok. Ditch Dual Wielder and take +2 DEX instead. Same AC.

[rbstr]

But what if you want to wear no or light armor and no shield or second weapon, like a 'classical' sword fighter?
Light armor, being armor, qualifies for the Defense style. So I figure you should take that if you want more AC as a lightly armored swordfighter.
What swordfighter class doesn't have at least light armor proficiency?

Is you idea really overpowered? Probably not, it's one AC point more vs. defense style. Not a huge deal.

Is it unfair? Yeah. Dex is already the superior stat and now that character can have AC equal to plate + defense style without even worrying about stealth disadvantage.
Hope you throw a bone to strength characters.

[Foxhound438]

I would be very leery of this for several reasons. It's debatable if +2 AC is too much, but the problem I see is it can be stacked with other things that benefit AC. There are already a number of ways to improve your AC that even another +1 could be overpowered and this one is a +2.

1/1/4 human fighter/ranger/bladesinger, 16 Dex and Int
Studded Leather (12)
Dex (+3)
Bladesong (Int +3)
Fighting styles: Defense (+1), Fencing (+2)
Feats: Dual Wielder (+1), Defensive Duelist (+3)

This character has a combat AC of 22
AC 25 against the first attack in a round, or AC 27 (shield spell) if anticipating multiple attacks.


The Paladin is jealous.

(last line)

not really. Paladin 6 has charisma to all saves, probably plate+shield, and better hit points thanks to the d10 hit die for all levels. If they take defense style, they have the same (better because of smite) offense, an AC only 1 point lower, and about 8 HP more, before factoring in inspiring leader as Vuman for another 9 or 10 THP. It's 5% more hits for 40% better HP and 20% better saves.

[Foxhound438]

Light armor, being armor, qualifies for the Defense style. So I figure you should take that if you want more AC as a lightly armored swordfighter.
What swordfighter class doesn't have at least light armor proficiency?

Is you idea really overpowered? Probably not, it's one AC point more vs. defense style. Not a huge deal.

Is it unfair? Yeah. Dex is already the superior stat and now that character can have AC equal to plate + defense style without even worrying about stealth disadvantage.
Hope you throw a bone to strength characters.

the guy in plate with defense style can also use a shield and lose nothing on offense...

[kenposan]

I would be very leery of this for several reasons. It's debatable if +2 AC is too much, but the problem I see is it can be stacked with other things that benefit AC. There are already a number of ways to improve your AC that even another +1 could be overpowered and this one is a +2.

1/1/4 human fighter/ranger/bladesinger, 16 Dex and Int
Studded Leather (12)
Dex (+3)
Bladesong (Int +3)
Fighting styles: Defense (+1), Fencing (+2)
Feats: Dual Wielder (+1), Defensive Duelist (+3)

This character has a combat AC of 22
AC 25 against the first attack in a round, or AC 27 (shield spell) if anticipating multiple attacks.


The Paladin is jealous.

Good point about Defense and Fencing stacking, but isn't that applicable only to the Champion at Level 10? Or maybe a variant human.

[nickl_2000]

Good point about Defense and Fencing stacking, but isn't that applicable only to the Champion at Level 10? Or maybe a variant human.

It also works if you multiclass

[kenposan]

How do you handle versatile weapons?
The way 2-handers work, you always have a free hand except when you do your attack rolls. Therefore you are always wielding in one hand when you are attacked. Except maybe through sentinel...
I understand the intent, and finesse is a big restriction.

I guess the assumption is that during combat, if you are using a versatile weapon two handed, it's two handed, thus negating the benefits to AC. If it's being used one-handed, it can gain the benefit of the AC.

I guess you could declare each round if you are using it one or two handed, thus trading damage for AC?

[DivisibleByZero]

It's too much.
+1 to something has a big impact with Bounded Accuracy.
+2 to something is borderline broken, depending on your point of view.
It has to be more restrictive, because it's going to get multiclass dual FS combo'd with Dueling.

+1 to AC when not wearing armor, not using a shield, and while using a weapon with the finesse property.
That's what makes it balanced against the other (non-archery) fighting styles and tempers it's Dueling combo.

But in reality, this is exactly what Dueling was meant to be.... Fencing. So it's kind of redundant to begin with.
Dueling and Defense is the by-the-book combo that you want here. Defense works just fine with light armor. Classes that dn't wear armor, but need it, have features to cover that.
You're just creating something which makes Defense style utterly useless on anyone not wearing medium+ armor. That's a bad decision.

[MaxWilson]

It's kind of fun to think about a Moon Druid who somehow acquires Fencing style and Mage Armor. In Air Elemental form he will have AC 20 instead of the usual AC 15 for a regular air elemental. Not a gamebreaker, but fun.

[nickl_2000]

It's too much.
+1 to something has a big impact with Bounded Accuracy.
+2 to something is borderline broken, depending on your point of view.
It has to be more restrictive, because it's going to get multiclass dual FS combo'd with Dueling.

+1 to AC when not wearing armor, not using a shield, and while using a weapon with the finesse property.
That's what makes it balanced against the other (non-archery) fighting styles.

This already exists though DBZ, in a better form than you are saying. The Mariner Fighting Style gives you +1 AC, a climb speed, and a swim speed while you don't have a shield or heavy armor on. Sure it UA, but it's still official.


So, giving just a +1 seems underpowered. Now, if you wanted to give +1 AC and something else that a fencer would have (say an addition 5-10 ft movement speed since a fencer is light on their feet and agile) that would make sense compared to the Mariner fighting Style

[Doug Lampert]

I've noticed that the fighting styles seem to assume armor being worn, a shield being carried, or two weapons being used. But what if you want to wear no or light armor and no shield or second weapon, like a 'classical' sword fighter?

Fencing:

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, and provided that you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield, you gain a +2 bonus to your AC.

Does it work?
I'll note that historical fencing manuals basically say, "Have something in your off-hand".

One empty hand is a SPORT fencing development, AFAICT no serious sword fighter deliberately fought that way.

The word buckler in swashbuckler is from the shield, which was specifically a type of shield light and small enough you could have one slung in town and no one comment on it. Modern fencing largely developed from urban self-defense training, where a fairly light-weight sword might be all you had with you, so they concentrate on that as a weapon, but back when it was ACTUALLY used for self-defense they were big on finding something for your off-hand to do.

IIRC at least one historical manual recommends wearing a big floppy hat so you can use that in your off hand, they recommend a cloak, they recommend a dagger (they designed daggers specifically to be used as off hand weapons with the sword, the style uses them to parry not attack), and I'm pretty sure at least one manual recommends a barstool if nothing else is handy. But fencing as a fighting style like a "classical" sword fighter has something in the off-hand.

I'd only give +1 or +2 for an improvised shield, and allow almost anything to be used as an improvised shield (including your spell-casting focus for most casters). Then I'd give a minor bonus for the style like "if an opponent rolls a natural 1 on an attack targeting the character, then the character may counter-attack with advantage as a reaction" representing things like taking advantage of the opening when your cloak/main gauche/sword catcher/barstool/buckler or whatever catches your opponent's sword and leaves him momentarily off-balance with his weapon out of line.

[follacchioso]

It would be good for monks, but then, you would be a monk fighting with a fencing style? Would that even make sense?

[nickl_2000]

I'll note that historical fencing manuals basically say, "Have something in your off-hand".

One empty hand is a SPORT fencing development, AFAICT no serious sword fighter deliberately fought that way.

The word buckler in swashbuckler is from the shield, which was specifically a type of shield light and small enough you could have one slung in town and no one comment on it. Modern fencing largely developed from urban self-defense training, where a fairly light-weight sword might be all you had with you, so they concentrate on that as a weapon, but back when it was ACTUALLY used for self-defense they were big on finding something for your off-hand to do.

IIRC at least one historical manual recommends wearing a big floppy hat so you can use that in your off hand, they recommend a cloak, they recommend a dagger (they designed daggers specifically to be used as off hand weapons with the sword, the style uses them to parry not attack), and I'm pretty sure at least one manual recommends a barstool if nothing else is handy. But fencing as a fighting style like a "classical" sword fighter has something in the off-hand.

I'd only give +1 or +2 for an improvised shield, and allow almost anything to be used as an improvised shield (including your spell-casting focus for most casters). Then I'd give a minor bonus for the style like "if an opponent rolls a natural 1 on an attack targeting the character, then the character may counter-attack with advantage as a reaction" representing things like taking advantage of the opening when your cloak/main gauche/sword catcher/barstool/buckler or whatever catches your opponent's sword and leaves him momentarily off-balance with his weapon out of line.

You are certainly right in this and to truly make it work you would need to homebrew some items that have various effects and would be difficult to apply into the game. A parrying dagger would be fairly easy, as would a rigid off hand parrying item.

A non-rigid off hand item is a lot more challenging. My experience from using these in the SCA (I'm not an expert, but I did use it in combat) is that there are two primary uses for an offhand cloak.
1) Distraction/hiding the attack - a moving cape draws the eye away from the weapon and away from the body. If you can get you opponents eye away from the danger spots, you can attack in an unexpected way. Also, you can fan the cape out and get the blade behind it, they have trouble seeing what you are doing.
2) Binding the weapon - A cape that is spinning can easily catch a weapon that is being thrust towards you. The weight and momentum of the cape draw the point of the weapon off target rendering it no longer a threat and allowing you to counterattack safely.

I would love to see a parrying dagger and off hand cape be added into D&D and would probably create a character just to be able to do this, but I have absolutely no idea how you can get the flavor to make sense. Also, a cape would be much, much less effective when battling against someone who is intent on burying an axe in your face instead of the thin point of a Rapier or Epee into you.

[bid]

It would be good for monks, but then, you would be a monk fighting with a fencing style? Would that even make sense?
You could call it the empty hand fighting style, a name is just a name. Or just have the monk use a shortsword.

Unless you say you need a rapier, you only have fluff to constrain it.

[bid]

I guess you could declare each round if you are using it one or two handed, thus trading damage for AC?
If it's that important for RAW to match RAI, you say "if you used both hands to attack last round".

[Easy_Lee]

Too much AC, and needlessly restrictive. Bear in mind that dueling benefits a character with no shield just as much as one with a shield. There's already a fighting style for that. If you think dueling should benefit you more for setting the shield aside, tough. The game isn't about supporting every option equally, but about providing some support for every option.

Here's a better option that will fix "fencing" characters and also give some much needed support to iconic versatile weapons, such as the longsword.

Fighting Style - Noble: while only wielding a one handed or versatile weapon and no shield, you gain +1 AC and +1 to damage rolls with that weapon.

[DivisibleByZero]

Fighting Style - Noble: while only wielding a one handed or versatile weapon and no shield, you gain +1 AC and +1 to damage rolls with that weapon.

Still too much.
That's the full benefit of the Defense style and half the benefit of the Dueling style.

[Easy_Lee]

Still too much.
That's the full benefit of the Defense style and half the benefit of the Dueling style.

Yes it is. But as shown by UA Mariner, protection is underpowered. The balance point for these seems to be: will the character have too much AC or do too much damage with this feature? With the Noble style, both answers are No.

Compare to a standard Dueling fighter with a longsword. Damage is equivalent (slightly higher on crits), AC is lower. Since the numbers are static, there's little potential for feature or magic item abuse, either.

[DivisibleByZero]

But as shown by UA Mariner, protection is underpowered.

As shown by UA, Defense is underpowered?.... according to whom?
+1 AC is fantastic in 5e. It's not even remotely underpowered.

[Easy_Lee]

As shown by UA, Defense is underpowered?.... according to whom?
+1 AC is fantastic in 5e. It's not even remotely underpowered.

You didn't quote the rest of my post, so I'll assume you agree with everything else I said. As such, you agree with me that the Noble style, as written, is completely balanced and fine. If you disagree, kindly provide a sample case where the character does significantly more damage or has more AC than a standard Dueling sword and board fighter.

[Moosoculars]

I wouldn't allow this fighting style as it allows for the bonus of a shield and gives you a free hand for spell casting. This frees up the Gish type characters to cast and fight easily.

Now I know not everyone worries about what people are holding when spell casting but I don't let a pc armed with a sword and shield cast a shield spell unless they are dropping their sword.

This fighting style allows for a lot of flexibility without feat taxes such as war caster.

[DivisibleByZero]

You didn't quote the rest of my post, so I'll assume you agree with everything else I said. As such, you agree with me that the Noble style, as written, is completely balanced and fine. If you disagree, kindly provide a sample case where the character does significantly more damage or has more AC than a standard Dueling sword and board fighter.

I'm not entirely sure how you go from me quoting part of what you said and completely disagreeing with it in every single respect, to assuming I agree with the rest of it, which was a tangent on the original thing I completely disagree with.
So your assumption is comically incorrect.

Your proposed "solution" is to make one fighting style completely irrelevant while also granting half of a completely different style.
It's even worse than the original proposition. At least the original only did the former.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not entirely sure how you go from me quoting part of what you said and completely disagreeing with it in every single respect, to assuming I agree with the rest of it, which was a tangent on the original thing I completely disagree with.
So your assumption is comically incorrect.

Your proposed "solution" is to make one fighting style completely irrelevant while also granting half of a completely different style.
It's even worse than the original proposition. At least the original only did the former.

Nothing in this post is either defensible or true, which is why you provide only opinions but no math. But arguing with you online is beneath me. The OP can take what he will from this thread. Your opinion and mine don't matter.

[DivisibleByZero]

Nothing in this post is either defensible or true, which is why you provide only opinions but no math.

It isn't about math in any way.

OP: "Hey guys! I have an idea for a new fighting style that makes another one of the fighting styles completely irrelevant. Whatcha think?"
Easy: "I think you should go one step further and give them part of a different style altogether right on top of it!"

His idea was a bad idea.
Your idea is even worse.

[rbstr]

It's the fighting styles themselves that are supposed to be balanced against one another, not the all-in equipment/attack options.
Dueling is roughly equivalent to Great Weapon style in damage added.
You can archer with +2 to hit with any bow.
Defense gives the same +1AC benefit to everyone in all armors.

Balanced correctly, a "Noble" of "Fencing" style fall in line with those: ~+2 damage per hit, +2 to-hit, ~+1AC, or something you can see as being roughly equivalent to any one of those things.
So if you wanted to do say, +1/+1 to hit/damage go for it. Or +1 AC for having a free hand, even, much to a mage armor-users benefit.
The key is that, for any given fighting setup the benefits are roughly equivalent.

But +2AC a much better benefit than the others. The attempt to balance through downsides here is broken because the "downsides" are pretty transparently not substantial downsides for people that meet the criteria. Restricting to light armor and finesse weapons because those things are synergistic to begin with and a rapier is as good as a longsword anyway.
And finally, forcing the empty hand simply isn't a true punishment as a free hand is a beneficial thing. And we even know how much the designers think it's worth, thanks to the shield: +2AC. It's like a handout to gish-types. Get a free extra AC to NOT have to deal with 's' spells! Have the benefits of a shield and still get to cast shield!

[kenposan]

Too much AC, and needlessly restrictive. Bear in mind that dueling benefits a character with no shield just as much as one with a shield.

No, because someone with no shield loses the benefit of a shield. It's kind of assumed that people who take Dueling are using a shield in order to gain the full benefit of the fighting style. That's the point of what I'm trying to do here; create a fighting style that doesn't penalize someone for not wearing armor or using a shield to match a cinematic fighting style.


Here's a better option that will fix "fencing" characters and also give some much needed support to iconic versatile weapons, such as the longsword.

Fighting Style - Noble: while only wielding a one handed or versatile weapon and no shield, you gain +1 AC and +1 to damage rolls with that weapon.

That is interesting. Instead of bumping AC up to high, split the bump between AC and damage. I hadn't thought of that. My only issue is it still allows all armor types, and my goal is to create a fighting style that benefits lighter armor wearing combatants.

[rbstr]

No, because someone with no shield loses the benefit of a shield. It's kind of assumed that people who take Dueling are using a shield in order to gain the full benefit of the fighting style.

No. It's assuming you're not using a two hands to use a weapon or weapons. A personal with no shield gains the benefit of a free hand and a free hand is worth something. It's not a punishment. Dueling benefits people with a shield and without a shield equally.

[MaxWilson]

No. It's assuming you're not using a two hands to use a weapon or weapons. A personal with no shield gains the benefit of a free hand and a free hand is worth something. It's not a punishment. Dueling benefits people with a shield and without a shield equally.

Sure, they gain the benefit of a shield at the expense of a fighting style instead of a free hand. A normal person gains the benefit of a shield at the expense of a free hand instead of a fighting style. That's fair in both directions.

(And anyone with Defense gains half the benefit of the shield at the expense of a fighting style, and it STACKS with a shield. That is also fair.)

[qube]

isn't , like, the Defensive Duelist intended for fencing? and, dueling for fighting style?

I'm very weary to drop that damage for something that stacks with Defensive Duelist. my 'players wants to homebrew stackable bonusses' sense is tingling

[Easy_Lee]

That is interesting. Instead of bumping AC up to high, split the bump between AC and damage. I hadn't thought of that. My only issue is it still allows all armor types, and my goal is to create a fighting style that benefits lighter armor wearing combatants.

Why limit it only to lighter armor?

[MaxWilson]

isn't , like, the Defensive Duelist intended for fencing? and, dueling for fighting style?

I'm very weary to drop that damage for something that stacks with Defensive Duelist. my 'players wants to homebrew stackable bonusses' sense is tingling

Defensive Duelist already stacks with rapier + shield. The only thing that changes there is that you can grapple/prone a guy in one hand while stabbing him with your rapier with the other hand and using Defensive Duelist to parry whenever he manages to come close--normally you wouldn't have enough hands to keep using a shield at the same time. So arguably, Fencing style is good for grapplers--but you're still missing out on Defense style, which means you're missing out on +1 to AC whenever you AREN'T going to grapple (e.g. against dragons, giants, etc.).

[kenposan]

Why limit it only to lighter armor?

Because the idea behind it is to allow for a cinematic Erol Flynn kind of fighter. One that isn't wearing armor (or light armor) and being a one-handed fighter. So bumping the AC bonus to +2 to counter the loss of heavier armor, a shield+Defense style was the initial concept.

[opticalshadow]

Because the idea behind it is to allow for a cinematic Erol Flynn kind of fighter. One that isn't wearing armor (or light armor) and being a one-handed fighter. So bumping the AC bonus to +2 to counter the loss of heavier armor, a shield+Defense style was the initial concept.

I wouldnt change anything for the player. Its breaking other things, even if just minor, so that they can have less, require less, and still be as good or better. giving up armor means less protection, theres already a rule for a defense to a fighting style that works for that type, yeah its at a disadvantage because hes choosing to not make full use of something, but thats the point. not everything has to be min maxed, and if you tweak this little thing every character has the right to their own balance breaking rule

he should have a disadvantage in this case, if he wants to make up the ac, get a ring of protection, or some such thing.

[Foxhound438]

That is interesting. Instead of bumping AC up to high, split the bump between AC and damage. I hadn't thought of that. My only issue is it still allows all armor types, and my goal is to create a fighting style that benefits lighter armor wearing combatants.

swift step FS: "while wearing light or no armor and not wearing a shield, your walking speed increases by 5'. In addition, whenever you take the disengage action, you can use a bonus action to feint at an enemy within 5' of you, granting advantage to the first attack made against that creature before the start of your next turn."

5' movement makes that disengage a bit more meaningful on its own, as you can get far enough away from a thing that most foes will have to dash in order to catch up. The feint makes it so that you can feel like you're still doing work when you need to break away from the frontline to either engage something else or get healing, or whatever else. Wielding a weapon in 2 hands is generally not going to be an issue, since you're in light armor, meaning you're dex based- all the 2h and versatile weapons are in fact strength weapons. You could argue that it's usable if you're holding a longbow or something, but in that sense the same fighting style serves 2 purposes now- it's both good for 1h dex melee characters and for archers that like to play in close quarters. Honestly though most of your archer friends will still just take archery, since that style is far and away the most busted powerful style.

[MaxWilson]

swift step FS: "while wearing light or no armor and not wearing a shield, your walking speed increases by 5'. In addition, whenever you take the disengage action, you can use a bonus action to feint at an enemy within 5' of you, granting advantage to the first attack made against that creature before the start of your next turn."

5' movement makes that disengage a bit more meaningful on its own, as you can get far enough away from a thing that most foes will have to dash in order to catch up. The feint makes it so that you can feel like you're still doing work when you need to break away from the frontline to either engage something else or get healing, or whatever else. Wielding a weapon in 2 hands is generally not going to be an issue, since you're in light armor, meaning you're dex based- all the 2h and versatile weapons are in fact strength weapons. You could argue that it's usable if you're holding a longbow or something, but in that sense the same fighting style serves 2 purposes now- it's both good for 1h dex melee characters and for archers that like to play in close quarters. Honestly though most of your archer friends will still just take archery, since that style is far and away the most busted powerful style.

I like it, but shouldn't that be "before the end of your next turn" and not "before the start..."? Otherwise the advantage is useful only for opportunity attacks against that creature, which probably aren't going to happen if you're fighting like a skirmisher and not a tank.

[Foxhound438]

I like it, but shouldn't that be "before the end of your next turn" and not "before the start..."? Otherwise the advantage is useful only for opportunity attacks against that creature, which probably aren't going to happen if you're fighting like a skirmisher and not a tank.

you have allies

[MaxWilson]

you have allies

Oh, gotcha. For some reason I was reading it like True Strike, as if it had been written "granting you advantage on the first attack..."

[Easy_Lee]

Because the idea behind it is to allow for a cinematic Erol Flynn kind of fighter. One that isn't wearing armor (or light armor) and being a one-handed fighter. So bumping the AC bonus to +2 to counter the loss of heavier armor, a shield+Defense style was the initial concept.

Well, assuming this character wears studded leather, a +1 AC bonus and +5 DEX will already put him at 18 AC. There are feats you can take, like defensive duelist, to further increase defenses. So unless you want this character to have equivalent or better AC than a plate-wearing sword and board fighter, which would be pretty crazy, then 18 ought to be your ideal target.

And my point with Noble was simple: it benefits the type of character you want without excluding other styles. I don't believe features -- especially fighter features -- ought be designed for one specific play style. The fighter's biggest saving grace is his versatility, as there are so many weapon and armor combinations possible without even touching the fighter's exceptional feat selection and multiclass options.

[D.U.P.A.]

Makes no sense thematically. Classes with fighting styles have armor and shields proficiencies and fighting styles should reflect and improve that. If you want to play a fighting class with no armor or light armor play Monk or Rogue instead. Or something which gives Mage armor. This sort of fighting style should be a feature of other classes.

[CantigThimble]

Well, assuming this character wears studded leather, a +1 AC bonus and +5 DEX will already put him at 18 AC.

Wait, where did the +1AC bonus come from?

[Sirdar]

I'll give it a try:

Fencing
As long as you are not wearing heavy armor, medium armor or using a shield, you gain a +1 bonus to AC. In addition, if you have a finesse weapon in your main hand and keep your offhand free, you also gain a +1 bonus to initiative.

[DivisibleByZero]

Wait, where did the +1AC bonus come from?
Defense style, or the silly Noble thing Easy is pushing which also grants a damage boost in top of that.

[Easy_Lee]

Wait, where did the +1AC bonus come from?

Mariner, defense, dual wielder, etc. There are several ways for a lightly armored fighter to hit 18 AC.

[CantigThimble]

Mariner, defense, dual wielder, etc. There are several ways for a lightly armored fighter to hit 18 AC.

Sure, but a heavily armored character can also take defense or dual wielder and go above 18. I don't really see how than supports the point you were trying to make.

[BurgerBeast]

I don't mean to put a damper on the efforts of the commenters in this thread, but I feel that the solution you are looking for will never quite feel right because you're trying to work within the context of a previous error (made by the designers).

As has been mentioned from the outset, Dueling style is a good fighting style provided it doesn't work with a shield. The best solution is not to create a new feat for single weapon, free hand.. The best solution is to introduce this requirement to duelling. Then, if you feel that the weapon & shield style options are too limited, you create a new weapon and shield style.

[CantigThimble]

I don't mean to put a damper on the efforts of the commenters in this thread, but I feel that the solution you are looking for will never quite feel right because you're trying to work within the context of a previous error (made by the designers).

As has been mentioned from the outset, Dueling style is a good fighting style provided it doesn't work with a shield. The best solution is not to create a new feat for single weapon, free hand.. The best solution is to introduce this requirement to duelling. Then, if you feel that the weapon & shield style options are too limited, you create a new weapon and shield style.

Duelling is a really weak fighting style if it doesn't work with shields. If you were going to require that you not use a shield to use dueling you need to buff the dueling style.

[DivisibleByZero]

Duelling is a really weak fighting style if it doesn't work with shields. If you were going to require that you not use a shield to use dueling you need to buff the dueling style.

+2 damage may have been fairly weak in 3.5, but this isn't 3.5. In 5e, +2 damage is not weak at all.

[CantigThimble]

+2 damage may have been fairly weak in 3.5, but this isn't 3.5. In 5e, +2 damage is not weak at all.

I am well aware that dueling is not a weak fighting style. However, it is designed to be used with a shield. Unless dueling is far and away the best fighting style then I don't see how you can strip 2 AC from the style and have it still be balanced. That's a massive nerf.

[miburo]

Given this fighting style emphasizes mobility and striking, why not something like +1 to damage and you can use a bonus action to Dash on your turn.

[CantigThimble]

Given this fighting style emphasizes mobility and striking, why not something like +1 to damage and you can use a bonus action to Dash on your turn.

If mobile wasn't a thing then I would suggest its benefit of preventing opportunity attacks from people you attack. It's a good way to help with survivability without just giving flat AC bonuses. (Which people don't seem to like because light armor numbers should never be as high as heavy armor numbers or something)

[Easy_Lee]

Sure, but a heavily armored character can also take defense or dual wielder and go above 18. I don't really see how than supports the point you were trying to make.

On the contrary, I don't see your point. If you're upset that using a shield is better than not using a shield for a one-handed weapon wielder, what's wrong with that? There are upsides to having a free hand, such as item use or spells. And if you're upset that a character in plate has more AC than a character in light armor, again what's wrong with that? A character in plate should have more AC. If you think otherwise, you're wrong. Why are you wrong? Because if light armor was just as useful, no one would ever use plate.

It's like the old argument about strength weapons. Why do they do more damage than dexterity weapons? Because initiative is on DEX, and it's a more common saving throw. It's an inherently better stat. If there was no reason to use strength (such as better damage and AC), then no one would use strength.

And more to the point, you don't need a perfectly optimized character. Good enough is good enough. If you absolutely must have the best numbers, I suggest you either get over it, or play the character who actually does have the best numbers in this edition. You don't get to come up with a build idea, and then be upset when the game doesn't perfectly support that build idea. I have yet to see the concept that can't be made good enough. Settle for that. Your decisions and ability to play the character will have a much bigger impact than optimal stats.

[CantigThimble]

Light armor is better than heavy armor. After you max dexterity, take a fighting style, probably a feat as well and figure out a way to get mage armor. Heavy armor is better BEFORE level 8-12 and lets you spend all those resources on other stuff. Also, 2 handed weapons.

I'm fine with it being balanced like that.

I was just pointing out the inconsistency of comparing Armor+Fighting Style/Feat to Armor and complaining that the first one is better.

[Matrix_Walker]

Fencing is all about speed and mobility and the ability to parry effectively, generally with light finesse weapons and no more than light armor.

We already see

Defensive Duelist is the ability to parry...
Dual Wielder is the AC bonus for being able to use an epee or main-gauche for added defense.
Mobility seems very appropriate for a fencer as well...

So the tools are already in the kit if you want to take a few feats to make your fencer.

if we want to wrap it all up in one package and tone down the power so it can all fit into a Fighting Style, I might homebrew something like...

While unencumbered wearing no more than light armor and wielding a finesse weapon, Add +1 to AC. In addition, you may move 5 feet in any direction after making an attack without provoking opportunity attacks.

[Zalabim]

It's the fighting styles themselves that are supposed to be balanced against one another, not the all-in equipment/attack options.

The whole equipment package actually is considered. That's why defense gives +1 AC and mariner is +1 AC and more. Because mariner doesn't work in heavy armor. That's why Dueling is +2 damage and GWF is not +2 damage, on average. Because the alternate option, Defense, is better when you have a shield than when you don't. The fighting styles are made for the fighter first and balanced for how the fighter is able to use them first.

No, because someone with no shield loses the benefit of a shield. It's kind of assumed that people who take Dueling are using a shield in order to gain the full benefit of the fighting style. That's the point of what I'm trying to do here; create a fighting style that doesn't penalize someone for not wearing armor or using a shield to match a cinematic fighting style.

That is interesting. Instead of bumping AC up to high, split the bump between AC and damage. I hadn't thought of that. My only issue is it still allows all armor types, and my goal is to create a fighting style that benefits lighter armor wearing combatants.
I think you really need to pick one goal if you want to accomplish it. There's already Mariner for an example of a fighting style that benefits lighter armor wearing combatants. If you want a fighting style that benefits keeping one hand free, make just that, and don't tie it to armor at the same time.

[kenposan]

General consensus is it isn't broken, but isn't necessarily appropriate either.

So let's try this, based on various comments and suggestions:

When you are unencumbered, wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, and provided that you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield, you gain a +1 bonus to your AC and


A) may move without provoking an opportunity attack (or disengage as a bonus action?)

or

B) +1 to damage with that weapon

Not that you get to pick, I'm just trying to narrow the options I liked.

[DivisibleByZero]

General consensus is it isn't broken, but isn't necessarily appropriate either.

So let's try this, based on various comments and suggestions:

When you are unencumbered, wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, and provided that you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield, you gain a +1 bonus to your AC and


A) may move without provoking an opportunity attack (or disengage as a bonus action?)

or

B) +1 to damage with that weapon

Not that you get to pick, I'm just trying to narrow the options I liked.

Still too much. That is would be hands down, no contest, the best fighting style in the game.

[nickl_2000]

Still too much. That is would be hands down, no contest, the best fighting style in the game.

What do you think about +1 AC and an extra 5ft movement per round?

[CantigThimble]

It's important to consider the opportunity cost for using the fighting style, rather than just comparing how many bonuses it gives compared to other styles.

Wielding a one handed weapon and leaving the other hand free is not a competitive option, people may do it for fun anyway but that doesn't matter for balance. Anyone who can take a fighting style would benefit from either A) a shield or B) a second weapon. The only exception to this is grapplers. (Spellcasters can just put away a weapon to cast a spell and then draw it again before they attack next turn for free, so that's not relevant.) Grapplers are kind of a niche, so I'm not too concerned about them when factoring in balance.

So if we have a dex based martial (since that's who this style is for) they really have 3 options for style.
Dueling: Gives them +2 damage and +2 AC from a shield.
Two weapon fighting: Gives them an extra attack, but costs them the shield.
Defense: Gives them +1AC and +2AC from a shield.

The original style proposed was +2 AC. That's basically a shield but with a free hand that can't be used for weapons/shield. Essiantially the style is:
Fencing: You have a free hand to interact, grapple or cast and can use a shield.

That seems like a relatively unimpressive thing to give a dex fighter. (they're not likely to be great grapplers)

So other proposals:
+1 damage +1 AC: Basically half the benefits of dueling and you get an extra hand. Seems fine.

Something something, no opprtunity attacks: Kind of hard to make without stepping on the toes of cunning action and mobile. Best I can think of is: bonus action to move 5 feet without provoking opprtunity attacks. Unfortunately that's really hard to compare to all the other fighting styles so I'm not sure how well it would be balanced.

[DivisibleByZero]

What do you think about +1 AC and an extra 5ft movement per round?

I think it's pointless and redundant.
Just take Defense style.
The classes that can't use Defense style, like the Monk and sometimes the Barbarian, already have a feature to cover this.

You guys are trying to reinvent the wheel. We already have a wheel.

[bid]

Essentially the style is:
Fencing: You have a free hand to interact, grapple or cast and can use a shield.

That seems like a relatively unimpressive thing to give a dex fighter. (they're not likely to be great grapplers)
That's about it. Although it might be too strong for any SnB caster and for monks.

[rbstr]

Tons of gish types would love to have the free hand and 2AC for it.

Anything that boils down to "Defense Style and..." is out IMO. That includes mariner for that matter.

[CantigThimble]

I really dont think that a free hand is actually that useful for a gish. You can sheath or draw a weapon for free each turn. So you can stow a weapon, cast a spell with the weapon hand and then next turn draw the weapon and attack without missing a beat.

[bid]

I really dont think that a free hand is actually that useful for a gish. You can sheath or draw a weapon for free each turn. So you can stow a weapon, cast a spell with the weapon hand and then next turn draw the weapon and attack without missing a beat.
You can't OA. Not that big a deal since you only have a 1-hander and no warcaster for BB.

[Laserlight]

I've noticed that the fighting styles seem to assume armor being worn, a shield being carried, or two weapons being used. But what if you want to wear no or light armor and no shield or second weapon, like a 'classical' sword fighter?


Then you say "Hm, a lot of those 'classic' sword fighters actually used a small shield or an offhand weapon". I don't have a problem with single-sword being weaker than other styles--it is weaker. Sometimes you have a reason to do it anyway (eg cavalry who used their other hand for reins); but a good DM can easily put players in those situations as well.

[Laurefindel]

So let me get this straight...

"I want to use a 2-handed weapon"; two-handed fighting style gets you covered.
"I want to use a shield"; dueling fighting style gets you covered.
"I want to use a weapon in each hand"; two-weapon fighting style gets you covered.
"I want to boost my high AC from heavy armor and shield even further"; defensive fighting style gets you covered.
"I want to make a lightly armored Erol Flynn type fighter"; ... hey there's a niche for another fighting style here!

ok

proposition is +2 AC if light (or no armor), no shield and single (one-handed) weapon.

so if you have a two-handed weapon; two-handed weapon fighting or defensive is still better.
so if you have shield; dueling or defensive is still better.
so if you have two weapons; TWF or defensive is still better.
so if you have heavy armor; any of the previous fighting styles are still better.

This leaves a few concepts, mostly dex-based lightly or medium armored characters with no shield/2h weapon/TWF whereas this new fighting style would be better (by +1 AC).

As previously stated, that would mainly benefit monks and arcane casters (especially bladesigners) who multiclass into fighter and who do not necessarily need the boost. I guess you could add "cannot use an alternate AC calculation formula" to the already long list of prerequisites.

As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and use it in your games. But yeah, it can be abused with optimisation (as much as +1 AC constitutes "abuse")

[CantigThimble]

Then you say "Hm, a lot of those 'classic' sword fighters actually used a small shield or an offhand weapon". I don't have a problem with single-sword being weaker than other styles--it is weaker. Sometimes you have a reason to do it anyway (eg cavalry who used their other hand for reins); but a good DM can easily put players in those situations as well.

And it is weaker here as well. The fighting style really just makes up for the fact that they are inefficiently armed to bring them back to baseline, meanwhile Sword'n'Boarders have just as good AC and also another fighting style.

[DivisibleByZero]

So let me get this straight...

"I want to use a 2-handed weapon"; two-handed fighting style gets you covered.
"I want to use a shield one - handed weapon "; dueling fighting style gets you covered.
"I want to use a weapon in each hand"; two-weapon fighting style gets you covered.
"I want to boost my high AC from heavy armor and shield any armor even further"; defensive fighting style gets you covered.
"I want to make a lightly armored Erol Flynn type fighter"; ... hey there's a niche for another fighting style here!

Fixed it for you.
Dueling is not "because I want to use a shield." Being able to use a shield is a benefit of using a one - handed weapon, not a benefit of the fighting style. The fact that the fighting style allows a shield does not mean that its what the style was designed for, it's just a coincidental benefit.
The E Flynn style fighter would have Dueling style.
And please don't make Defense only for heavy/shield combo in an attempt to further your own viewpoint. It works with padded as well as with plate.

[CantigThimble]

Fixed it for you.
Dueling is not "because I want to use a shield." Being able to use a shield is a benefit of using a one - handed weapon, not a benefit of the fighting style. The fact that the fighting style allows a shield does not mean that its what the style was designed for, it's just a coincidental benefit.
The E Flynn style fighter would have Dueling style.

I think the fact that the dueling style works with shields pretty clearly implies that it was intended to be used with them. Unlike, say, monk martial arts. I think you're getting a bit hung up on the name. If you're imagining English noblemen 'swords or pistols' when you hear 'dueling' then a shield doesn't seem to fit there and doesn't seem like part of the design. But if you imagine a pair of armored knights competing in a one on one melee tournament then it makes more sense. They're certainly not taking protection, so what's a Sword'n'Board man to do when he just needs to beat an opponent one on one? Dueling style.

[bid]

I think the fact that the dueling style works with shields pretty clearly implies that it was intended to be used with them.
The word "shield" does not appear in the description. You could say the same thing about "heavy armor" or "rapier" and it would be no better.

They could also have made a fighting style that requires a shield, doing the same +2 damage with whatever weapon they used. That would have been the ultimate proof that it was intended to be used with them. The fact that they picked another definition means they had other goals in mind.

As it stands, you can cast spells and grapple with dueling style. Both use cases have nothing to do with shields.

[CantigThimble]

The word "shield" does not appear in the description. You could say the same thing about "heavy armor" or "rapier" and it would be no better.

They could also have made a fighting style that requires a shield, doing the same +2 damage with whatever weapon they used. That would have been the ultimate proof that it was intended to be used with them. The fact that they picked another definition means they had other goals in mind.

As it stands, you can cast spells and grapple with dueling style. Both use cases have nothing to do with shields.

Look, if a change to the core rules was being called for, I agree, there would be some thematic redundancy in having both dueling and fencing. However, in the context of a houserule to support a mostly thematic but otherwise relatively weak gear selection I think it's perfectly acceptable.

[DivisibleByZero]

Look, if a change to the core rules was being called for, I agree, there would be some thematic redundancy in having both dueling and fencing. However, in the context of a houserule to support a mostly thematic but otherwise relatively weak gear selection I think it's perfectly acceptable.

It would be, if you come up with a style that didn't step in another's toes so much that the previous became redundant.
You want to create a style? Go for it. But don't take another style and just alter it to be strictly superior afterwards.
That's not creating a new style, that's just munchkinizing the previous.

[bid]

Look, if a change to the core rules was being called for, I agree, there would be some thematic redundancy in having both dueling and fencing. However, in the context of a houserule to support a mostly thematic but otherwise relatively weak gear selection I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Then don't say dueling is implied to work with shield. Find a valid argument.

I feel the only weakness of that fencing style is that it works for monks. Make it a buckler shield small enough that your hand is effectively empty, or some other approach that makes it unusable for monks and 2-handers, and it becomes palatable.

[Laurefindel]

Fixed it for you.
Dueling is not "because I want to use a shield." Being able to use a shield is a benefit of using a one - handed weapon, not a benefit of the fighting style. The fact that the fighting style allows a shield does not mean that its what the style was designed for, it's just a coincidental benefit.
The E Flynn style fighter would have Dueling style.
And please don't make Defense only for heavy/shield combo in an attempt to further your own viewpoint. It works with padded as well as with plate.

None of that needed fixing; all were true statements. Dueling HAS you covered if you are wielding a shield, and defense CAN boost your AC even though you are wearing heavy armor and a shield.

However, you can disagree with the statement that there is a niche for another fighting style; it was indeed a weak conclusion because both dueling and defense fighting style do indeed benefit a lightly armored, no shield and single one-handed weapon character.

An Erol Flynn-type concept willingly puts itself at a disadvantage for the sake of looks (by forgoing the use of a shield), and the fighting style described in the OP simply attempts level that.

A fighter in light armor, no shield, a single one-handed weapon has a +2 AC from the (lets call it "noble") fighting style.
The same fighter wearing a shield can take dueling for +2 AC and an additional +2 damage
The same fighter wearing a shield can take defense for +3 AC instead.

In both cases, the fighter who simply decides to use a shield is "ahead". The noble fighter has the advantage of an empty hand, which can be used for swinging around chandeliers, climbing and other athletics/acrobatics. That's in theory very valuable, but I've rarely seen games where it comes up more than once per fight (and that's being generous). Mainly, the noble fighter has an empty hand for looks.

So far, I wouldn't have any issues with the new fighting style. I'm sure could find some shenanigans with animated shields and whatnot, but a fighting style that allows you to fake a shield is not that broken.

The big problem with this fighting style is that it mostly benefits concepts that aren't like Erol Flynn at all, who already have/need a free hand and who already have mechanisms to increase their AC (mostly thinking of monks and bladesingers). In that regard, further restrictions need to be included, but I don't see the idea as being silly or game breaking.

[DivisibleByZero]

None of that needed fixing; all were true statements. Dueling HAS you covered if you are wielding a shield, and defense CAN boost your AC even though you are wearing heavy armor and a shield.

<snip>

An Erol Flynn-type concept willingly puts itself at a disadvantage for the sake of looks (by forgoing the use of a shield), and the fighting style described in the OP simply attempts level that.

To your first point, yes, it needed fixing. Because you were manipulating the facts to support your own stance.
Secondly, personal choices for a character don't all have to be equal. If you want to be a lightly armored single weapon fighter with a free hand, that's a choice. Nothing says that all choices must be equal. You could just as easily choose to use a shield, or to take Defense style, or to use a greatsword, or to use only a sling, or to wear a pink bonnet on your head.
Those are all choices. They don't all have to be equal. If you don't like it, you can make a different choice.
You can even homebrew something OP if you want.
What you cannot do is homebrew something OP, argue your way around it, manipulate the facts to support your argument, and expect everyone to agree with you.

[Laurefindel]

To your first point, yes, it needed fixing. Because you were manipulating the facts to support your own stance.
Secondly, personal choices for a character don't all have to be equal. If you want to be a lightly armored single weapon fighter with a free hand, that's a choice. Nothing says that all choices must be equal. You could just as easily choose to use a shield, or to take Defense style, or to use a greatsword, or to use only a sling, or to wear a pink bonnet on your head.
Those are all choices. They don't all have to be equal. If you don't like it, you can make a different choice.
You can even homebrew something OP if you want.
What you cannot do is homebrew something OP, argue your way around it, manipulate the facts to support your argument, and expect everyone to agree with you.

I agree about all choices not being equal. There are some concepts that are sub-obtimal. D&D does a relatively good job of leveling things out, and regularly proposes add-ons to fill concepts that need mechanical support to be viable with Unearthed Arcana. That's what the OP was attempting to do; fill a perceived missing tool to make a certain type of concept viable. So yeah, we are clearly in homebrew territory here.

Personally, I find it unnecessary and too fiddly (too many proscriptions) to be considered, but whether that niche really needs to be filled, or whether must every concept be mechanically corrected to be viable, wasn't the question at hand. The question was "does it work"?

For a "classical" sword fighter as the OP states, which I identify as an Erol Flynn type of character, I believe the fighting style does work; it does its job at bringing up the "worthiness" of the character without eclipsing other concepts made with other fighting styles. TWF becomes better as soon as you pick-up an off-hand weapon, 2h-handed fighting becomes better as soon as you pick-up a two-handed weapon, dueling (or defense) becomes better as soon as you pick-up a shield, and defense (or dueling) becomes better as soon as you don heavier armor.

However, it does become clearly better than defense for monks and arcane casters, to which my message was "that needs to be addressed"

Perhaps if the intention was to increase the AC of (the equivalent of) a leather-armor clad Erol Flynn it might have been better to say "if you are wearing no armor, no shield and a single, one-handed weapon, your AC is 13 + DEX as long as your weapon is drawn" or something, as it has been proposed before.

[DivisibleByZero]

For a "classical" sword fighter as the OP states, which I identify as an Erol Flynn type of character, I believe the fighting style does work; it does its job at bringing up the "worthiness" of the character without eclipsing other concepts made with other fighting styles.

You're still missing the point.
E Flynn would have the Dueling style.
We do not need to add another homebrewed style to cover his lower defenses. Playing a Fencing swordsman (AKA: a Duelist) is already an option.
My comment about choices was to highlight that this option already exists, and in so choosing, you are choosing to have slightly (like, 1 or 2 pts) lower AC.

10 + 2 from Studded + 5 from Dex = 17
Toss Defense onto that (instead of Dueling) and it's 18
Plate = 18

We can already play a lightly armored fencer without the need for some OP style that steps on two other styles' toes and makes them obsolete, and the AC from light armor is perfectly competitive already if you build Dex.
If you don't want to wear any armor, splash Monk for +Wis, or Barb for +Con, or Dragon Sorc for 13+Dex, or Wiz/Sorc/AT/EK for Mage Armor at 13+Dex) and you can get there just as well.
Creating a style the is head and shoulders above the rest is not the answer here. Those above, in the two previous sentences, those are the answers.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel. The wheel that we have works perfectly.

edit:
And before anyone chimes in with "But the plate guy can use a shield and take Defense, too!"
Yes, he can.
Are you seriously going to tell me that you think a guy in leather wielding a rapier should be just as hard to kill as a guy wearing plate?
Because it's already closer than it should be, so the lightly armored guy shouldn't get even better. He's already arguably too good as it is.

[Laurefindel]

You're still missing the point.
E Flynn would have the Dueling style.
We do not need to add another homebrewed style to cover his lower defenses. Playing a Fencing swordsman (AKA: a Duelist) is already an option.
My comment about choices was to highlight that this option already exists, and in so choosing, you are choosing to have slightly (like, 1 or 2 pts) lower AC.

10 + 2 Studded + 5 Dex = 17
Toss Defense onto (instead of Dueling) that and it's 18
Plate = 18

We can already play a lightly armored fencer without the need for some OP style that steps on two other styles' toes and makes them obsolete.

Ok, right. I get your point.

I disagree with obsolescence as both dueling and defense would still be better in many cases (mainly all involving a shield), but I see what you mean.

That would bring AC up to 19, but my point is that so does studded + 20 DEX + shield, or plate + defense style.

I'm not arguing the fact that the option already exists; but I do not share the opinion that it is silly OP (baring classes that are already rewarded for not being able to use a shield).

[edit] although I am comparing it against TWF and 2-handed fighting and it does feel a bit off. I'm reconsidering... It would work better as a AC with no armor and no shield = 13 + Dex formula. Still a free Mage Armor for bladesingers however...

[DivisibleByZero]

From my edit that you missed while typing:


We can already play a lightly armored fencer without the need for some OP style that steps on two other styles' toes and makes them obsolete, and the AC from light armor is perfectly competitive already if you build Dex.
If you don't want to wear any armor, splash Monk for +Wis, or Barb for +Con, or Dragon Sorc for 13+Dex, or Wiz/Sorc/AT/EK for Mage Armor at 13+Dex) and you can get there just as well.
Creating a style the is head and shoulders above the rest is not the answer here. Those above, in the two previous sentences, those are the answers.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel. The wheel that we have works perfectly.

And before anyone chimes in with "But the plate guy can use a shield and take Defense, too!"
Yes, he can.
Are you seriously going to tell me that you think a guy in leather wielding a rapier should be just as hard to kill as a guy wearing plate?
Because it's already closer than it should be, so the lightly armored guy shouldn't get even better. He's already arguably too good as it is.

This entire thread claims to be about a new style. But it isn't a new style at all. It takes an existing style and improves it to the point that the previous version is worthless.
We don't need this at all.
Home brew it if you want to, but it is in no way needed. There is no gap that needs to be filled.
Not here, in any case.

[furby076]

Hmmm. The most abusive combo I can think of is to get it for a Bladesinger, e.g. Fighter 1/Bladesinger X. By 5th level, a fairly typical Dex 18 Int 16 elf could be rocking Mage Armor, Bladesong, Fencing style, and the Shield spell for a total max AC of (13 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 5) = AC 27. AC 22 without spending any spell points/slots, and he can use melee cantrips for a competitively-good offense. A few ASIs down the road, that may be AC 25 (+5 for Shield).


Fairly typical lvl 5 is 18 and 16? I want your DM

[bid]

Fairly typical lvl 5 is 18 and 16? I want your DM
What? You find it surprising that an high elf point buy starts with 8 16 14 16 12 10?
Or is it that the wizard 4 ASI is spent on Dex?

[D-naras]

How's this for a Fencing fighting style?

Fencing: When you wield a one-handed weapon and have a hand free, you can add a flurry to your melee weapon attacks as Bonus Action. If you do, add +1d4 to all melee weapon attack rolls during the turn.

It's a big boost but it costs your Bonus Action and there aren't any -5/+10 feats for one-handed weapons.