Fighting style for versatile weapons

[Haydensan]

As it stands the two choices if you want to playa versatile weapon user without a shield in hand the fighting style choices are GWF or Defense.

Defense is edged out by just using a shield and then at that point there's dueling as well if you want a damaging alternative that probably beats out two handing the weapon. 1d8 +Str+2 vs 1d10+2. Haven't mathed it out but I'm guessing the former is stronger AND has the option for more AC.

GWF feels underwhelming rerolling 1d10 when your buddy is rerolling their heavy weapon. It's not too bad I guess but it's a little annoying not being able to use GWM (I know that feat over performs).

Would it throw things out of balance to add a fighting style similar to archery fighting style but for versatile weapons in two hands?

Thinking something like:
*Name here*
Attacks made with a versatile weapon with two hands gain a bonus of +1 (maybe +2 not sure) to attack rolls

TL;DR
Fighting style for versatile weapons to add to attack rolls, opinions?

[NiklasWB]

I was actually thinking about this today so I'll just give my two cents.

The "Versatile fighting style" warrior is fairly common fantasy trope. Aragorn, every Samurai with a katana, Jon Snow... the list goes on an on. The problem is that in 5e is is strictly better to either use a big Heavy Two Hander for the increased damage (and the Feat GWM), or use a shield for a still fair damage and a free +2 AC.

The issue with a Versatile fighting style is both that it needs to "work" as a Fighting Style, and that it has to be a valid option that meshes with all builds that could make use of it.

I think if we first zone in on the question "what do we want the Versatile fighting style to be mechanically?" it is easier to start there. In my opinion, Versatile should be both a middle road between offense and defense, as well as being viable if you want to build in either direction. I do not see Versatile as being more accurate than the other fighting styles, so I would not add anything to attack rolls.

Since we need defense soewhere in there i think a + to AC is a must. You get a +2 from a shield from just using it, and to even consider using a Versatile weapon instead of a Heavy Two Hander, you need to get some defense. So + to AC... The question then becomes how much and if it should always be granted or not. Probably not always granted, as to not simply be better than Defense fighting style.

So my idea would be to give a +2 AC whenever you do not make a melee weapon attack on your turn (simulating a more defensive guarding stance). Might be a bith of a streach to make it equal to a shield, but then again, you cannot attack and still get this benefit.

Then we need offense. To make it easy and not to step on the toes of Dueling fighting style, lets put it at +2 damage. And here I think we could just mirror and reverse the requirement for the + to AC. If you make at least one melee attack you gain a +2 to damage for all the attacks. This way the damage increase is comparable to Great weapon fighting and Dueling, but the AC gain is situational.

Versatile Fighting Style version 1

When you are wielding a versatile melee weapon in both hands and make at least one attack with that weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon until the start of your next turn. If you do not make any melee weapon attacks and still wield the weapons in two hands at the end of your turn, you gain a +2 bonus AC until the start of your next turn.

Another option would be to have the AC bonus that only apply to melee attacks, but that it is always active. Then it becomes alot more dependant on the DM's decision of enemies, but perhaps easier to use and justify.

Versatile Fighting Style version 2

When you are wielding a versatile melee weapon in both hands you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon. You also gain a +1 bonus to AC against melee attacks.

I dunno, it is a hard nut to crack since there are alot of moving pieces that needs to mech together. The Fighting Styles themselves, Feats, Multiclassing, SCAG melee cantrips...

[ChildofLuthic]

I'd see the point of versatile fighting is to make fighting more versatile, so maybe offer +1 to attack when one handed and +1 to damage when two handed. That would make it even more meaningful to choose whether to one hand or two hand your weapon.

[Man_Over_Game]

Increasing accuracy is much more potent than increasing damage, but increasing damage too dramatically will cause a problem with making Versatile weapons better than heavy weapons. Additionally, modifying to-hit is something that's pretty against the design philosophy of 5e.

Alternatively, you could do something like this:
When holding a Versatile weapon with two hands, you can spend your Bonus Action to give it Reach on an attack provided by your Action this turn.
When holding a Versatile weapon with one hand, you can spend your Bonus Action to give yourself +2 AC against the next attack against you, until the start of your next turn.

Reach may seem powerful, but the same situation could be done with the Glaive and still keep your Bonus Action.
+2 AC may seem powerful, but the same situation could be done by equipping a shield (which nullifies the point of having a Versatile Weapon). In the case of someone wearing a shield, this is not much better than the Defense fighting style which requires no Bonus Action and works against multiple attacks.



In my own games, where characters could be disarmed, holding a versatile weapon with two hands gives you advantage to keep your weapon.

[stoutstien]

The one that I added is
Versatile weapon fighting style-
When you make a weapon attack and are weilding a weapon with the versatile property and no other weapon or shield you add +1 hit.
If you are weilding a weapon with the versatile property in two hands you also add +1 damage.

Feat
Versatile combativeness-
+1 str or con
While weilding a weapon and no other weapon, and you attempt the disarm, shove, or grapple special attack you can also attempt a passing strike. Make an attack roll and if it hits add 1d4 damage of the same type of the weapon.
Disarm attempts agist you have disadvantage while you are weilding a verisatile weapon and no other weapon.

[RSP]

Not being proficient with versatile weapons myself, my understanding from common tropes is its easier to parry when using a weapon with two hands (whether quarterstaff or sword).

Likewise, the versatile fighting style should reflect this, and I’d imagine, reflect that its easier to do damage when using two hands as you can put more strength behind an attack with two hands, rather than one. In 5e, this could either be shown as +1 damage or +1 to hit, I’d imagine, based on how you visualize the fighting and what damage represents.

So maybe +1 AC, +1 damage (or +1 to hit) when using a versatile weapon with two hands.

[Ganymede]

Great Weapon Fighting works with versatile weapons. Why is that not enough?

Adding another fighting style for versatile weapons means you can potentially double stack fighting styles on them. Is that what we really want?

[Rerem115]

I'd make it a sidegrade, rather than competing for the same stats. There's no melee style that give a bonus to-hit, so there's design space for that. It's also arguably stronger than a bonus to damage, and fills a thematic point; rather than building your muscles to hit harder with one hand, or swinging for the hills with both, you're using two hands to more precisely find weak spots/defend yourself.

With that in mind, I'd have a Versatile style look like this:

Versatile--When wielding a versatile weapon in two hands, gain +2 to hit

OR

Versatile--When wielding a versatile weapon in two hands, gain +1 to hit. As a [bonus action/reaction], gain [X] AC until start of your next turn [when ____ is triggered].

[stoutstien]

Honestly I'd love to somehow implement a hand and half technique but I struggle to figure out how to do it.

[Man_Over_Game]

To everyone:

For +hit bonuses, keep in mind that they're considered twice as valuable as an equal bonus to damage. In other words, +1 to hit = +2 to damage.

The catch is, making something the effective equivalent of +2 to damage will mean that nobody will take the Dueling feature, and nobody would consider something like the Greatsword/Greataxe.

Just some stuff to think about while we all come up with ideas.

[Willie the Duck]

Versatile weapons really only are an optimal choice for people who think they might routinely need to fight with one hand, but not be able to have a shield on the other arm because they might often need to use that other hand for something else. Mostly grapplers and people who spend a lot of time swinging from ropes, or the like. That's about it. I strongly suspect that initial designs were going to have gishes not be able to cast while wielding two-handed weapons, and thus the longsword (etc.) were going to be the primary weapons of Eldritch Knights and the like (would explain versatile quarterstaff, as well). That said, if you are going to go with this build, I would suggest the defensive style.

[stoutstien]

Great Weapon Fighting works with versatile weapons. Why is that not enough?

Adding another fighting style for versatile weapons means you can potentially double stack fighting styles on them. Is that what we really want?
Well great weapon fighting kinda sucks and a lot of the styles stack like duelist and defense or archery and defense, or two weapon fighting and archery if you're using darts,
If a player picks up great weapon fighting and want a versatile fighting I think that's fair as long as it's no better than any other two combos.

The basic outline is a player shouldn't be able to stack any style to get above +2 damage, +2 hit or +2 ac.

Using my style for example if a player grab the great weapon and The versatile fighting style they can do
1d10+1 reroll 1-2 which adds ~1.5 with a 1d10. They have a +1 hit bonus

Now the same character could take duelist in defense have almost exactly the same damage output and 2ac lead.

Seems ok to me

[Laserlight]

Versatile Fighting Style: if you are using a Versatile weapon, you can add +2 AC when also using a shield, or you can increase the damage die size in circumstances when your offhand is free but you do not have a shield equipped (eg just waking up, starting or finishing a climb, etc).

Yes, that's what we have now. I think the flexibility is enough of a benefit.

[Shuruke]

You could take easy road and just use a version of parry maneuver

With bonus action on your turn you can ready a parry. Upon taking damage from a melee attack you can use your reaction to lower it by weapon damage dice roll + prof. If you reduce to 0 you can make an attack with the same reaction .

This would be better than parry manuever but parry maneuver can be used by high dex and shield users which are harder to hit.

Just my 2 cents and small idea which would mix the stance type thing of tunnel fighter with parry option.

Only people I see use long sword are small races that can't use heavy weapons

[stoutstien]

To everyone:

For +hit bonuses, keep in mind that they're considered twice as valuable as an equal bonus to damage. In other words, +1 to hit = +2 to damage.

The catch is, making something the effective equivalent of +2 to damage will mean that nobody will take the Dueling feature, and nobody would consider something like the Greatsword/Greataxe.

Just some stuff to think about while we all come up with ideas.

I always factor hit is worth twice as much as damage also. The catch is duelist works with dexterity and there are only strength based versatile weapons. Or at least there should be, no way I'd ever allow the double scimitar at my table.

[Man_Over_Game]

I always factor hit is worth twice as much as damage also. The catch is duelist works with dexterity and there are only strength based versatile weapons. Or at least there should be, no way I'd ever allow the double scimitar at my table.

It's a magic weapon, but I think the Sun Blade is a versatile finesse weapon, but I could be wrong.

[stoutstien]

It's a magic weapon, but I think the Sun Blade is a versatile finesse weapon, but I could be wrong.

You're correct it is but you can't really calculate magic weapons into a fighting style comparison or never get anywhere.
-Scimitar of speed completely overrides twf style and feat.
-Sun blade as you mentioned.
-animated shield shenanigans
-

[Shuruke]

Well great weapon fighting kinda sucks and a lot of the styles stack like duelist and defense or archery and defense, or two weapon fighting and archery if you're using darts
Seems ok to me

Darts can't be used with two weapon fighting because they arent melee weapons

Darts are only good because they can be used with a shield still equipped while still gaining archery style

Anything with ammunition trait including slings can't be used with shield and requires an open hand most people overlook this but its important for one handed ammunition weapons.

Would jist like to point that out it's easily missed

[RSP]

To everyone:

For +hit bonuses, keep in mind that they're considered twice as valuable as an equal bonus to damage. In other words, +1 to hit = +2 to damage.

The catch is, making something the effective equivalent of +2 to damage will mean that nobody will take the Dueling feature, and nobody would consider something like the Greatsword/Greataxe.

Just some stuff to think about while we all come up with ideas.

I think you’re relatively safe, from a mechanics perspective, as versatile weapons aren’t Heavy, and therefore, aren’t compatible with GWM. Any stacking of fighting styles, like say GWF and a +1 to hit, will not be as impactful as GWF and GWM, from a system’s mechanics standpoint.

As this only occurs with multiclassing or Champion fighter, I doubt you’re looking at something overpowered, so long as the new Versatile fighting style is similar in power to the others.

[Blood of Gaea]

+1 to hit when attacking with a versatile weapon in two hands, and you can don/doff a shield as a bonus action.

[CheddarChampion]

How about one opponent you damage with a versatile weapon on your turn has disadvantage on their next attack roll as long as they are within 5 feet of you?

[Man_Over_Game]

I think you’re relatively safe, from a mechanics perspective, as versatile weapons aren’t Heavy, and therefore, aren’t compatible with GWM. Any stacking of fighting styles, like say GWF and a +1 to hit, will not be as impactful as GWF and GWM, from a system’s mechanics standpoint.

As this only occurs with multiclassing or Champion fighter, I doubt you’re looking at something overpowered, so long as the new Versatile fighting style is similar in power to the others.

It's not necessarily that I'm worried about a Versatile fighting style being better than every other fighting style, but that it completely erases one. Making it do something like +2 damage/+1 to hit when wielded in one hand and a bonus when wielded in two hands will mean that the Dueling fighting style is strictly worse.

You've added a homebrew feature to erase an official one. You're not adding new content or more decisions or expanding the game. Rather, you're replacing the Dueling fighting style with something else. Whatever direction someone takes, it shouldn't fall into the same niche as one of the other choices or else it ends up becoming redundant content (and either be ignored or cause something else to be ignored).

So if the Versatile fighting style has a one-handed bonus, it has to be strictly worse than Dueling (+2 to damage). If the versatile fighting style has a two-handed bonus, it has to be strictly worse than Great Weapon Fighting. Lastly, it should not be better than Two Weapon Fighting or incompatible with that playstyle (which is why my example used a Bonus Action, and so can't be used with Two Weapon Fighting).

[Urukubarr]

I was thinking about this too and thought of two things:

fighting style: versatile, while wielding a versatile weapon and nothing else you can add either +1 to your damage, or to your AC, its a bonus action to switch.

and a feat: versatile weapon master, while wielding a versatile weapon and nothing else you can trade (-2 or -3 not sure yet of your to hit) and gain either (+2-3) to your AC or (+4-6) to your damage, its a bonus action to switch.

[Ganymede]

The other approach is to simply condense the fighting styles.

Aggressive Fighting Style: +2 damage to all weapon attacks.

Precise Fighting Style: +1 to hit with all weapon attacks.

Defensive Fighting Style: +1 to AC.

There you go, no fiddliness with weapon type or handedness. Just pick your favorite weapon, your favorite style, and go to town.

[GlenSmash!]

The other approach is to simply condense the fighting styles.

Aggressive Fighting Style: +2 damage to all weapon attacks.

Precise Fighting Style: +1 to hit with all weapon attacks.

Defensive Fighting Style: +1 to AC.

There you go, no fiddliness with weapon type or handedness. Just pick your favorite weapon, your favorite style, and go to town.

I like it.

[Quietus]

Rather than trying to balance around to hit, or damage, I think it's worth looking at exactly what makes this function as a style : Switching between the two options.

Versatile fighting style : You may don or remove a shield with your item interaction

This lets you switch, in-combat, between your two modes. I think it might need a little bit of a buff, but I would absolutely start from here with any version of a Versatile fighting style.

[Rukelnikov]

+1 to hit when attacking with a versatile weapon in two hands, and you can don/doff a shield as a bonus action.

I was gonna go with this too, the point of the style is versatility, so anything that "locks" you into one particular fighting style is already failing.

[thoroughlyS]

Versatile fighting style : You may don or remove a shield with your item interaction
This is what I came here to say. The only issue I see is the trade-off doesn't seem worth it. Why would you trade +2 AC for 1 higher average damage? There definitely needs to be some other draw, but I'm not sure what it should be.

[DanyBallon]

What if a versatile fighting style let you get +2 to AC as a reaction to a weapon attack if you are fighting with a versatile weapon, and no shield or weapon in your other hand?

Kinda a weaker version of the shield spell for martials. It would compete with S&B for AC, but at the expense of your reaction. It's better than Defense bonus wise, but it's not quasi-permanent like Defense is.

[stoutstien]

This is what I came here to say. The only issue I see is the trade-off doesn't seem worth it. Why would you trade +2 AC for 1 higher average damage? There definitely needs to be some other draw, but I'm not sure what it should be.
Could be worth it if your DM uses a lot of climbing, swimming, and so on.
what is the fighting style allowed to use a versatile weapon while using a shield but with reduced damage?
Buckler longsword, arming sword is not an unheard-of combo.

[stoutstien]

The other approach is to simply condense the fighting styles.

Aggressive Fighting Style: +2 damage to all weapon attacks.

Precise Fighting Style: +1 to hit with all weapon attacks.

Defensive Fighting Style: +1 to AC.

There you go, no fiddliness with weapon type or handedness. Just pick your favorite weapon, your favorite style, and go to town.

Only issue here it's even easier to grab fighting styles and stack them.
A two weapon fighter pally dipping fighter now has +1 hit +2 damage on every swing or same for ranger with a bow. you might need to add a clause where they can only benefit from one fighting style at a time regardless of how many they have. Make it a bonus action just switch maybe like a stance.
I do like this thought process

[Quietus]

I was gonna go with this too, the point of the style is versatility, so anything that "locks" you into one particular fighting style is already failing.


This is what I came here to say. The only issue I see is the trade-off doesn't seem worth it. Why would you trade +2 AC for 1 higher average damage? There definitely needs to be some other draw, but I'm not sure what it should be.

Exactly so. I was considering adding to it, like... "Versatile fighting style : You may don or remove a shield with your item interaction. When using a Versatile weapon two-handed, you get +1 damage." or something - it would bring the average of a longsword up to the average of a greataxe, without the reroll bonus of using Great Weapon style.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is what I came here to say. The only issue I see is the trade-off doesn't seem worth it. Why would you trade +2 AC for 1 higher average damage? There definitely needs to be some other draw, but I'm not sure what it should be.

You can don/doff your shield as a Bonus Action. If you are wielding a weapon with both hands, you can spend your Bonus Action to make your reach with that weapon up to 10 feet for this turn.

[GlenSmash!]

Right now the type of character I most see using a single versatile weapon is the Grappler. In one hand while grappling, in two while facing a creature that cannot be grappled.

I'd love to see something that expands on that niche for a versatile weapon. Preferably one fighting style and one feat.

Signed a guy who likes to pretend he can grapple ogres.

[Ganymede]

Make it a bonus action just switch maybe like a stance.
I do like this thought process

Stances could work, though I'd be inclined to give those with this feature all three to freely choose at the start of their turns.

[Cybren]

I feel like the trap here is focusing too much on the weapon and not enough with the free hand. The don/doff a shield idea is good, but I feel like the reason someone would want a free hand probably has to do with grappling and shoving.

[ad_hoc]

Versatile weapons are better as more characters are able to use magic ones.

If you have GWF and you find a magic longsword you can use it 2-handed.

That's the main benefit of versatile weapons.

[Gilrad]

I've been mulling this over myself. Here's what I came up with:

Versatile fighting style - You may use your dexterity or strength to determine your hit bonus. Your damage bonus is both your strength AND dexterity bonus.

Basically I'm kind of tired of how many abilities and effects in 5e only care about your primary stat, and for fighters it's generally "dump STR pump DEX" or "dump DEX pump STR". I'd like to see a few more open-ended abilities that key off multiple stats, similar to how barbarians and monks get their AC from multiple attributes.

[Rerem115]

I like the idea of keying damage off two stats, but that's a dangerous path to follow. More to the point, it makes the quarterstaff+PAM Fighter even stronger.

While difficult, it's quite possible to get a high Strength and Dexterity; Belts of Giant Strength and Gauntlets of Ogre Power exist, or you could just roll decently well. Even if you ignore that, I've seen a bunch of characters with maxed Strength and at least 16 Dex (which is enough to make it better than Dueling).

[Blood of Gaea]

I've been mulling this over myself. Here's what I came up with:

Versatile fighting style - You may use your dexterity or strength to determine your hit bonus. Your damage bonus is both your strength AND dexterity bonus.

Basically I'm kind of tired of how many abilities and effects in 5e only care about your primary stat, and for fighters it's generally "dump STR pump DEX" or "dump DEX pump STR". I'd like to see a few more open-ended abilities that key off multiple stats, similar to how barbarians and monks get their AC from multiple attributes.
I'm guessing you didn't mean to word it to do this, but a fighting style to let Str PCs using ranged weapons with Str instead of Dex is pretty amazing.

[thoroughlyS]

Right now the type of character I most see using a single versatile weapon is the Grappler. In one hand while grappling, in two while facing a creature that cannot be grappled.

I'd love to see something that expands on that niche for a versatile weapon. Preferably one fighting style and one feat.
Honestly, that niche already has Dueling. Higher damage in one hand, grappling or not.

The versatile property is effectively a small buff for one-handed weapons. You can sacrifice a free hand to deal 1 higher average damage. Ideally, a fighting style would reinforce that strength. One way to do this, is to make it even easier to make that choice (e.g. making it easier to don/doff a shield). The other is to reward making that decision (e.g. a bonus when the weapon is wielded two-handed). Maybe even combining the two.

Versatile
You can draw and don a shield or doff and stow it as an object interaction. You also gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls when wielding a versatile weapon in two hands.

[DanyBallon]

Honestly, that niche already has Dueling. Higher damage in one hand, grappling or not.

The versatile property is effectively a small buff for one-handed weapons. You can sacrifice a free hand to deal 1 higher average damage. Ideally, a fighting style would reinforce that strength. One way to do this, is to make it even easier to make that choice (e.g. making it easier to don/doff a shield). The other is to reward making that decision (e.g. a bonus when the weapon is wielded two-handed). Maybe even combining the two.

Versatile
You can draw and don a shield or doff and stow it as an object interaction. You also gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls when wielding a versatile weapon in two hands.

I'm not too keen about being able to draw and don or doff and stow a shield as an object interaction, especially if you give another bonus when using the weapon with two hands. Instead I'd make it as a bonus action, so the decision to equip or unequip your shield will matter more.

[thoroughlyS]

I'm not too keen about being able to draw and don or doff and stow a shield as an object interaction, especially if you give another bonus when using the weapon with two hands. Instead I'd make it as a bonus action, so the decision to equip or unequip your shield will matter more.
Action economy costs are the reason two-weapon fighting is the worst playstyle and protection is the worst Fighting Style. As you increase in level, the number of competing uses for your bonus action go up. Considering that you only get one free object interaction per turn, I don't see a way to abuse that decision. For comparison, a Dueling fighter will have a higher damage output while wearing a shield and the same damage output without. A theoretical Versatile fighter would trade the damage with a shield for easy access to a free hand.

[Cybren]

I don’t think action economy is why protection is underpowered so much as the positional requirements.

[ad_hoc]

Action economy costs are the reason two-weapon fighting is the worst playstyle and protection is the worst Fighting Style. As you increase in level, the number of competing uses for your bonus action go up. Considering that you only get one free object interaction per turn, I don't see a way to abuse that decision. For comparison, a Dueling fighter will have a higher damage output while wearing a shield and the same damage output without. A theoretical Versatile fighter would trade the damage with a shield for easy access to a free hand.

Defense is the worst fighting style.

While dueling is better than protection, protection is still fine. It lets you protect your teammates, something that is hard to do in 5e.

[thoroughlyS]

Defense is the worst fighting style.
Defense is the most boring fighting style, but it is a very powerful bonus.


While dueling is better than protection, protection is still fine. It lets you protect your teammates, something that is hard to do in 5e.

I don’t think action economy is why protection is underpowered so much as the positional requirements.
As Cybren points out, the style is held back by having so many requirements for its use. Positioning, action cost, and diminishing returns all make it subpar.

[Cybren]

No, I mean, i think protection is fine provided you can put yourself in a position to use it. Using a reaction isn’t that much of a cost, it’s not like everyone’s reactions are being taxed by too many other good features

[RSP]

It's not necessarily that I'm worried about a Versatile fighting style being better than every other fighting style, but that it completely erases one.

Not sure it has to be strictly worse as there’s advantages baked into both the Dueling and GWF styles that using a versatile weapon 2-handed doesn’t have; using a shield and GWM, respectively.

Not that I think anything added should be better, just that I don’t think it needs to be strictly worse. In general, all fighting styles should be considered equal for what they do (though I’d say they’re not).

Nothing horrible would happen if you added in Dueling’s +2 damage to versatile weapons used 2-handed: Dueling would see the same exact usage it does now from sword-and-boarders, while Str builds will still prefer GWF for its compatibility with GWM’s -5/+10 feature.

[Malifice]

Versatile fighting style: When you wield a versatile melee weapon in one hand, and hold nothing in the other, you gain +1 AC. When you wield a versatile melee weapon in two hands, the damage die increases by 1 step (1d8>1d10>1d12).

[SkipSandwich]

Honestly, when i think of what a "Versatile" fighting style should look like, i get the following;

When wielding a Versatile weapon with one or both hands then once per round when you successfully hit with a melee attack you may perform an object interaction (Don/Doff a Shield, Draw/Sheathe a Weapon, ect) as a Bonus Action.

With this you can quickly switch between 1H and 2H mode, as well as swap out weapons entirely as needed.

[ad_hoc]

Defense is the most boring fighting style, but it is a very powerful bonus.

Not on the classes that get it. They probably already have the highest AC in the party, they're fine. It looks good but in practice it isn't really helping as the character is already the one who is likely going to be the last to be killed.




As Cybren points out, the style is held back by having so many requirements for its use. Positioning, action cost, and diminishing returns all make it subpar.

It's a reaction. So if you use it you can't get an OA. Well, you're probably not going to get one anyway as you're protecting your party members. So it is a reliable way of using your reaction each round which is pretty good. Think of it like giving a party member a mini-dodge action.

Positioning. So if you're away from your party members, yes you get an OA on a monster who walks by you, but then that monster is going to clobber your friend. Most of the time party members want to stay close to the high AC character so they can take up space and prevent monsters from getting to the weak ones. When you don't is when you want to avoid AoE powers. Protection is better on a Paladin as party members have an even bigger incentive to stay close.

I don't see the diminishing returns. It's better against big hitters and weaker against weaker multiattackers. That is true from start to finish.

Protection isn't the best fighting style, but it does what it sets out to do - protect weaker party members. This can stop death spirals. Defense is redundant (and it is even worse on a shield user).

[thoroughlyS]

Not on the classes that get it. They probably already have the highest AC in the party, they're fine. It looks good but in practice it isn't really helping as the character is already the one who is likely going to be the last to be killed.
On a DEX-based character, it can be a nice buff earlier in the career, that stays relevant at later levels. The easy proof for this is that it is recommended as a champion's second fighting style. Boring, but effective.

I don't see the diminishing returns. It's better against big hitters and weaker against weaker multiattackers. That is true from start to finish.
As CR increases, creatures get more attacks. After ~CR 5, the big hitters ARE multiattackers. Giants, golems, and T-rexes all make two attacks.

[ad_hoc]

On a DEX-based character, it can be a nice buff earlier in the career, that stays relevant at later levels. The easy proof for this is that it is recommended as a champion's second fighting style. Boring, but effective.

It is a better 2nd fighting style as sometimes other styles are less useful after you have your main one. Sword and Board basically get 2 in dueling and protection but the other ones only have the 1 so defense can make sense if you don't want to have archery.

(also a book recommending something is not proof that it is good)



As CR increases, creatures get more attacks. After ~CR 5, the big hitters ARE multiattackers. Giants, golems, and T-rexes all make two attacks.

Right but they represent very few attacks from a big chunk of the CR of that fight.

Imposing disadvantage on 1 of a giant's 2 attacks is huge. That is a much greater swing of a battle than doing some extra damage to it. (Also, a giant only has 1 boulder throw. Protection works against ranged attacks too)

Disadvantage on an attack that does 75+% of someone's HP is relevant. It's not as useful against the attack of a creature of a lower CR that you're fighting but will still be useful regardless.

What matters is how big the attack is that you're imposing disadvantage to. I'm talking about hampering 1 of the 2-4 big attacks you're facing, not hampering 1 of the 10-20 smaller attacks. The protection fighting style doesn't automatically make you win the fight, but dueling doesn't either.

[djreynolds]

I guess the idea is to appeal to someone who doesn't want to use a shield or the weapon just one handed or just two handed.

Spear mastery is a neat idea, as it increases the weapons damage die. But duelist style effectively does this already with +2 damage.

Also we have to acknowledge, the possibility of overlap with multiclassing and feats like spear mastery... combining with PAM, duelist, and GWF.

It's tough because a versatile weapon with extra attack can use GWF for on attack and then duelist for the next.

How about we just give both GWF and duelist style as one style.

Versatile warrior:
When using a versatile weapon 2 handed you reroll 1s and 2, and get +2 damage to all attacks when wielding a versatile weapon in 1 hand. The benefits of this style cannot be combine with GWF or duelist styles.

[Laolir]

Personally, I just let dueling work with versatile weapon used with two hands, and I have added a shield which give +1AC but can be equipped/unequipped with an object interaction.

That way with a longsword and both shield, you can switch between a lot of different "stance", depending on the situation and what you want to focus on.

[Kirv drachalbor]

Hey I have a quick question I have a champion fighter (strength based) and his fighting style is protection. My question is would I need the dule weidling feat to be able to use both my battleaxe and shield together.

[Rukelnikov]

Hey I have a quick question I have a champion fighter (strength based) and his fighting style is protection. My question is would I need the dule weidling feat to be able to use both my battleaxe and shield together.

Nope, the battleaxe is a one handed weapon, you can weild your shield in the other one, dual weilding won't give you anything with that setup.

Btw remember you can create threads for question like this ;)

[Max_Killjoy]

Brainstorming...

At the start of each round, before rolling Initiative, choose one of following bonuses that applies until the start of the next round:
+ ? to Attack
+ ? to Damage
+ ? to AC
+ ? to Initiative

[GlenSmash!]

Honestly, that niche already has Dueling. Higher damage in one hand, grappling or not.

But it makes it higher damage dealt in one hand than two. I want a good reason to hold that sword two-handed when I don't want to grapple a target.


The versatile property is effectively a small buff for one-handed weapons. You can sacrifice a free hand to deal 1 higher average damage. Ideally, a fighting style would reinforce that strength. One way to do this, is to make it even easier to make that choice (e.g. making it easier to don/doff a shield). The other is to reward making that decision (e.g. a bonus when the weapon is wielded two-handed). Maybe even combining the two.

Versatile
You can draw and don a shield or doff and stow it as an object interaction. You also gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls when wielding a versatile weapon in two hands.

1d10+1 would bump the average to equal dueling, and shield swapping is neat. Seems ok.

[GlenSmash!]

Not on the classes that get it. They probably already have the highest AC in the party, they're fine. It looks good but in practice it isn't really helping as the character is already the one who is likely going to be the last to be killed.

I've always heard that the higher your AC the mroe valuable a +1 is.

Going from 14 to 15 hardly makes any difference especially at high levels, but going from 25 to 26 makes a whole slew of MM creatures that are now unable to hit you except on a crit.

[GlenSmash!]

Personally, I just let dueling work with versatile weapon used with two hands,


I like this route and would even go so far as to say Dueling should work for any character wielding just one weapon and cut GWF altogether. I ain't got time for re-rolls, I have a game to run!

[thoroughlyS]

a book recommending something is not proof that it is good
The book doesn't recommend that, people do. And I do admit that part of the recommendation is to double down on one style (why take a second fighting style you'll rarely benefit from?).

Right but they represent very few attacks from a big chunk of the CR of that fight.

Imposing disadvantage on 1 of a giant's 2 attacks is huge. That is a much greater swing of a battle than doing some extra damage to it.
But getting a Giant to miss one attack means less than getting a Rhino to miss its only attack. And as you increase in level, creatures without multiattack get rarer and rarer. And against opponents of roughly human intelligence, that's a trick that will only wok once or twice per combat.

[jas61292]

Personally, if I was to design a fighting style for versital weapons, I would want it to do two things:

Reward the use of a weapon in one hand.
Reward the use of a non-heavy weapon in two hands.

In addition to these, I'd want to follow the basic design principles of:

Be a fairly simple bonus.
Not having it overlap with other fighting styles too much.

With those in mind, the first thing I'd want to do is stop it from working with a shield. Shields are already able to work with three different fighting styles. Furthermore, the classic fantasy of a guy switching between one and two handed use of a sword typically involves a sword and only a sword. Not the constant picking up and putting down of a shield.

Next, I'd want to make sure both ways of using a weapon are supported differently, so it does not end up being the case that you just always go two games unless you have to hold something.

Finally, I'd make sure the bonuses are different than the most similar fighting styles to that form of combat. This means one handed bonus should not be too similar to Dueling, two handed should not be too close to GWF, and neither should be too close to defense. That being said, being it simple likely means it will be close to some existing fighting style.

So, what I'd probably end up with is a fighting style that gives you a +1 bonus to attack when you use a weapon in one hand and have no weapon or shield in the other hand, and a version of the Protection fighting style, but for yourself only, when you use your weapon in two hands. However, to make it a more competitive with the one handed option, I might allow it to effect all attacks from a single creature, rather than just one attack. Not sure.

This would also probably require you to have last attacked with the weapon in two hands to avoid hand manipulation to get both benefits all the time.

[ad_hoc]

I've always heard that the higher your AC the mroe valuable a +1 is.

Going from 14 to 15 hardly makes any difference especially at high levels, but going from 25 to 26 makes a whole slew of MM creatures that are now unable to hit you except on a crit.

If you are the last one to die you're still going to die.

[ad_hoc]

The book doesn't recommend that, people do. And I do admit that part of the recommendation is to double down on one style (why take a second fighting style you'll rarely benefit from?).

Something being popular is also not proof. There is a reason very few people are good at competitive games.


But getting a Giant to miss one attack means less than getting a Rhino to miss its only attack. And as you increase in level, creatures without multiattack get rarer and rarer. And against opponents of roughly human intelligence, that's a trick that will only wok once or twice per combat.

No it doesn't.

A rhino is CR 2. A giant is CR 8ish.

Getting that high CR creature to miss its attack is worth much more than the rhino's attack. All you're arguing is that the ability gets better over time.

If a creature stops attacking the weaker party members and instead attacks the highly armoured ones then that's great. Mission accomplished.

[GlenSmash!]

If you are the last one to die you're still going to die.

True, but if you are also providing incentive to enemies to attack you via Sentinel or unwavering Mark, AC has more value than just delaying death. It can cause enemies to waste attacks.

If wasted enemy attacks were not valuable what value would Protection style have after all?

[jas61292]

I've always heard that the higher your AC the mroe valuable a +1 is.

This is both true and untrue. It's as matter of framing. Typically those who say that the higher your AC is, the better a boost to AC is, will frame the AC boost as a percentage reduction in damage taken. If your AC was high enough so the enemy could only hit you on a roll of 17, then a +1 to AC represents (ignoring the extra damage if crits) a 25% reduction in damage taken, on average. Whereas if your base AC was low enough that they hit you on a 10, a +1 represents only a 9% reduction in damage taken.

The issue with this framing is that it ignores the larger context of the game. Any boost to AC always negates the exact same amount of absolute damage, and the higher your AC, the less absolute damage you take in general.

As this game only has two HP states, above zero and at zero, the ultimate test of a defensive ability is how good it is at preventing you from hitting zero. And quite often, the characters with the highest AC are the ones that are least likely to be hitting zero in the first place. While this is harder to measure, typically the lower your AC is, the greater a boost to AC will actually increase your chance of surviving as given encounter.

[ad_hoc]

True, but if you are also providing incentive to enemies to attack you via Sentinel or unwavering Mark, AC has more value than just delaying death. It can cause enemies to waste attacks.

If wasted enemy attacks were not valuable what value would Protection style have after all?

whynotboth.jpg

The truth of the matter is that even if you use optional rules the ability to stop creatures from attacking your allies is just not that great. You're also comparing apples to oranges. A feat is worth much more than a fighting style.

I'd rather have protection than defense most of the time.

While I think dueling is stronger than protection (except with a paladin) it does get weaker over time (as the % of party damage goes down). They both have advantages and weaknesses. Keep in mind that protection works against ranged attacks too.

I don't see the use case for defense here except as a 2nd fighting style.

[GlenSmash!]

whynotboth.jpg

The truth of the matter is that even if you use optional rules the ability to stop creatures from attacking your allies is just not that great. You're also comparing apples to oranges. A feat is worth much more than a fighting style. Sure but class abilities like Unwavering Mark are not feats.


I'd rather have protection than defense most of the time.

While I think dueling is stronger than protection (except with a paladin) it does get weaker over time (as the % of party damage goes down). They both have advantages and weaknesses. Keep in mind that protection works against ranged attacks too.

I don't see the use case for defense here except as a 2nd fighting style.

I could just be odd. Hell I like defense on Great Weapon users as I dislike re-rolls. It's my de facto style on a Great Weapon Ranger. And since I like Great Weapon Rangers I have proven I am odd. Though I prefer Mariner if UA is allowed.

[Willie the Duck]

This is both true and untrue. It's as matter of framing. Typically those who say that the higher your AC is, the better a boost to AC is, will frame the AC boost as a percentage reduction in damage taken. If your AC was high enough so the enemy could only hit you on a roll of 17, then a +1 to AC represents (ignoring the extra damage if crits) a 25% reduction in damage taken, on average. Whereas if your base AC was low enough that they hit you on a 10, a +1 represents only a 9% reduction in damage taken.

The issue with this framing is that it ignores the larger context of the game. Any boost to AC always negates the exact same amount of absolute damage, and the higher your AC, the less absolute damage you take in general.

As this game only has two HP states, above zero and at zero, the ultimate test of a defensive ability is how good it is at preventing you from hitting zero. And quite often, the characters with the highest AC are the ones that are least likely to be hitting zero in the first place. While this is harder to measure, typically the lower your AC is, the greater a boost to AC will actually increase your chance of surviving as given encounter.

For someone who we already know is going to be front-lining, for sure. It is worth considering otherwise, that a character with a 15 AC getting it up to 16 still should be avoiding melee regardless (so a +1 AC at low AC is of relatively little value), while someone moving an AC from 18 to 19 is moving from, 'should be in melee,' to 'should be in melee, and is better at it.' So, from that perspective, the logic of 'he higher your AC is, the better a boost to AC is' is fairly sound.

[djreynolds]

Like I said before, just give the benefits of both duelist and GWF, when you use versatile weapon in two hands reroll 1s and 2s, one handed +2 damage.

[Rukelnikov]

Like I said before, just give the benefits of both duelist and GWF, when you use versatile weapon in two hands reroll 1s and 2s, one handed +2 damage.

Doesn't work

Longsword 1H w/dueling: 1d8+2 = 6.5

Longsword 2H w/GWF: 1d10 (rr 1-2) = 5.5 + 8/10 = 6.3

Would effectively lose damage when going for the "damaging style"

Don/doff shield as bonus or object interaction, and +1 att when 2 handing seems like a good start.

[djreynolds]

I like the shield idea on its own.

How about.
Versatile warrior
When using a versatile weapon two handed, you can use your reaction to attempt disarm an adjacent enemy within reach.

[Solid_Snek]

As it stands the two choices if you want to playa versatile weapon user without a shield in hand the fighting style choices are GWF or Defense.

Defense is edged out by just using a shield and then at that point there's dueling as well if you want a damaging alternative that probably beats out two handing the weapon. 1d8 +Str+2 vs 1d10+2. Haven't mathed it out but I'm guessing the former is stronger AND has the option for more AC.

GWF feels underwhelming rerolling 1d10 when your buddy is rerolling their heavy weapon. It's not too bad I guess but it's a little annoying not being able to use GWM (I know that feat over performs).

Would it throw things out of balance to add a fighting style similar to archery fighting style but for versatile weapons in two hands?

Thinking something like:
*Name here*
Attacks made with a versatile weapon with two hands gain a bonus of +1 (maybe +2 not sure) to attack rolls

TL;DR
Fighting style for versatile weapons to add to attack rolls, opinions?

Range attacks are already at a disadvantage thanks to partial and full cover. Enemies and allies grant the target partial cover. That +2 negates this issue. Giving this to melee options is getting into magic weapon type territory as it would be a pure buff and not something that negates a disadvantage (with regards to attack rolls).

I saw something on reddit that had a good versatile weapon fighting style. Anytime you make an attack you may choose to deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage as you change how you attack with the weapon.

So a longsword can be used to stab or hit someone with the flat side.

This doesn't change your damage straight up, but as a DM you can throw different enemies that have different damage resistances and allow the player to figure things out to do maximum damage.

[mephnick]

Versatile fighting style: When you wield a versatile melee weapon in one hand, and hold nothing in the other, you gain +1 AC. When you wield a versatile melee weapon in two hands, the damage die increases by 1 step (1d8>1d10>1d12).

This is the best one so far, but it has to have the limiter that you're locked in to one or the other until your next turn, or else you can just take your hand off for the +1 AC and put it back on for the damage die every turn.

[Rukelnikov]

This is the best one so far, but it has to have the limiter that you're locked in to one or the other until your next turn, or else you can just take your hand off for the +1 AC and put it back on for the damage die every turn.

Assuming you could get both things at the same time, it would be +1 AC and +1 damage (avg), with a very limited amount of weapons, when weilded in a suboptimal way. I don't think there's a prob with both bonuses at the same time. Tbh I'd say it needs a buff.

[thoroughlyS]

I disagree that it would need a buff, because it is virtually identical to taking the Defense style and wielding a two-handed weapon. I also disagree that it's the best idea, because it's basically the same as another fighting style. It has a slight edge in that you can still swing your weapon while grappling, but that could be solved by carrying a sidearm (which most martials get for free).

[mephnick]

I also disagree that it's the best idea

I've yet to see anything else workable in this thread.

The changing damage types thing is an interesting idea. Too bad WotC got rid of those meaning anything.

[djreynolds]

I've yet to see anything else workable in this thread.

The changing damage types thing is an interesting idea. Too bad WotC got rid of those meaning anything.

I like my disarm idea.

If strike an enemy with versatile weapon in two hands and hit, you can use your reaction to try to disarm an adjacent enemy within reach.

[Solid_Snek]

I've yet to see anything else workable in this thread.

The changing damage types thing is an interesting idea. Too bad WotC got rid of those meaning anything.

WotC may ignore it, but a DM can easily put them back in. If you're already willing too add homebrew, making damage types matter really helps with describing what's going on. You can give some great hints by being a bit descriptive.

[SkipSandwich]

Im still fond of giving the versatile style a bonus object interaction of some sort, I think people are getting a little too hung up on the weapon trait itself when the reason it exists is to facilitate a playstyle where you swap out different weapons and items as needed for whatever situation is at hand. Ambushed by skeleton archers, Shield+Warhammer time! Many weak minions to clear through? 2h that longsword and use the bonus cleave attacks from Heavy Weapon Mastery to stem the tide. You fell into a pit filled with monsterous spiders? Hold them at bay with your torch in one hand while you prepare to throw a grappling hook with the other.

As a Versatile warrior, you are prepared for all of these situations and more!

[Skylivedk]

Not on the classes that get it. They probably already have the highest AC in the party, they're fine. It looks good but in practice it isn't really helping as the character is already the one who is likely going to be the last to be killed.

[...]

Protection isn't the best fighting style, but it does what it sets out to do - protect weaker party members. This can stop death spirals. Defense is redundant (and it is even worse on a shield user).

It is not redundant. If the tank does its job well (keep enemies focused at him), more AC is definitely better AC. As is shown later in the thread the amount of damage decreased is much bigger when the die roll range is smaller (removing one roll out of four, is better than 1 out of 10).


Personally, I just let dueling work with versatile weapon used with two hands, and I have added a shield which give +1AC but can be equipped/unequipped with an object interaction.

That way with a longsword and both shield, you can switch between a lot of different "stance", depending on the situation and what you want to focus on.

So you can switch from +1 AC to +1 dmg? That's usually not a good trade.


The book doesn't recommend that, people do. And I do admit that part of the recommendation is to double down on one style (why take a second fighting style you'll rarely benefit from?).

But getting a Giant to miss one attack means less than getting a Rhino to miss its only attack. And as you increase in level, creatures without multiattack get rarer and rarer. And against opponents of roughly human intelligence, that's a trick that will only wok once or twice per combat.

Comparatively in a level appropriate encounter, yes. Again, depends on how good you are at tactics. I'd say Protection falls off pretty quickly around level 7. The amount of enemies you meet with 2-4 attacks seem to explode in that range.


This is both true and untrue. It's as matter of framing. Typically those who say that the higher your AC is, the better a boost to AC is, will frame the AC boost as a percentage reduction in damage taken. If your AC was high enough so the enemy could only hit you on a roll of 17, then a +1 to AC represents (ignoring the extra damage if crits) a 25% reduction in damage taken, on average. Whereas if your base AC was low enough that they hit you on a 10, a +1 represents only a 9% reduction in damage taken.

The issue with this framing is that it ignores the larger context of the game. Any boost to AC always negates the exact same amount of absolute damage, and the higher your AC, the less absolute damage you take in general.

As this game only has two HP states, above zero and at zero, the ultimate test of a defensive ability is how good it is at preventing you from hitting zero. And quite often, the characters with the highest AC are the ones that are least likely to be hitting zero in the first place. While this is harder to measure, typically the lower your AC is, the greater a boost to AC will actually increase your chance of surviving as given encounter.

Not in my games; neither as player nor as a DM. Squishies hit the floor if the party has bad tactics and the tank is more of a rolling steel cage than an actual tank. The tank has to be an unignorable nuisance to be a good tank. If you are just high AC and high HP, then you're scenario is a good representation of reality. If you crit-smite, reckless GWM or trip, precision strike + GWM then you are hard to ignore.


Im still fond of giving the versatile style a bonus object interaction of some sort, I think people are getting a little too hung up on the weapon trait itself when the reason it exists is to facilitate a playstyle where you swap out different weapons and items as needed for whatever situation is at hand. Ambushed by skeleton archers, Shield+Warhammer time! Many weak minions to clear through? 2h that longsword and use the bonus cleave attacks from Heavy Weapon Mastery to stem the tide. You fell into a pit filled with monsterous spiders? Hold them at bay with your torch in one hand while you prepare to throw a grappling hook with the other.

As a Versatile warrior, you are prepared for all of these situations and more!

You don't need versatile warrior for that. GWM already gives cleave to your 1-handed weapons. In other words: keep the longsword with a shield, take dueling and you're better off. I like the object interaction. Right now I just find it more flavourful than actually good...

[ad_hoc]

Im still fond of giving the versatile style a bonus object interaction of some sort, I think people are getting a little too hung up on the weapon trait itself when the reason it exists is to facilitate a playstyle where you swap out different weapons and items as needed for whatever situation is at hand. Ambushed by skeleton archers, Shield+Warhammer time! Many weak minions to clear through? 2h that longsword and use the bonus cleave attacks from Heavy Weapon Mastery to stem the tide. You fell into a pit filled with monsterous spiders? Hold them at bay with your torch in one hand while you prepare to throw a grappling hook with the other.

As a Versatile warrior, you are prepared for all of these situations and more!

I think the main reason it exists is so that people can use more magic weapons the way they want.

The longsword is a very common magic weapon (magic weapons aren't common, but of them...) and it can be used one or two handed which makes it more likely to fit someone's fighting style.

[Benny89]

I strongly believe that GWM is overrated before level at least 13 if not 16. And I would not allow it to work with Versatile weapon. Imo GWM means heavy two-handed weapon, not something you can have in 1 hand.

I actually think that Dueling is much better all around fighting style (especially with PAM using Spears and Q-Staffs) than GWM. Not only you easly get bonus attack, +2 to damage flat and +2 AC from Shields but your accuracy scales much better in Tier 1 and Tier 2. There are only two subclasses I would take GWM early. That is Devotion Paladin with 18 or 20 CHA (Sacred Weapon) or Battlemaster with 1k8 dices to hit.

So for Versatile weapons I would rule that Dueling works for them when you handle them in two hands.

Because I agree that Versatile weapons have problem of not having proper fighting style attached to them.

It's houserule but I like it.

[Skylivedk]

I think the main reason it exists is so that people can use more magic weapons the way they want.

The longsword is a very common magic weapon (magic weapons aren't common, but of them...) and it can be used one or two handed which makes it more likely to fit someone's fighting style.

And that's the issue. It doesn't really in the case that matters most for two handers in a game with feats: GWM. There it has to be heavy for everything except the cleave bullet IIRC

[GlenSmash!]

And that's the issue. It doesn't really in the case that matters most for two handers in a game with feats: GWM. There it has to be heavy for everything except the cleave bullet IIRC

Replacing the heavy clause with a weapon wielded in two hands would pretty much cover it for me.

[Skylivedk]

Replacing the heavy clause with a weapon wielded in two hands would pretty much cover it for me.
That's cool as well: you might have to watch out for GWM quarterstaff monks though.

[GlenSmash!]

That's cool as well: you might have to watch out for GWM quarterstaff monks though.

Yep, spears too. but since I already have to watch out for GWM Hexblades I really don't care at this point.

[ad_hoc]

And that's the issue. It doesn't really in the case that matters most for two handers in a game with feats: GWM. There it has to be heavy for everything except the cleave bullet IIRC

Right, but I was talking about design. It does work for GWFS.

Remember that less than half of tables play with feats. The base game is not designed with them in mind.

So, should GWM have been designed with versatile in mind? Probably. But that's a discussion about the GWM feat, not about the design of versatile weapons. (the GWM feat should be redone entirely as well...)

[stoutstien]

Ok so I've been thinking about working backwards.
Fighting styles list:
Offensive styles:
Precision- +1 to all attack rolls with weapons.
Power- +2 damage to all damage rolls with weapons.

Defensive styles:
Bulwark- heavy armor- +1 AC. You provide 3/4 cover for allies behind you.
Shielding- medium/heavy armor- +1 AC. Grants same effect as protection style in phb
Generalist- light/ medium armor- +1 AC. Your armor does not cause disadvantage on Athletics or acrobatic skill checks.

You cannot have more than one offensive and defensive style active at a time.(exception for champion level 10 feature which allows stacking two of the same type.)
Classes with limited fighting style picks such as sword bards can only choose from the offensive list.

Now fighting styles apply to all weapons(even net users could grab precision) and if the ranger wants to go from bow to sword they don't suddenly become less effective.
Want to throw your dagger at the fleeing goblin? Does your duelist fighting style apply? Who cares now! Just add +1 hit or +2 damage and bypass all the table interruptions of comparing the Oxford and Webster definition of weilding.

*Twf feat may need to trade draw/stow two weapons for stat mod to offhand attack but more math is needed to check how far it falls behind.

[thoroughlyS]

Generalist- light/ medium armor- +1 AC. Your armor does not cause disadvantage on Athletics or acrobatic skill checks.
This could be replaced with the Mariner Fighting Style from UA:Waterborne Adventures (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Waterborne_v3.pdf).

Overall this system seems okay, but takes some of the style away. Now my choice of weapon seems to matter less.

[stoutstien]

This could be replaced with the Mariner Fighting Style from UA:Waterborne Adventures (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Waterborne_v3.pdf).

Overall this system seems okay, but takes some of the style away. Now my choice of weapon seems to matter less.
*forgot about mariner so that would work for a defensive style for a player who doesn't want to specialize.

i guess i see that this change makes weapon choices matter less but is that a bad thing? the way i view a fighting style is that is doesn't really very much in regard of weapon choice. if i am fighting single basket sword, rapier, or saber my style won't change much when i introduce an off hand buckler, ring dagger, main gauche, or other offhand .

i have not done much fighting with long swords but i spar against a kid who is really good with them. if/when he uses it in one hand(versatile) he usually is grabbing the opponents hilt or shoving a blow away to open up a parry. i think a reworded tavern brawler would be the best fit for a fighter who wants to switch 1hd/2hd with the same weapon a lot. just trade the improvised weapon prof for item equipping a shield as an item interaction and the unarmed strike with an extra 1d4 damage with versatile weapons used in two hands.

[thoroughlyS]

i guess i see that this change makes weapon choices matter less but is that a bad thing?
It's not bad on a fundamental level. It just changes that aspect of the game, and that won't be for every table. I'm not arguing against the setup, just pointing out that consequence.

[pcamp88]

At my table I've just done "While wielding a weapon with the Versatile property and no other weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to Attack Rolls with it and a +1 bonus to AC". In my mind this basically reinforces the idea of STR based characters having a higher AC cap by default (since all Versatile weapons are also not Finesse) while also providing more offensive consistency with an accuracy boost instead of just piling on more damage.

[Wryte]

The two most popular suggestions seem to be "+1 Dam w/1h, +1 AC w/2h," and "don/doff shield easier," but I think both of these come up pretty short.

The fighting style that Versatile is most likely to compete with is Dueling, which neither of the above options compares favorably against. Dueling is most commonly used for sword and boarding with a d8 weapon, which translates into a 6.5 average weapon damage (before ability modifiers), and +2 bonus to AC.

By comparison, the +1/+1 solution translates into 5.5 AWD and +2 AC when wielding the weapon one handed with a shield, or 5.5 AWD and +1 AC when wielding it in two hands. Not only are both options objectively worse than Dueling by the numbers, the 2-handed option is worse than its own 1h counterpart due to lower AC.

And the don/doff solution is the same 4.5 AWD +2 AC w/shield, 5.5 AWD +0 AC with two hands, but with lower opportunity cost for switching between the two. Nevermind the question of how often do you need don or doff a shield repeatedly in the same combat for such an action economy improvement to be more valuable than a straight +2 to damage.

Making a Versatile Fighting Style compete with Dueling on damage requires some kind of damage increase on the two-handed use of the weapon, but increasing it by much runs the risk of causing versatile weapons to outpace heavy weapons as the stronger 2h option, while increasing the damage of the 1h side takes away from Dueling's niche.

Instead, we should look at competing with the other side of Dueling: the AC bonus from having a shield. This actually fits well with the fantasy of a versatile weapon, as others have already pointed out in this thread; heroes who wield the equivalent of a versatile weapon in fiction don't generally constantly pick up and drop shields, they just parry.

In that light, my suggestion would either be:

Versatile Fighting Style: While wielding a versatile weapon, you gain a bonus to your AC against melee attacks. This bonus is +1 when you are wielding the weapon in one hand, and +2 when you wield it in two hands.

or

Versatile Fighting Style: When you are hit by an attack you can see while wielding a versatile weapon, you can use your reaction to gain a bonus to your AC until the end of the turn. This bonus is +2 when wielding the weapon in one hand, or +4 when wielding the weapon in two hands.

The former gives us a 4.5 AWD +1 mAC +2 AC w/shield when one-handing, and 5.5 AWD +2 mAC with 2h. It still comes up a bit short of Dueling's damage bonus with two hands (which at this point is really just leading me to believe that Dueling is too strong, and should only be a +1 bonus damage), but with the bonus to melee AC, the difference should be slight enough that aesthetic preference can outweigh Dueling's mathematic edge. Limiting the AC bonus to melee attacks only also keeps this style from rendering the Defense Fighting Style obsolete, as its bonus applies to all AC checks.

The latter more strongly indicates that you are taking an action to parry the incoming attack, and further reduces the overlap with Defense.