What's the point of fighting styles?

[Bjarkmundur]

What do you think was the original design goal for fighting styles? How was the feature meant to work, before it was ever created mechanically?
Was it made to simply give the ranger, paladin, and fighter the "oomph" they needed to be superior weapon users? Was it to fix the math, and making these classes as strong as they needed to be? Was it to help people conceptualize their character? Was it to create a clear incentive for a player to use a single kind of weapon loadout? Was it designed to represent a character's training in a single way of fighting?

If one were to replace the fighting styles with the following options, do you think it would fit the original design goals?

+x to hit
+x to damage rolls
+x to AC
Some utility options for melee-controllers


or would you think this is more in line with the original design intent?

Some bonus when using a heavy weapon
Some bonus when using one weapon in one hand
Some bonus when using a ranged weapon
Some bonus when using a shield


Is the important part of fighting styles the bonuses they grant, or the requirements you must meet to gain that bonus, or are they just some mechanic inherited from earlier editions as conservative and arbitrary fan-service?

[Kyutaru]

The point was to differentiate weapon masters and prevent everyone using the same exact weapon. D&D 3.5 prevents this by having tons of feats that lead to the same sort of specialization in whatever combat style you want. But with feats being quite limited and not even spanning all the weapon categories, fighting style replaces them over the old "bonus feat" spam.

They are based on weapons. Archery for ranged users, Defense for generalist armored tough guys, Duelist for one-handed users, Great Weapon Fighting for two-handed users, Protection for shield users, and Two-Weapon Fighting for dual wielders.

[Bjarkmundur]

So it's the design goal was to make you feel like the kind of fighter you want your character to be?

If you want to be an armored bulwark, you have an option that emphasizes that playstyle.
If you want to have a big weapon and hit really hard, you have an option that emphasizes that playstyle.

So you could even imagine the WIP names for these styles were something along the lines of:


Powerful
Precise
Defensive
Quick
Disruptive
Protective


Since it encapsulates the various playstyles a player might be drawn to, then worked on, reworked and revised until they reached the versions we know and love today. Just various small buffs to help you make your character exactly the fighter you want him/her to be.

[Kyutaru]

Originally in D&D the Fighter or Fighting man was able to use any weapon. Exotic wasn't even a thing. This wasn't so great for DMs because they could house an armory of weapons that might be useful and you'd always want to use the best weapon for the job, like blunt against golems. When the proficiency system hit, Fighters had a reason to specialize into one type of weapon. Since then every edition has Fighters able to specialize in a weapon style, originally by specific weapons but Baldur's Gate made categories a thing. Then 3rd edition had both specific specialization feats and category feats. Then 4th never existed. Then 5th brings back the categories in the form of fighting styles and feats like Polearm Master.

All of them ended up taking the Fighter away from the generalist who doesn't care what weapon he's currently using (and he can use them all) to being capable of focusing on his preferred chosen weapon to the exclusion of all others (or more recently weapon fighting style). You can still be a generalist but players are now rewarded for specializing in a type of combat, each presenting advantages and disadvantages. Many MMORPGs have gone this route as well, creating entire classes and talent trees over deciding on what primary weapon fighting style you want to focus on. A warrior in World of Warcraft can choose to use his sword-and-board or his two-hander or dual wield but he's going to be at his best with only one of them.

I.E. The WIP names for these styles were likely:

- Ranged
- Generalist
- One-hander
- Two-hander
- Shield guy
- Dual wielder

[Talyn]

I find they also help me, as a DM/Veteran player, help new players conceptualize their characters as they make them.

Does your fighter focus on offense or defense?
- if defense, I then ask "does she focus on protecting herself, or her teammates?" and that determines Defense vs. Protection
- if offense, I then ask "does she mostly use a shield, two one-handed weapons, a two handed weapon, or a bow?" and that determines Dueling vs. Two-weapon fighting vs. Great Weapon fighting vs. Archery.

BAM! Two questions, and the brand new player has a great mental image of their new character which is mechanically supported and differentiates her from the other two fighters in the group.

[Frozenstep]

Fighting styles work as both a flavor and mechanical benefit.

On a flavor level, fighting styles help give a martial class just a little bit more oomph in a way that suggests they keep up using skills and being good at a specific weapon type (or...armor...). So fighters get it at level 1, showing how important martial prowess is to them. Rangers and paladins get it at level 2, suggesting it's also important for them, but not to the same degree as fighter. That's already something you can kind of guess at just by looking at the mechanics.

Meanwhile, barbarian is still a serious weapon user (proficient in martial weapons), yet they do not get a fighting style. Rather then their extra oomph coming from the training, study, and specialization from really diving deep into one type of weapon, they have rage. The fact that they do not get a fighting style is flavor for both the barbarian and the ones who do get fighting styles, showing how their power comes from a slightly different place.

Additionally, if you were equally good with all your weapons, on a flavor level that would feel kind of strange. If you always imagined your character as an archer, but then mechanically you can just pull out a short sword and shield and be fully effective, that would feel odd. Being better at one specific thing helps sell the feeling that your character is good at x, because they're better at x then they are at y.

On a mechanical level in the same situation, it adds a little more tactical depth. If your fighter can just switch to whatever weapon set is ideal in the moment, then they never have to make choices where they choose between continuing to use their specialized weapon when the situation isn't calling for it, or use the right weapon for the job even if you're not good at it. Enemy just threw up a warding wind? If you were equally good with all weapons, you might not hesitate to pull out a short sword. But if you have the archery fighting style, you now wonder if it's worth it to switch, or try to power through the disadvantage or attack another target.

But on that note, fighting styles are a notable boost that feels good to have on your side, but not so good that it feels required. If they were too strong, every other class trying to use a martial weapon would feel obligated to multi-class over and grab it, and players would never make the choice to use another weapon when the situation is calling for it.

[Bjarkmundur]

Like Revised Ranger's Favored Enemy, but for loadouts^^

[holywhippet]

Originally in D&D the Fighter or Fighting man was able to use any weapon. Exotic wasn't even a thing. This wasn't so great for DMs because they could house an armory of weapons that might be useful and you'd always want to use the best weapon for the job, like blunt against golems.

I recall my first exposure to D&D being the old video game Pool of Radiance on the C64. The melee weapons included kind of overwhelmed me since I had no idea what to pick and it has just about everything ever. Glaive-Guisarme? Check. Voulge? Check? Bec de Corbin? Check. I had no idea what to equip my party with. It was only later I realised I could pretty much ignore anything other than 2 handed swords, longswords, maces, shortswords and flails.

[Bjarkmundur]

Still trying to wrap my head around this. If the main goal is "fighters, rangers and paladins aren't amazing at ALL weapons, just THEIR weapons", would this qualify?


Choose one of the following weapon properties: Finesse, Heavy, Light, Ranged, Reach, Special, Thrown, Two-Handed, Versatile, Improvised or ‘None’. When wielding a weapon with your chosen property, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls equal to half your proficiency bonus.

[JackPhoenix]

Still trying to wrap my head around this. If the main goal is "fighters, rangers and paladins aren't amazing at ALL weapons, just THEIR weapons", would this qualify?

It would, but it would be boring, as all generic numeric bonuses tend to be, and it's not what fighting styles do. Fighting styles don't make the character amazing with one weapon, it makes them amazing at different... and there's a surprise... fighting styles. TWF FS doesn't care if you hold two daggers, rapier and dagger, or two battleaxes (well, assuming you have Dual Wielder, but that's another problem entirely), it makes you better at fighting with two weapons. GW FS? As long as you hold your weapon in two hands while you hit someone in it, it doesn't matter if it's a guarterstaff, longsword or a halberd.

Besides, improvised and ranged aren't weapon properties, all heavy weapons are two-handed, so it's redundant, there are exactly 2 weapons with special property, and they are completely different from each other, and two-handed includes both melee and ranged weapons so somehow "specializing" in them doesn't make much sense.

[Kyutaru]

Still trying to wrap my head around this. If the main goal is "fighters, rangers and paladins aren't amazing at ALL weapons, just THEIR weapons", would this qualify?

Not really because those arbitrary flat bonuses aren't what each fighting style wants. You can still quantify that it is superior to use X weapon because the bonuses are flat. The goal of fighting styles is to make each style uniquely viable with bonuses that are appreciated by the style itself. Protection would be utterly useless with extra damage bonuses, preferring the ability to actually cover allies with its shield. Great Weapon Fighting works fine with the flat bonuses, a little TOO fine and makes two-handers superior, but rerolling the weaker die rolls helps smooth out the randomness of singular heavy swings without making the weapon overpowered. Archery benefits from accuracy whereas Dueling/Duals get damage because that's what they need to compete with each other, accuracy being an archer's weak point due to inherent disadvantages while damage is the weak point of not using a two-hander. Defense is the most BS with its +1 armor but even the developers during the beta said this was just to give generalists SOMETHING that the other styles didn't have, an arbitrary reward for not choosing a specific style at all to keep generalizing from becoming obsolete.

So every style is meant to give you a different bonus that helps balance it against the other styles. No one style should be the superior style that always gets the best damage bonuses and the best accuracy. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Granted 3rd edition portrayed this far better with feats but we're working with a limited accuracy system until 6th edition gives them a chance to evolve from this new starting point.

[Frozenstep]

Still trying to wrap my head around this. If the main goal is "fighters, rangers and paladins aren't amazing at ALL weapons, just THEIR weapons", would this qualify?

The differences in fighting styles isn't just to express roughly the same boost in a different way, it's also a bit of flavor in itself.

When a new player makes an archer, they probably imagine making some eagle-eyed dude who never misses a shot. So the archery to-hit bonus fits with that.

When a new player imagines a big dude using a 2 handed weapon, they might imagine him being angry and strong (barbarian), or they might imagine someone who actually has techniques and isn't just using the weapon as a sharper club. The GWF style gives you more consistency, while not actually increasing your maximum possible damage, which fits well with the idea of using your weapon in a more refined way.

Two weapon fighting, before you have the style, feels a little off-balance because one weapon hits harder then the other, so the fighting style addresses that and makes them both equal, which feels right for a balanced, skilled warrior.

Protection and dueling are kind of interesting because they can both be used on sword and board, so it just lets you choose what you prioritize. Protection of course works for the soldier in a shield wall formation feeling.

Dueling, despite looking boring, still tells a little story. It has the same damage bonus as a barbarian rage (up till level 9. Though at level 11, you attack 3 times, so it still kinda works out), so it's suggesting that through your technique you're able to keep up with the ferocity of a barbarian when they're angry (and the fact that you can use this with a finesse weapon helps too). It's the same mechanical bonus, but it is expressed in a different way. It's simple and effective.

Defense is just a generalist option, but still a good one even if I couldn't really articulate the flavor.

[Bjarkmundur]

Thanks Frozen, your analysis on the connection between each fighting style's Flavor and mechanics are just amazing. I've always had a weird relationship with this class feature, which has now been mended. Thanks for taking the time to reply :)