Fighting Styles Revised

[Drakkoniss]

In this thread, I would like to gather people's opinions on fighting styles as they are, and on the work I have done to attempt and improve the selection.

This thread is intended as a follow-up to my previous one, wherein I introduced a revised weapon's list in an attempt to bring attention to and address the issue of the poor weapon selection and weapon statistics in 5th edition (linked here, if you desire to read it: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?576517-5e-Weapon-Redux&p=23580099#post23580099 ).

That thread is relevant for this reason: the fighting styles in the document I have produced (seen here: https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtE2-F-pUrJQnCD6BAjn24BDGF0C ) refer to the document I posted in said thread ( which I shall post here for the sake of convenience: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AtE2-F-pUrJQnB532GEb2PO7fRdT ).

...
Oh, yes, and as I said in my previous post, my endeavors to deal with weapon design in 5e are inspired by the work of Eric Diaz in particular, among others. He, I cite by name here as a result of the fact that the posts in his blog, Methods & Madness, are the cause of my view that weapon design alone cannot be altered to fully deal with the problems 5e faces: fighting styles and feats need to be revised as well, such that a fully integrated combat system is created (which still maintains the simplicity of 5e's design, generally, yet which also allows for a degree of specialization and versatility).

Thank you all, and as I said: I humbly request opinions on the Fighting Style system, generally, and how it might be improved, in particular.

[bid]

In this thread, I would like to gather people's opinions on fighting styles as they are, and on the work I have done to attempt and improve the selection.
tl;dr Which of the 3 links is relevant to your request?

[Drakkoniss]

My sincerest apologies. It would seem the initial state of my thread starter was a bit of a mess, as far as links goes. I have edited it, and it should make much more sense, now.

The links are, as follows:

My previous thread,

The document containing the material this thread is mean to discuss,

And finally, a conveniently placed link directly to the weapon tables I previously made, which includes "group tags" for each weapon-- a feature which makes creating feats and fighting styles dealing with particular weapon groups much simpler and more straight-forward.

[bid]

I have edited it, and it should make much more sense, now.
Thank you, much appreciated.


I always considered tunnel fighter should require a full action, considering it is better than readying an attack. I'm not sure if having blade forte is too much for greatsword GWM, OTOH we already have it for SS.

I also like that you can get an ASI's worth out of some of them, which makes feats more interesting.

[Drakkoniss]

I am not entirely sure that Tunnel Fighter's feature is in fact superior to the Ready action in all circumstances, given the fact that Ready can allow you to get an entire attack action off, which-- at least in the case of a single enemy --will likely be more damaging than the single attack that Tunnel Fighter allows.

I do certainly think that Tunnel Fighter is currently much more versatile than Ready is, for attacking purposes, however, and admit that creating conflicts in the action economy may well be useful as a balancing measure in this circumstance.

However, I would like to hear others' opinions on the matter, before I settle my opinion one way or the other.

[RSP]

I am not entirely sure that Tunnel Fighter's feature is in fact superior to the Ready action in all circumstances, given the fact that Ready can allow you to get an entire attack action off, which-- at least in the case of a single enemy --will likely be more damaging than the single attack that Tunnel Fighter allows.

If you Ready the Attack Action and it goes off outside of your turn, you won’t get more than one attack, using RAW. Extra Attack only allows a second (or more) attack if used on your turn:

“Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.”

[Drakkoniss]

Thank you for that information. Most curious, that it was written in that particular way. It seems as if that would create a large disincentive for the use of the Ready Action for the purpose of setting up tactical plays outside of the normal flow of combat (due to action economy concerns)-- and it strikes me as somewhat awkward, generally.

Regardless, of the oddity of that rule, however, knowing that that is the case, it certainly tips the balance heavily in the favor of Tunnel Fighter's feature, and indeed, it does seem much more deserving of a potential nerf, with that in mind.