PDA

View Full Version : 5e Offensive Fighting Style



Brother12
2019-05-08, 12:55 PM
There's the defense fighting style, effectively +1 AC while wearing armor. How about the opposite?

When wielding a weapon you are proficient in, you gain +1 to attack rolls.

I would take the offense over defense 4/5 times which makes me think it is more powerful in general. Thoughts?

nickl_2000
2019-05-08, 01:52 PM
I would limit it to melee attacks since there is the archery fighting style that gives +2 to all ranged weapons. Otherwise it should be perfectly fine.

Breccia
2019-05-08, 02:28 PM
I would take the offense over defense 4/5 times which makes me think it is more powerful in general. Thoughts?

My thought is "let's see if that math checks out."

Let's run three options. Your weapon damage is W (including everything) and:
1) Your target d20 roll is a 6

You hit 75% of the time, making your average damage per swing 0.75W
Take the new fighting style, you hit 80%, and do 0.80W per swing.

When comparing to +1 damage, just as a baseline comparison, you instead get 0.75(W+!). This requires W to be 16 for +1 to hit to be more overall effective than +1 to damage

2) Your target d20 roll is an 11

Offensive is better than +1 to damage if W is 11 or higher.

3) Your target d20 roll is a 16

Offensive is better than +1 to damage if W is 6 or higher.

Granted, "+1 to damage" isn't an option either, but it's a place to start. If you compare Offensive (all-purpose) to Dueling, Dueling doubles those W values and is the better option...IF you use one-handed weapons, of course. Just like Archery is better than Offensive for ranged weapons.

So far, no surprises, no alarm bells, and no peanut butter. It seems pretty obvious: the harder your target is to hit, the better deal +1 to hit is over +1 damage. Duh.

Think about what it takes for W to be 11. That's a 2d6 weapon in the hands of an 18Str fighter. While not unreachable, that's a moderately hefty bar to clear at 1st level.

Now let's look at the high end. An Ancient Black Dragon has an AC of 22. A 20th level fighter using a +2 weapon and belt of stone giant strength -- which I don't think is overpowered at all for a 20th level character -- and no other +hit bonuses needs to only roll an 8. It could potentially be even lower. But, assuming that weapon is a 1d8, the average damage is 12.5 and already near the 14-point crossover. Pretty much any change to the PC and it could tip either way.

At first glance, resistance doesn't seem to change that. 50% off seems to apply evenly.

Offensive would be stronger in situations where PCs find heavily-armored foes often, but from the MM I've read, that really doesn't seem to be a common problem, and less and less so as you advance. I'll be honest, I can't think of a reason this would be a mandatory, or stupid, move. Which, in turn, means go for it.

Brother12
2019-05-08, 05:06 PM
Thank you for the input so far!

Yddisac
2019-05-08, 09:32 PM
My main issue with this has nothing to do with balance. The other fighting styles are all flavoured around being proficient with certain tools of the trade. Most (Duelling, Great Weapon Fighting, Archery, etc.) revolve around weapon proficiency; Protection and Defence indicate proficiency with shields and armour, respectively. Defence was already the least flavourful option, but it did at least reflect mastery of fighting with armour on. Offence, flat, is... very dull. I can't picture what that "style" looks like. The mechanic you have lined up isn't broken (it's flat-out worse than Archery in a lot of case), but it's boring from a roleplay perspective.

What I'd like to know is: what does this fighting style look like? Duelling involves a lot of precision, while Great Weapon Fighting is about heavy blows, Archery involves careful aim, Protection involves leaping to the defence of allies, etc. Defence, I believe, reflects warriors who wear tougher armour than most. What does a fighter with the Offence style do differently from another fighter? Renaming it could go a long way towards this. As it is, this seems balanced enough, but very boring, to the extent that I'm not sure what niche it's trying to fill.

foobar1969
2019-05-09, 05:34 AM
Offensive Fighting Style already exists. It's the Barbarian class feature Reckless Attack.

Brother12
2019-05-09, 06:38 PM
Fair enough about the barbarianism.
As far as role playing, I picture defense as a warrior who defends him or herself until finding an opportunity to hit. This is more of putting the opponent on the defensive by targeting weak points. Renaming would definitely help flavorwise. Aggressive? Precision? That's what I've got right now. Suggestions?

Rukelnikov
2019-05-09, 07:23 PM
You can keep it as "aggressive style" for name, however, as you said yourself, and Breccia showed with some math, +1 to attack is a pretty powerful buff, so good in fact, even Duelist would likely fail to keep up.

Just throwing this out there, but maybe you could do a sort of "reverse defensive duelist", when you roll attack and don't hit, you can spend your reaction to add your prof to your roll total. This would mean a huge boost in DPR in exchange for a lot of versatility and lockdown (since you wouldn't have your reaction for AoOs). It may be too powerful, I did no math whatsoever on this.